I move amendment No. 1: In page 4, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following: “The written statement referred to in subsection (2) shall allow for the zoning of land for the particular use of providing affordable housing as defined in Parts 2 and 3 of the Affordable Housing Act 2021.”. My party colleague Deputy Cian O'Callaghan and I put forward this amendment. It is related to the approach of zoning affordable housing. It is done in Vienna to very good effect and we feel this should be introduced as a possibility for local authorities to perpetually ensure housing is affordable in certain areas.

Sentiment score: 0.22

I move amendment No. 4: In page 10, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(d) A contractor must publish an annual profit and loss account, an auditor’s report, and a balance sheet in order to qualify to provide dwellings for the purchase of which funds may be made available by the special purpose vehicle.”. The amendment seeks transparency in relation to developers and builders who are going to benefit from an extension of planning permission. We need to see open books for developers and contractors because we do not know what is going on in terms of profit-taking. In the development of the property sector, there are major issues regarding the lack of awareness, knowledge and understanding of the level of profit-making that is going on. In particular, in making changes that will enhance the profits of landowners and developers, we at least need to see the accounts of those who are developing land made public.

Sentiment score: 0.13

I move amendment No. 8: In page 12, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “Construction within a specified timeframe 16. In line with a use it or lose it principle, development must begin construction within a specified timeframe after receiving planning permission. Penalties for non-compliance will include the withdrawal of permission for the development.” This relates to the proposal in the Bill to extend planning permission for an additional three years. This is problematic because it could lead to a situation where someone who has had regular planning permission for five years and an additional five-year extension can now get a three-year extension on top of that. That is my understanding. Is that correct? My reading of it is that this is what the Bill could potentially enable. There are several problems with this. First, it potentially rewards speculative development, whereby developers, land speculators and real estate investors simply sit on land for ten years without any real intention to build and without any penalty for not building. In many situations, we have land with planning permission on it which is essentially an asset that has a value. It can sit on real estate investors' or developers' books and be used as an asset. It can be used as leverage and then they sell it at a certain point, making a profit from the uplift on the value on it over time. If that is the case, then this is a giveaway to developers and speculators who have sat on land for a decade who now will get three more years. What happens in two years' time? Will there be another three-year extension? Is that possible? Are we going to just facilitate this ongoing speculative approach to land development in the real estate sector? We are absolutely naive if we think this is not going on. The Government should introduce a serious use it or lose it clause that would have penalties and that would be set within a timeframe that is less than what is set out at the moment. This is a common-sense approach to avoid further delays. It would place an onus on developers to either get on with building or to sell the land to someone who would actually develop it rather than just sit on it. Will we see a situation where someone who has planning permission for ten years, obtained under the old Part V provisions when there was only a 10% social housing requirement, will now get an extension of three years but will not fall under the current 20% social and affordable housing requirement? Is this essentially facilitating developers to get out of obligations that have been changed?

Sentiment score: 0.01

I am very conscious of time. I want to support this amendment and reiterate the deep concern we have been highlighting around the speculative development that is happening. It is very clear to anyone who studies the real estate and property market that there are actors in it who are not just about building homes. A part of real estate development is accumulating sites and planning permission in order to sell that on. That is a part of the real estate market internationally and it is very problematic because it does not give an indication, as was set out by Deputy Ó Broin, of whether planning permissions actually lead to the delivery and building of homes. In particular, the concern is that it will not tell us whether there will be homes built as a result of planning permission where this extension applies. I back up what Deputy Ó Broin has said and ask the Minister to take this on board and give us detail in this regard in the coming years so we can understand what is going on in our housing system.

Sentiment score: 0.07

In terms of the 18-month period, how will local authorities enforce that?

Sentiment score: 0.00