The next is a Government slot. I call Deputy McAuliffe.
Planning and Development Bill 2023: Second Stage (Resumed)
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
On a point of order, one which I raised on the Order of Business yesterday, Standing Order 175 of the Standing Orders Relative to Public Business, the latest consolidation as of 16 September 2022, provides that:
A Bill shall be printed only if accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum which shall, in clear terms—
(a) set out the purpose of the Bill in the context of existing law and the changes proposed in the Bill, and
(b) explain the provisions of the Bill on a section-by-section basis.
The Bill is a huge body of work and the Minister and his Department are to be commended for putting such a huge body of work before the House. It runs to some 710-odd pages.
The explanatory memorandum, on the other hand, is a more scant document. It is still, as one might expect, a fairly hefty document running to 120 pages, but it is deficient in that it fails to comply with Standing Orders.
The Standing Order states that the Bill shall not be printed. There is no discretion. There is no opt-out. Of course, it is always open to the House to vote to suspend Standing Orders but I am not aware that anybody took a vote to suspend Standing Orders in the case of this Bill.
I want to give a particular example of how it is deficient. It is a generality but I want to give an example.
If the Deputy could do so briefly.
Part 5 of the Bill relates specifically to developments at Dublin Airport. The explanatory memorandum states:
This Part restates, with minor modifications, the provisions inserted into the Act of 2000 by the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019... There have been some modifications to the provisions of the Act of 2000, primarily where they were deemed necessary to ensure the provisions could be successfully integrated into this Bill.
It goes on, without saying what the modifications or changes are at all.
The problem is that much of this Bill is a restatement of existing law and much of it is entirely new law but what is not clear in the explanatory memorandum is what is a restatement of existing law and what is new law. If the explanatory memorandum does not satisfy that basic function, what is the purpose of it? We could just read the head note on any given section and be as clearly guided as we are by the explanatory memorandum. Why do we have Standing Orders if we are not going to comply with them? It is clearly out of order and on that basis, I do not see how it can proceed, without a vote of the House to suspend Standing Orders. It may be that this is a matter of such urgency as to require the suspension of Standing Orders but it is out of order.
I understand that the Deputy made this point yesterday on the Order of Business.
Yes, and the Minister-----
The Ceann Comhairle heard the Deputy's argument and clearly decided to proceed.
That is not the case at all.
It is open to the Deputy to correspond with the Committee on Standing Orders and Dáil Reform to raise the point and I invite him to do so. I am informed that it is not open to a Member of the Opposition to move towards a vote on suspension of Standing Orders unless it is Private Members' time.
I am not looking to suspend Standing Orders. It is open to the Minister of State to suspend Standing Orders if he wants to. I am seeking to vindicate Standing Orders and ensure they are applied. The Cathaoirleach is factually incorrect in stating that the Ceann Comhairle in any way ruled on this issue. My clear recollection of it is that the Taoiseach undertook to refer the matter to the Member in charge of the Bill, who is the Minister, Deputy O'Brien. I do not know what-----
It was the Ceann Comhairle who was in the Chair at the time the Deputy first raised the point on the Order of Business yesterday.
He did not pronounce on the objection.
He made no order.
He made no order on the matter and now I am calling that an order and a determination need to be made on this because it is very clearly in breach of Standing Orders. As I say, it is open to the Government to suspend Standing Orders. It can do just about anything within the confines of the Constitution but it has not suspended Standing Orders and this is clearly in breach of Standing Orders. Moreover, it is bad legislative practice, bad administration and all of the rest. It would be useful if Members understood clearly what they were debating.
The Deputy has had ample opportunity to voice his concerns on the matter. I return to the recommendation that he makes representations to the Committee on Standing Orders and Dáil Reform.
The Cathaoirleach needs to determine that this debate is in order or it is not in order. If it is in order, he has to explain. There is a general duty to give reasons - it applies here as well as everywhere else - why this explanatory memorandum, which does not outline the modifications and merely states that there are some modifications, complies with Standing Order 175 of the Standing Orders relative to public business.
I am going to make a ruling of the Chair that the debate continue. It is then open to the Deputy to make representations to the Committee on Standing Orders and Dáil Reform.
On what basis does the Cathaoirleach say that this explanatory memorandum complies with the Standing Orders?
A ruling of the Cathaoirleach can interpret Standing Orders and I have thereby made my ruling.
I respectfully suggest that the Cathaoirleach gives the microphone to Ms Banim, who is an excellent public servant.
That is unfair.
That is what is happening. That is clearly what is happening.
That is not fair.
It is what is happening.
Once the Chair has made a ruling, it is not open to a Member to question it.
What is the ruling?
That we will proceed with the debate.
On what basis?
His interpretation of Standing Orders.
On my interpretation of Standing Orders.
On what basis does the Cathaoirleach say that these Standing Orders comply with section 159? Again I invite him to give the microphone to Ms Banim.
It is not necessary for the Chair to explain the decision.
