At the outset, I will address the timing piece. I am not saying this to be provocative, but I have to put it on the record that I stood here last Thursday and concluded my contribution to an empty Chamber. We finished 30 minutes ahead of schedule. I have to say that because we made sufficient provision for debate on Second Stage. I am happy to debate the substance of any of the amendments. I am aware also that a couple of the sections are opposed. The amendment tabled by Deputies Ó Broin and Gould seeks to insert a new section into the Bill. It stages: The Minister shall lay a report before ... the Oireachtas within 12 months ... detailing the impact of the amendments to Part 4 of the Principal Act related to Judicial Reviews and detailing whether the procedural changes have resulted in a speeding up of planning related Judicial Reviews or increased the volume of planning litigation resulting in increased delays for residential and infrastructural development. I am not in a position to accept the amendment. First, on a technical matter, judicial review planning procedures are set out in Part 9 of the 2024 Act. However, the proposed amendment makes reference to Part 4 of that Act. I presume the reference in the amendment is in error. That is one of the reasons I cannot accept it. Second, the monitoring, analysis or reporting of data relating to judicial reviews, including associated timelines and durations of proceedings within the courts, is a matter that falls outside the remit of my Department. The management of the courts is the responsibility of the Courts Service, which is independent in the performance of its functions and under the aegis of the Minister for justice, Deputy O’Callaghan. My understanding is that there is a ten-year modernisation programme already under way within the Courts Service and that significant progress is being made in that regard. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to provide for a reporting requirement in relation to judicial reviews relating to planning. The amendment, as proposed, is not considered workable because it would place a statutory requirement on a Minister to report on matters that are subjective in nature. As the Deputies will appreciate, there are a wide range of factors that could give rise to an increase or decrease in the number of planning judicial reviews. It may not always be possible to determine the exact reason for changes in such levels or in the average duration of proceedings. Judicial reviews against the State, in which my Department may be included as a party, are co-ordinated by the Chief State Solicitor under the guidance of the Office of the Attorney General. An Coimisiún Pleanála can also be challenged by judicial reviews on a range of its functions, including decisions on appeals and planning applications in respect of strategic infrastructure developments. Moreover, it already publishes details with respect to legal cases in its annual report. It is for these reasons I cannot accept the amendment.
Sentiment score: 0.13
I thank the Deputies. As a general point, my priority is to ensure the Planning and Development Act 2024 is enabled and that we have all provisions in force before the end of this year. To do that, I have to pass legislation that will enable the transitionary pieces to occur. That is the purpose of the Bill before us. If I cannot progress this to conclusion, it means a further delay in the implementation of the substantive Act, which both the Deputy and I spent a considerable period of our lives in the committee room downstairs debating during the previous parliamentary term. In relation to the specific amendment tabled by Deputies Ó Broin and Gould, it seeks to lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas every six months detailing the impact of the amendments to Part 4 of the principal Act relating to alterations of existing planning permissions and detailing the location, nature and volume of such alterations by project and local authority area, and the resulting commencement of developments which have secured the alterations. I am not in a position to accept the amendment. I consider a statutory requirement to produce such a report every six months to be entirely excessive. The reason I say that is this is a time-bound measure contained in section 138A. It is a two-year period. It is not something that is going to go on in perpetuity. There may be value in what some of the Deputies are saying were this an in-perpetuity discussion. It is time-bound in nature and as a result, I cannot accept the amendment.
Sentiment score: 0.08
It is the statutory element of it, as the Deputy will appreciate.
Sentiment score: 0.40
Of course we will be monitoring this provision, as we do every measure we implement in the Department. We are acutely conscious this is a viability measure. We will get into the substantive debate on it when debating the section. It is in our interest to ensure it is being utilised. If this activates one apartment development, it will be a good measure. That is what I will base this on. I am in the business of ensuring apartment developments get built. If this measure activates even one apartment development providing people with homes to rent or buy, it will be a successful measure.
Sentiment score: 0.25
I thank the Deputy for acknowledging my youth.
