Vol. 550 No. 1
1 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government if he will waive the requirement to reapply for planning permission after two years for those who can demonstrate the timing of their application was not designed to circumvent compliance with new requirements of the Planning Acts. [6491/02]
Section 96(15) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 provides that permissions for residential development within the scope of Part V will last until 31 December 2002 or for two years, whichever is longer, if the application for permission was made after 25 August 1999 but before the housing strategy was included in the relevant development plan. The Act does not permit the waiver of this provision in respect of particular developments and any arrangement of this kind would require amending primary legislation. I do not intend to sponsor any such amendment to Part V of the Act, which reflects the full and recent consensus of the Legislature on an important policy matter.
I encourage any developer who believes that he or she will not be in a position to build out their development within the two years available to make an early reapplication for permission. This will ensure development on-site does not have to be halted while the planning application is being processed. In addition, local authorities are being advised to process all such reapplications as quickly as possible to avoid any interruption to the supply of housing while these applications for permission are processed. As consideration will already have been given to the planning implications of a housing development on that site when the first application was made, this should facilitate the speedy consideration of the repeat application. In addition, I have reduced the fee for making a repeat application to one quarter of the normal fee.
I will keep the matter of the processing of reapplications under review and if it appears necessary to do so, will consider use of other relevant powers under the Planning and Development Act to ensure these applications are processed quickly.
I understood the reason for this provision at the time but persevering with it now that it has achieved its effect is lunatic. Of all the perverse practices in the area of housing, to persevere with this policy must be the craziest of all. Does the Minister not accept that this will cause a two and a half year gap in housing sup ply? According to his reply, 80,000 houses are already exposed to the likelihood of having to submit further planning applications. If even half of these have to reapply, the planning system will be clogged up, there will be further appeals to An Bord Pleanála, in many cases by people who have already moved into houses and sites will have to be redesigned to accommodate regulations. The cost of houses will go through the roof if half the supply of houses is removed for two and a half years. Will the Minister, at least, consider allowing those who already have planning permission to proceed? They have valid planning applications and there is no reason they should be obliged to apply twice, now that the intended effect of the measure has been achieved.
If I am lunatic, then we were all lunatic together. The Deputy's colleague accepted what I said about the restriction on the life of planning permission.
At the time.
Deputy Gilmore also supported the measure as a means of making sure that builders did not hoard land.
That is not quite accurate.
Deputy Mitchell is ignoring one very simple fact and she should be honest and come out and say it. She knows that if any section of Part V is amended, all of Part V will be open to constitutional challenge. Fine Gael is proposing to remove the social and affordable housing provision of the Planning and Development Act in which I am not prepared to co-operate. I do not think the thousands of young people with reasonable incomes who cannot afford houses at the moment will thank Fine Gael for trying to reverse this policy, about which it should think twice.
Deputy Mitchell had a very long preamble to her last supplementary question—
Not nearly as long as the Minister's.
The purpose of Question Time is for Members to ask questions and for the Minister to give replies.
Has the Minister seen other legal opinion which states it would be quite possible to change Part V of the Planning and Development Act? Bearing in mind the fact that for houses which now have planning permission and on which work has started land was bought prior to August 1999, for all the houses which come under the 20% social and affordable housing requirement, land will have to be acquired at the cost to the builder. Has the Minister made funding available for the purchase of this land? Does he realise it would take a local authority's entire housing budget to fund the buying of this land? Does he intend to fund this?
The Minister may reply briefly.
Do I not have one minute for a reply?
There is not one minute for a reply. Six minutes were allocated for the question.
I received other legal opinion given on the basis of a CIF briefing to lawyers that this was not an important part of the Bill. This was despite the fact that the Attorney General spent two hours arguing the necessity for the measure and that it was balanced. I discount that legal opinion
The Attorney General has been wrong before.
Sufficient funding has been made available to local authorities for Part V and housing generally. That is where they get the money.
Is there sufficient funding to buy land not covered by Part V? That is my question.