It is always necessary to explain decisions. There is a duty to give reasons-----
I have given a decision.
-----right across the board.
The Chair's ruling is final.
I have given a decision and the decision is that we will continue the debate.
Ms Higgins may wish to come to the Cathaoirleach's assistance but I want to know how this complies with Standing Orders.
There has been a ruling and there has been a recommendation. There has been ample opportunity-----
What is the recommendation?
I have recommended that the Deputy writes to the Committee on Standing Orders and Dáil Reform.
I respectfully reject the Cathaoirleach's recommendation.
I have made the ruling.
I am asking for reasons as to how this complies with Standing Orders.
The Chair's ruling is not subject to question at this point so I propose to continue with the debate.
I am asking the Cathaoirleach to explain how this complies with Standing Orders.
We will be proceeding with the debate at this point.
I am asking the Cathaoirleach how this complies with Standing Orders.
I will go to the next speaker and the next speaker on the list-----
The Cathaoirleach can call whoever he wants but I want to know how this complies with Standing Orders.
-----is Deputy McAuliffe.
I just want to know how this complies with Standing Orders.
The Deputy has received a ruling from the Chair.
I am asking how this complies with Standing Orders. If we have Standing Orders, they have to apply to the Government just as they apply to the Opposition in a democracy.
I understand that and the Deputy has had ample opportunity.
I have not. The Cathaoirleach has singularly failed to explain-----
The Deputy has received his ruling from the Chair.
-----how this explanatory memorandum complies with Standing Orders such that a debate can continue on this particular Bill at this moment without the suspension of Standing Orders.
The Deputy has received a ruling from the Chair. If the Deputy is not happy with that-----
I have received no reasons from the Chair as to why this complies with Standing Orders.
It is not necessary for the Deputy to receive reasons, nor is it open to him to question it at this point. However, I advise that the Deputy can write to both the Ceann Comhairle and the Committee on Standing Orders and Dáil Reform.
You are in the Chair.
I have understood.
You were selected to be in the Chair for a particular reason.
I have understood the Deputy’s point and I have allowed him ample opportunity to make it. I have outlined the possible course that is still open to the Deputy and I have made the ruling, that at this point, we are proceeding with the debate. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat and allow us to proceed with the debate.
No. It flies in the face of Standing Orders that this can occur, that we can shovel whatever we want through the Dáil because we are approaching the last week of December. That is what we do every December. It is particularly noticeable from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. There is a particular tendency to ram legislation through on behalf of that Department.
Unless the Deputy is prepared to resume his seat, I will have to suspend the House briefly.
So be it. That is your prerogative.
In that case, I am suspending the House.
Cuireadh an Dáil ar fionraí ar 4.47 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 4.59 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 4.47 p.m. and resumed at 4.59 p.m.
I do not wish to delay this any further. I have made my point. Having made the point to the Ceann Comhairle, it is particularly disappointing that he did not rule on the matter, particularly in circumstances where he "sent a letter" in response to a similar point that Deputy Cian O'Callaghan had made when it was debated. It is disappointing.
I thank the Deputy. We do take your point.
I do not wish any disrespectful to the Cathaoirleach and I appreciate he is doing his job. It is disappointing, with the point having been made to the Ceann Comhairle that Standing Orders are not being adhered to. I cannot put it any further.
The Deputy's points have been accepted.
I have some sympathy with Deputy McNamara in trying to get to grips with a Bill that could be a small brick in a house, with considerable length and detail.
As the Vice Chair of the Oireachtas housing committee, both I and other members, including Deputies Higgins and Matthews, have had the opportunity to consider this legislation at pre-legislative scrutiny for some time. Even with that, there is no doubt that this is one of the largest Bills that this Dáil will deal with.
I was satisfied with the points made by Deputy McNamara. It is important to understand why we are here, why we are making this change and why this mammoth legislation is before us. It is because our current planning framework is more than 20 years old. Many things have changed within that period. That Bill was based on legislation dating back nearly 40 years. It is only right that a new Government that comes to office seeking to bring in new, clean energy, new infrastructure and new housing would look at the methodology of delivering that through the planning system.
It is important to note that this is work not just for this Dáil but for a generation. The benefits of the changes to the planning system here and the ability to deliver infrastructure and housing more quickly will probably only be fully realised over the coming decades. That is not because we are not putting every other support and measure in place for the delivery of housing but because legislation of this type is generational and has an impact over a longer period.
Anybody who has interacted with our current planning system or who has read in even a small way about the developments in An Bord Pleanála over the past 12 months can only welcome the idea that the Attorney General took on board one year's worth of work at the direction of the then Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, to see how we could do planning better. There is no doubt but that any number of "Prime Time" documentaries on RTÉ have highlighted some of the really significant deficiencies. It is also important that we ensure our planning system is open and transparent, and that there are ways and measures for the public to be able to contribute to it. I do not think anybody in this House wants to undermine those principles. The idea of having a stand-alone, independent planning system that is robust and insulated from any sort of political interference is incredibly important. Such a system would be resourced well and would have the ability to make timely decisions and people who live in the communities which those planning decisions are being made about would have the opportunity to contribute. I and Fianna Fáil welcome the Bill being brought forward by the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien. I also welcome the work of the Minister of State, Deputy Malcolm Noonan, on this and the work that he has done with the joint committee.