Sentiment score: 0.36
I propose to discuss these sections together as the amendments are linked. Sections 61 and 62 are connected and operate together. It is important that both stand as part of the Bill. Section 61 is a technical clarifying amendment to the definition of material alteration in section 138 of the Act of 2024 to add a cross-reference to the new section 138A as inserted by section 62 of this Bill. Section 62 inserts a new section 138A into Chapter 5 of Part 4 of the 2024 Act in relation to alterations of existing permissions allowed for the purpose of alleviating the shortage of residential accommodation and to enable construction of a greater number of dwellings in apartment schemes. These sections operate so that. subject to meeting the specific criteria set out in the Bill, a request may be made to a deciding authority under section 140 of the 2024 Act to make alterations to an existing permission for an apartment scheme. Under section 142 of the 2024 Act, where a requested alteration of a permission is non-material, the deciding authority shall alter the permission accordingly. Section 138A will apply to the development of dwellings and apartment buildings in circumstances where the permission was granted before the coming into operation of section 138A where a request for an alteration under section 140 is made before the expiration of two years from the coming into operation of section 138A and where the development has not yet been commenced before the date on which the request is made. The specific criteria allowing for alterations to apartment schemes that are covered by this measure are already established policy with over 12 months. They relate to apartment mix, apartment floor areas, dual aspect ratios, lift and stair cores, the floor-to-ceiling heights of ground floor apartments and consequential works necessary for the purpose of the above alterations or ensuring access to the development, including works to footpaths, boundaries, gardens and balconies. The Bill also sets out restrictions to the measure, including in the case of residential development in a strategic development zone, SDZ. The alterations cannot cause the number of dwellings situated in that SDZ to exceed the permitted number applicable in the planning scheme. It also ensures that an alteration of permission cannot result in the proposed residential development being designed to accommodate more occupants than would be designed to accommodate where the alteration was not made. This measure is to help support the viability of the development of apartments in the immediate term by allowing the alteration of permissions already granted in certain circumstances. This is targeted at the significant number of apartment developments that have received planning permission but have not yet commenced. Where the specific criteria are not met, depending on the circumstances the option remains open to a developer to either apply for a new planning permission or to apply to make an amendment to the permission, as the case may be. The Government continues to be fully committed to ensuring that housing is delivered as quickly and effectively as possible and ensuring that a key part of that is viability. I wish to address some of the specific points that Deputies have raised. I do not accept the description here of smaller, darker apartments. I have heard every Deputy who is in here in this House on many occasions lauding the Vienna model. That is true. Every single person in this Chamber on the opposite benches has lauded the Vienna model. It is true to say that the size of studio apartments in Vienna is 30 sq. m to 35 sq. m. That is the-----
Sentiment score: 0.14
Excuse me?
Sentiment score: 0.08
What the Deputies are talking about here are smaller and darker apartments. I am simply making the comparison to our minimum standards. They are comparable to where the Deputies opposite have lauded the introduction of housing in other jurisdictions. It is true to say that by virtue of the comments that have been made by Deputy Sheehan here where he has said that cost savings have been eroded as a result of inflation that the Deputy is acknowledging there were savings attached to the revised apartment standards. He will also be aware that, at the Oireachtas committee of which he is a member, some of the biggest developers in the country cited savings on average of €60,000 per scheme in terms of apartments. That is not insignificant. If we had not made those changes and we had significant cost inflation, what we would be talking about here would be a significantly increased cost of development. What we are about here, in terms of the viability measure, is taking apartment developments that already have permission and applying a two-year duration to it where internal configuration changes can be made. It is not to increase the number of beds or the number of persons who are accommodated. It is simply about ensuring that the mix can be altered to ensure there is greater viability within the system. I stand by the point that if this measure has the effect of ensuring that one apartment complex is delivered in this country and has permission that would not otherwise be delivered without an alteration to this, it will have been a successful measure.
Sentiment score: 0.25
It stands.
Sentiment score: 0.00
During the debate Deputy Sheehan was talking about the size.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I would like to respond to some of the comments. This is a sensible proposal to allow the alteration of existing planning permissions for a time-bound period of two years. The alternative being suggested by Deputies is that developers who have schemes that they cannot build for a viable cost should go back through the entire planning process. As the Minister of State, I want to activate apartment development in this country. I do not want to see planning resources within our local authorities wasted. The Deputies opposite raise the issue of planning resources. I will always fight for additional planning resources within local authorities and within An Coimisiún Pleanála, but by virtue of what is being said by the Deputies opposite they want those schemes to go back to the start of the planning process. It will waste planning resources within local authority systems rather than being able to alter the envelope that has been established as a use for residential development. It is a common-sense proposal. It does not go outside the boundary of what is permitted development. It ensures the same existing bed spaces are provided for. I do not accept that I am wrong to raise the Vienna model because the initial comments from the Deputies opposite were all about size. Not once was the cost referenced - and they can go and look back. On size, I merely pointed out the minimum size of an apartment in Vienna, which is 30 sq. m to 35 sq. m for a studio apartment. What we have is 32 sq. m. There is no alteration to the size of one-bedroom apartments from what was there previously, which is 45 sq. m. A change in the studio size is provided for. There was mention that viability is profitability. First, "profitability" is not a bad word. Viability is about deliverability. Deputy Hearne acknowledged that it would put roofs over people's heads. That is what the Government wants to do. We want to put roofs over people's heads. If this measure puts roofs over people's heads I think it will be a positive measure.
Sentiment score: 0.03