Ireland's population has transformed in the last ten or 15 years. We are now at 5 million people. We are at the corner of a climate change opportunity but also a climate change crisis. We have the ability to become a net exporter of energy from wind. If we do not change our planning system and if we do not make it fit for purpose, we will not be able to respond to that crisis. We are currently living in the midst of one of the greatest crises we have had, which is the housing crisis. If we do not make changes to our planning system, we will not be able to fully prevent that being extended for an unnecessary period and to prevent future housing shortages in future decades. It is absolutely imperative that this Bill is dealt with.
I remember the Taoiseach being asked if he had read the Nice treaty. I will say at this point that I have not read all of this Bill. I challenge anyone other than the parliamentary drafters to say that they have read it cover to cover and understand every section. I look forward to Committee Stage where I, as a committee member, will have the opportunity to go through it line by line and amendment by amendment.
With the time I have remaining, I want to point out some concerns which have been raised at this stage. It is important that we build these concerns into the process so that we have an opportunity to make amendments. I would appreciate if the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, could take the suggestions back to the Department. As the councillors co-ordinator in the parliamentary party for Fianna Fáil councillors, I have listened to some of the concerns of both the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG, and Local Authorities Members Association, LAMA. The extension of the development plan to a ten-year period, I think, has many merits, but we also have to make sure that councillors who are newly elected for a five-year term have some opportunity to contribute to that. I am not certain that we currently give those newly elected councillors in the middle of the development plan term an opportunity to refresh.
I will give an example. The development plan which I set when I was elected first in 2009 was an entirely different plan from the one that we undertook in 2016. Dublin's housing crisis had become more acute in those five years and we were able to make different decisions as a result. I agree with the AILG and LAMA that we must ensure there is an opportunity for new councillors, in a new term, to express some influence on the development plan. The County and City Management Association has expressed concerns with regard to the preparation time of one to two years. It believes it should be lengthened to three or four years. I think we have all been subject to those crazy development plan meetings that go on to 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night so that we can get to the next phase of the statutory process.
The increased role of the Office of the Planning Regulator in the early stages of the preparation of the development plan has been something that the AILG has expressed concern about. It said it reinforces the centralisation of the planning system. It is something that we should be conscious of.
I welcome some of the changes with the local area plans, breaking them down into three distinct types. That provides some clarity.
With regard to the judicial review reforms, this is one of the most important areas. We have to make sure there is still an appeals system. Section 258 retains the current sufficient interest test from the 2000 Act but some amendments appear to result in a more restrictive test, particularly for residents' associations where there are certain governance requirements. It is a very technical point but I think the public participation networks, PPNs, are a structure that could be used to help residents' associations to provide that governance so that they have sufficient interest.
I think we all have much more to say on this. I look forward to that on Committee Stage and I support the Bill.
What continues to come out in relation to this Bill is that it is rushed and maybe deliberately complicated. We are hearing now that the explanatory memorandum does not even comply with the Bill, which is shocking for the House here, because it is disrespectful to put forward a Bill of this nature to the House for consideration. Many Members are not members of the housing committee and would not be intimately involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny, yet we all have an important role to make sure that the legislation is scrutinised. That the explanatory memorandum is not in compliance with the Bill is bad enough. One then sees that the debate time will be compressed, so Second Stage will be shortened. For a Bill that has taken so long, is so complicated and is allegedly so important for the workings of our State, it is a disrespectful step to make sure that it goes through in such a rushed process.
I am calling on the Ceann Comhairle to clarify, even in light of what happened today, what the situation is and whether this Bill complies with Standing Orders and what he is going to do about it. He should stand up for the Dáil, not the Government, in doing so, because there are three strands, although one would be forgiven for thinking there are only two. One is the Executive, the second is the Dáil and the third is the Judiciary, but in effect, the Executive is the Dáil because it controls everything that happens. That can be clearly seen in how this Bill is progressing and being dealt with.
There is no doubt but that the Bill is massive. I have not had time to look at this Bill in detail. Many others have not. I would say that even committee members have not. The explanatory memorandum is confusing to read, which makes it even more difficult. That raises questions about the intent and workability of the Bill in the future.
The consultation on the actual Bill is fairly lacking. The Community Law and Mediation centre and the Environmental Justice Network Ireland have stated that they were disappointed that the Bill has proceeded to Cabinet without prior inclusive public consultation, indicating a weak commitment to genuine democracy. Welcome to Ireland.
The Minister has said that the Bill is well balanced. He would say that, would he not? The Minister is the one who has brought this Bill to us with an explanatory memorandum that is lacking.
The Minister will say the Bill is balanced and perfect, and we should only trust him and the Government to put that forward. Why would we need a Dáil at all, is the attitude. Indeed, the Fórsa trade union that represents workers in An Bord Pleanála has said there has been no consultation with staff regarding the provisions of the Bill that apply directly to them. If there is no consultation with staff directly affected, it is unlikely the public or others would be consulted either. Fórsa has also expressed concerns on the arbitrary deadlines that are being placed on response times and I would have to agree with it on that. As I understand it, one of the main reasons the board did not make quick enough decisions is that it had only six board members so therefore the number of cases that could be reviewed was affected. With six board members, there could be two decision-making bodies and that is why the decisions were not made on time, and that is a problem. The best way to ensure An Bord Pleanála can meet its deadlines is to ensure a fully constituted board acts and acts all the time. A quick look at the board last week showed that 12 of 15 members were only appointed this year, and at a committee hearing in February, the board discussed how it could not function with only six members. The board would work if the Minister and the Department ensured there was a functioning board in place.
It is also insisted that courts' oversight is causing delays for housing. That matter was put to lie last week when, in a letter in The Irish Times, it was outlined that of 297,000 planning applications made in the past 11 years, fewer than 7% have been appealed to An Bord Pleanála, and of those, fewer than 3% have been taken to judicial review. This amounts to 0.04% of all planning applications and 3% of those on appeal. We are constantly told as Members, particularly regarding social welfare, that bad cases make bad law. Certainly, if that is the case, bad cases in this instance make bad law; that is for sure. It seems that the 0.04% of cases that end up with An Bord Pleanála in the High Court are the ones that are deciding what is being done regarding this legislation. This Bill is not only detailed, long and everything else, but it will be bad law as well.
How can the proliferation of judicial reviews be causing the delays in the planning cases? We heard the previous speaker talk about the number of houses that are delayed because of judicial reviews. It is nonsense. It is media BS. It is put out in the media all the time that all these houses are delayed because of An Bord Pleanála and the courts system, while hundreds and thousands of houses are sitting there with granted planning permissions because developers are looking to capitalise on the value of land and sell it. This is why housing is being delayed, not because of An Bord Pleanála or because of appeals by those who are concerned about what is happening in their communities and are getting involved in the process. We should be getting involved. If the Ministers were sensible and right, they should be welcoming communities getting involved in the process, rather than trying to restrict them, cut them off, and cut down the legal places where they can go. The reality is that you get a judicial review only if the law has not been followed. A judicial review is a review of the actual law that is being dealt with and not a review of the merits of a particular case in itself. It is a review of how the law has been followed and making a decision on that. Therefore, that is a problem. There is no doubt this is all about restricting the public's access to the courts and to justice. The reality is that if the system was working properly, and if councils and An Bord Pleanála were following the law in making their decisions, leave to have a judicial review would not be granted by the courts. As I understand it, an applicant will have to be able to show a prima facie case that the law was not followed to have a judicial review ordered, as I have said.
The cost provisions in Part 9 of the Act are clearly an attempt to stifle those solicitors who help communities bring the limited number of cases that are actually brought to the courts as it is. It is proposing to move cost hearings away from the Office of the Legal Costs Adjudicators, which knows whether costs are fair and reasonable, to an appointee of the Minister and all that entails. That is the aim of the industrial political lobby groups who do not want to be accountable to the courts and legal processes that we mere mortals have to live under. There is also the question of whether the changes to the cost provisions could actually create a precedent regarding legal costs in general, and therefore there is a genuine question about the legality of this provision, and that may be tested in the courts as well. That bizarrely will also lead to legal cases and appeals, possibly to the European Courts, which will cause the delays it is supposedly going to end. As Gregory Jones QC, BL. who chaired the review of An Bord Pleanála said in March 2016:
Some of the changes will not speed up the planning system. We will be on a European tour of Geneva, Strasbourg possibly even, and Luxembourg. Good work for the lawyers who practise in that way, but a depressing thought of delay and adverse impact on the economy. Decisions on developments should be speedily made? False. They must be made fairly.
Decisions being made fairly is what everyone is looking for and that is what communities are looking for as well when they decide on whether they want to oppose an application or stand up for their rights. If they can see decisions are being made fairly, they would probably go along with those decisions.
I listened to Members the last day and today talking about how councillors must have a right to have an input into a plan and that a plan should be adopted every five years rather than every ten years. That may be so, but in my experience, planners basically railroaded the plan through anyway and councillors did not get much input into it. That is what happened. Unfortunately, we have a system of local government that puts all the power with the county manager to railroad stuff through and that is what happens in the process. If we really wanted to have plans that were responsive and in which councillors were involved, we should be changing our entire local government system and doing away with the county managers system that persists at the minute. It was brought in at a time in the 1940s when it might have been necessary. I do not know if it is strictly necessary now because it does nothing but hamper local democracy and local values.
During the short time I had to condier the Bill, a number of things jumped out at me. There are probably many more and I will be looking at those through the process. I will pick out some of the things that concern me at the minute. I notice, for example, in section 9, on exempted development, it states that all exempted development is to be provided for in regulations rather than in the Act itself. This is very dangerous. It reduces oversight and makes clear that regulations can be adopted by the Minister at the drop of a hat. Nobody will know what has happened, unless someone is watching continuously to see what happens, identifies those regulations which are of concern, and brings them before the House in a specified period so they can be debated and discussed. That is all that can be done. The Minister can whack through regulations left, right, and centre to whatever development he wants to make sure they are okay, and by the time it has been realised these have been done, it probably will be too late, and they will not be able to be challenged anyway. Perhaps that is what the Minister and the Government would like to see in planning. It certainly seems to be what is going to happen.
In section 15, on definitions, the Bill refers to a settlement as "containing a minimum of 50 occupied dwellings with a maximum distance between any dwelling and the building closest to it of 100 metres". I wonder what impact this will have on the possibility of small villages in rural plans, whether they will be deemed settlements in the future, or what the implications of that will be. That could be important. It has been said in the House previously that this Bill is basically not looking at rural planning. It looks more at urban planning and mainly at Dublin and that seems to be the point of this Bill. However, there will be knock-on implications. The planning Act does not say the settlement relates to Dublin. It refers to 50 dwellings anywhere so that could have an impact for rural areas as well. That is significant and is something that should also be looked at. Indeed, it then goes on to state, in section 27 on regional spatial and economic strategies, that the "metropolitan area of a city means the area consisting of the city and its surrounding area approximating to the extent of its commuting zone". That is very interesting, and it would be interesting to see how that actually works in practice. I know for a fact that the commuting zone of Dublin goes as far as Cavan, Athlone, and probably as far south as Kilkenny. The Minister will poo-poo this and say this is not what is happening, but it is stated in the legislation that this is the commuting zone. Therefore, could Dublin City Council make a plan that affects the whole country or these 13 or 14 counties? I would like the Minister to point out in the legislation where that does not take effect.
That is what the definition in section 27 states. People will say that will never happen, that is not the intention of the Bill and so on. It is here in the legislation, and this is the legislation that will be looked at, chewed over and decided on in the courts. That is the reality and that is the difficulty with the complicated legislation we have. We are expected just to accept it, rubber-stamp it and pass it. That is the difficulty we all have to face.
Thank you, a Chathaoirligh, for chairing this debate. I commend the efforts of my colleagues, the Minister for Housing, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, the Minister of State, Deputy Malcolm Noonan, and my cross-party colleagues on the housing committee who have worked very extensively on this legislation. I note there was some discussion earlier today relating to briefing documents. It is telling that more and more of us want more and more information on this Bill because it is so lengthy. It shows the significance of the work that went into it and why it is so important. It is important because it is about reforming the planning system. It recognises the evolving demands on our infrastructure and community. It has taken 15 months of comprehensive review of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to get us to this point. It reflects the Government's commitment to updating and streamlining planning processes to match the pace of modern society. That approach has to happen and has to be methodical in ensuring that our new planning framework is in harmony with European standards as well as environmental commitments.
Key reforms in the Bill focus on aligning national, regional and local planning strategies and fostering a coherent, long-term, plan-led system. That is the kind of vision we need in politics and in planning. The Bill elevates the status of ministerial guidelines. They will no longer be just suggestions; they will take on the more robust forms of "national planning policy statements" and "national planning policy guidance". That underscores the commitment to cohesive and well-guided national development.
Another crucial change lies in the introduction of mandatory timelines for all consent processes, including those involving An Bord Pleanála. That is particularly important when we look at appeals and consent applications. This measure is designed to inject certainty and efficiency into the planning consent process, and that is long overdue. An Bord Pleanála will undergo a significant transformation. It will be rebranded an coimisiún pleanála, and we will separate its decision-making and governance structures to enhance transparency and efficiency. By extending the lifespan of local development plans to ten years, the Government is providing more strategic and longer term planning that better meets our housing and economic development needs.
One thing missing from the Bill, however, is the need to modernise our planning observation system. We need to make it easier for people to engage with planning. They should be able to pay for their observations online, for example. In today's day and age, that is basic. On top of that, planning applications that impact them need to be made available online. Currently, what happens is that the person putting in the planning application or a developer will provide the planning application, designs and maps in physical boxes - boxes and boxes at times - of pages. Those are scanned by a member of staff from the local authority and eventually end up online. At that point residents can access them, view them and then make informed observations but, of course, they have only a certain amount of time to do so. This entire lengthy, arduous process of scanning documents and putting them up online eats into that time. Sometimes that process, which can often take a couple of weeks, leaves only a couple of days for people to be able to access and engage with planning. That is not easy and not transparent. The goal needs to be ease and transparency.
The Bill should also look to prioritise language plans in Gaeltacht areas. Its current draft lacks provision for the protection of the Irish language in development plans, and that is a step away from the commitments made in the 2000 Act. It is important for us to continue to support and preserve our cultural heritage. I am sure everyone on all sides of the House agrees on that.
I also want to make sure we do not overlook the vital contribution of our local councillors in this Bill. If we make big decisions without local input, we are not listening to people or the local community's needs. Our councillors need to be involved and stay involved because they help connect what the Government wants with what the people in the community need. The proposed extension of the duration of development plans from six to ten years, while it is good to create a stable vision, will impact how much of a say local councillors have on these plans. A one-term councillor, somebody who is there for five years, may never impact his or her county development plan. That is not fair because our councillors are instrumental in shaping local plans and spatial planning in their localities, providing a crucial link between national policies and local realities. I want to make sure that our councillors remain empowered and that their role is not diminished but reinforced in the face of evolving legislation, a new legislative landscape and an evolving Ireland. Centralising planning policies without adequate local input would do a disservice to this Bill and to our county councillors. I am glad to see there will be a review of county development plans after five years baked into the Bill. I ask that that be meaningful because the mid-term review could be the only opportunity that one-term councillors have to impact the development plan, so it cannot be a tick-the-box exercise. It has to be meaningful.
I note the previous speaker's comments on chief executives of local authorities. I sat here in disbelief wondering if he was trying to make chief executives redundant and almost saying they are unnecessary. I have sat in council chambers for almost a decade. I have had many disagreements with various chief executives, and in my role on the housing committee I meet many of them through the County and City Management Association, CCMA. I have huge respect and put huge value on the work they do for our citizens, for employees across local authorities and for public representatives. I would like to put that on the record.
This Bill also revises the judicial review process related to planning decisions. This includes setting timelines for different stages of the process and enabling local authorities to rectify factual or legal errors in their decisions. We are refining the criteria for who can apply for a judicial review. That is not to limit anybody's access to it; it is to ensure that the process is used effectively. Monday night's episode of "RTÉ Investigates" provided a shocking example of what happens when it is not used effectively, when it is abused. That is being done by a small minority of people who are making vexatious objections in the hope of securing so-called "goodbye money", which is effectively a payment for dropping objections from investors and developers who wish to avoid any unnecessary delays. The programme this week was timely in showing how we need to regulate and who and what we need to regulate in order to make sure that our planning appeals and our judicial review system are robust and do what they set out to do. I am glad there are provisions addressing that in this Bill.
Since the screening of that programme, I have received an email from a developer who has informed me that he initiated legal action against two individuals who have filed over 20 objections or appeals against sites at the planning application stage. Those sites have the potential to deliver 2,000 new homes for 2,000 families or individuals and they are being delayed. We do not know why, but if it is the case that they are being delayed through vexatious complaints, that is not fair on the people who want to get into those homes. In this particular instance many of those sites, I understand, are up to 200 km away from the people objecting.
The Bill seeks to address this abuse of process and to clearly regulate the administrative conditions that anybody - resident, NGO or any other individual - must meet to be able to take judicial review proceedings. I am glad the Bill sets out to prevent this kind of activity from continuing. Such reforms will improve certainty for any investor wishing to develop. They will demonstrate that Ireland is a good place to do business. Most importantly, they will deliver much-needed housing more efficiently for young people and their families across the country. More housing is something every community in Ireland needs, including my area of Lucan, Clondalkin, Palmerstown, Saggart, Rathcoole and Newcastle. Dublin has had over 13,000 new homes built in the past year. Some 2,000 of those are in my area.
The Planning and Development Bill is of enormous consequence in respect of meeting Ireland's targets for renewable energy and, eventually, net zero. Only in the past week, Wind Energy Ireland highlighted with great urgency the fact that Ireland's 2030 renewable energy targets are now in jeopardy due to the inadequacy of the Irish planning system as constituted today.
Many Members of the House are on record as stating that Ireland could be the Saudi Arabia of wind energy but, without a planning regime fit for purpose, Ireland will not be an attractive prospect for investors in renewable energy. There is a limited pool internationally of experienced renewable energy developers and Ireland is in competition with other jurisdictions to secure investment from this small pool to develop our renewable energy resources.
The Bill legally defines the term "maritime development" and integrates it with the maritime area consent process established under the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021. This legislation will provide certainty and clarity to investors and semi-State companies on how to proceed with the development of offshore renewable energy.
Energy independence and reducing our carbon footprint is a priority for Members on both sides of the House and the Bill will be key to ensuring Ireland has the credibility internationally to secure large-scale investment from the renewable energy industry throughout the world. I extend my gratitude to the Minister, the officials who worked on the legislation and all those who support us on the housing committee for their work on the Bill. I welcome what the Bill represents. What we need, and what the Bill will provide, is clarity, consistency and transparency in our planning system. We need these now more than ever.
This is one of the lengthiest Bills to face the House and I can understand why. Our planning system is beset with issues that delay the process and cause much-needed environmental and commercial projects to time out. This frustrates and causes undue hurdles for communities that are faced with challenges of all types, whether through developments or the impact of climate change. The question is whether the Bill addresses this and a range of other matters that need attention.
A Bill so complex will require considerable examination and I want to mention the work already carried out by the Oireachtas housing committee, which recommended more than 140 changes to the draft Bill. This is indicative of the extent of the complexity and the level of concern about what is being proposed. As I have said, with a Bill so lengthy that deals with such a complex system, the way it interacts with the planning system overall will need careful and prolonged examination to ensure it works in the interests of communities and applicants, and that local authorities, elected representatives and communities have the tools and resources to develop good quality plans.
For a long time Sinn Féin has campaigned for a planning system that delivers good quality planning in a timely way, which meets the needs of our communities, contributes to the functioning of society, takes cognisance of the environment, and works to reverse the damage done through poor decisions on the part of the two parties in government. This leads me to some of the takeaway provisions of the Bill, which include measures such as the introduction of statutory timelines for decision-making. It is a widely-held view that specific timelines are needed. The Bill aims to do this, which I welcome. People need certainty about the process as do businesses. With this benefit in mind, I suggest that efforts must be made to ensure the Bill is modelled in such a way that it does not result in poor quality planning decisions. We know how the consequences of ill-considered planning can cost communities.
Statutory timelines can work only with the combination of adequate staffing and resourcing. To date this has not been the case. If this is to genuinely succeed, which I support, its workability must be provided for. I refer in particular to adequate resourcing for the courts and An Bord Pleanála. This is an essential factor if timely decision-making is to meet demand while at the same time ensure consistent assessment.
We must remember that without judges the courts are hamstrung. This is a further wrinkle that needs to be addressed and worked out. Unfortunately, this is a matter that has been on the agenda for quite some time. In terms of An Bord Pleanála and all we have seen and heard about it in recent times, it will be interesting to see whether the Minister's actions will result in a significant impact on the decision-making backlog there. While there has been some improvement in staffing sanctions for An Bord Pleanála, only half have been recruited and more are needed. If the Bill is to deal with the delays then these issues are crucial factors.
I want to address the changes to judicial review, which appear to be in line with the draft Bill. As pre-legislative scrutiny was taking place, legal experts advised that the rules on standing, which are too narrow, could deprive people of their right to seek legal review on planning decisions and delay proceeding where the new standing requirements are challenged. They stated that as a consequence, questions remain with regard to the interpretation of and compatibility of the standing rules with the Aarhus Convention and EU law.
It is our view that this small number of judicial reviews, which concern approximately 3% of all applications, are generally the result of failures in the planning system and planning law. To add to this, in the majority of cases the courts upheld the judicial review. To restrict people's access to the courts on matters that can be of such importance to their communities is wrong and runs counter to how a good planning system should work. As I have said, this was pointed out to the committee by people immersed in the legal system. If the measures that are to address delays in the system work against this very principle, they need to be re-examined.
As I referred to earlier, more attention must be paid to properly resourcing the planning system, An Bord Pleanála and the courts. We need to address the inefficiencies in the system rather than restricting people's access to recourse. This is especially the case for communities that have not been adequately engaged with from the early stages of the process, and which for one reason or another may be aggrieved or genuinely concerned. This is an area of the Bill that I believe may run counter to the ambition to improve our planning system. The planning system works fairly, effectively and efficiently only if it ensures good quality planning decisions are made in a timely manner following meaningful public participation.
The planning system must enable us to meet the social and economic needs of society. It must also enable rural Ireland to have adequate transport routes that are efficient and address the needs of our rural communities, while having the least environmental impact. Transport in rural Ireland is far below what we should expect. Towns are clogged with traffic and our system to address this is even slower than the traffic stuck in the backlogs which our towns frequently witness. We need to address this and provide sustainable and renewable energy with local buy-in through public participation. The adversarial planning system must be addressed.
As I said, this is a substantial Bill. It is important but its real importance lies in how effective it is to plan for the future while dealing with the issues of the past that have plagued communities as a result of bad decisions by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. This is why we will work with the Government to undo the damage and mould this into a Bill that achieves the purpose for which it is intended, which is to work for communities, the environment, businesses, industry, rural Ireland and urban areas.
There will be considerable agreement, in the sense that we all know the issues that exist with the planning system and we all want a fit-for-purpose - an overused term, particularly by myself - system that can deliver for people. We know we want a planning system that can deliver social, economic and environmental needs. We are speaking about good quality planning decisions that can be made in a timely manner. We have not always been able to deliver this. There has to be acceptance of this. There may be some moves in the correct direction in the Bill but there is a considerable amount of work to be done. I would like to think the promises from the Government benches on working with the Opposition will be followed through. This is absolutely necessary.
We all know the confines and constraints we are in with regard to being able to deliver the Paris Agreement emissions targets for 2030 and 2050. We also note the great need we have with the accommodation crisis. We know that at times planning has not been put in place for all of the homes, schools, hospitals, public amenities and infrastructure that are required. It is about how we do this without impacting negatively on the environment. This is the only direction we can go and we need to put in place a system to do this.
We are trying to undo what has been a large amount of poor and bad legislation. We all get the idea. We want to speak about it being planning-led rather than development-led. I have seen it in my home town recently with the floods. It showed that nobody has been properly assessing the issues with our wastewater and clean water systems. We have had major problems when suddenly something was moved from the local authorities to Uisce Éireann and, at times, subcontracted to a third party.
My main problem with all of it is that nobody made the assessment in relation to the need that exists. We have had a considerable amount of building, whether business infrastructure, factories, huge pharmaceutical operations that we are only delighted to have in our area, or housing estates, of which we need a hell of a lot more. We need to ensure an assessment of need is done and we have a planning system that can follow through on that assessment.
We know what the issue is in relation to local authority planning departments, An Bord Pleanála and the courts. Again, generally, these are logjammed and do not have enough people in the right positions. That is a problem. We have seen certain improvements in the last while concerning An Bord Pleanála but that is only a first step. People have not been recruited for all the positions required. A particular issue in respect of big infrastructural projects has been that we cannot even deliver on the timelines promised by An Bord Pleanála. We need to ensure we have fit-for-purpose rules and regulations but none of this will matter if we do not have all the stakeholders required to deliver the planning system and a sufficient number of people in the right places.
The Government promised to increase the number of judges dealing with planning cases but we have not seen this happen yet. It goes without saying that if we do not deal with this issue, we will continue to have the logjams and end up unable to deliver on anything. We know the issues we had with poor legislation, for example, on SHDs. That and other attempts to circumvent the system ended up blowing up in our faces from a planning perspective. We all know the huge issues there have been in this area, whether it is the conflict between central and local government planning or between planning applicants and residents. We need a decent framework in this regard. We have all seen that where decent planning operations have been put in place, there has been an extensive level of outreach to the community, some of the obstacles that sometimes arise have been overcome and the questions asked by communities have been answered. We need to see a hell of a lot more of that but we must also ensure we can deliver within decent timeframes.
When I was a member of the transport committee, I remember dealing with one of the agencies involved in delivering our transport infrastructure. When the committee went into private session, it was a story of just talking about wind energy and asking where in Europe we were going to get somebody willing to put money forward for a big wind project. Let us say there are people willing to put €150 million down to deliver entirely necessary infrastructure, follow the planning conditions and ensure they achieve them. The agency in question is not sure it will be able to deliver, however. This is the system we have had to date and we need to move beyond it.
An Bord Pleanála has made bad planning decisions, which have been challenged in the courts. Unfortunately, in the majority of these cases, the courts have upheld the judicial review. This comes down to bad planning decisions, increased litigation and significant delays with planning decisions. None of this is good. As I said, Sinn Féin is willing, like many others, I am sure, to work with the Government to achieve that fit-for-purpose system.
A significant number of NGOs and other stakeholders have spoken about particular issues they have identified with this legislation. I have spoken to planners who are worried about how this legislation will impact on the ability to deliver development plans at the local authority level. There is a real need for us to get to the nub of all these issues and deliver.
Earlier, someone from the benches opposite uttered the line that we have all used about how wonderful it will be when Ireland becomes a wind-power superpower. However, we must ensure we get the planning aspects into place. Otherwise, none of this is going to happen. Rather than us saying we are ten years behind, we will instead be in a situation where we will be even further behind, again and again, and very much failing. Delivering on wind energy and renewables crosses many strata. We must ensure we have the capacity to deliver the electricity, the power, we need. We must ensure we are decarbonising and moving into the realm of renewables, from an environmental point of view, and putting ourselves in the place we should be in from an energy security vantage point.
We know Ireland has the capacity to do this on a wider scale. Once we have fit-for-purpose planning legislation and all the required infrastructure from EirGrid and other organisations, we will be able to change the power map of Europe. That will be a real game-changer. We are all aware of the particular issues with providers of the fossil fuels and other things we are still addicted to. We need to make all the necessary moves.
Regarding interaction with the Government, the only way we are going to find out about this is to see what happens in the next while when we get beyond this point. We have here one of the longest Bills in the history of the House. It has been delayed more than once. The review launched early in 2022 was promised by September of that year, to be followed by enactment of the legislation by the end of that year. As it turned out, the first incomplete draft we dealt with was not published until February this year. We all finally got sight of the current version of the Bill last week. Some people were lucky enough to get a paper copy but others were not and we have been using the control F keys an awful lot as a result.
Some 30 hours of pre-legislative scrutiny were carried out. Representatives of NGOs, planners and many of those who work in the field spoke about what needed to be done in this area. The committee recommended more than 140 changes. Our view is that there is still a hell of a lot more that needs to be done. We will see whether the Minister has listened to experts, communities, industry and all the other parties involved in this area. I do not think anyone will disagree with my view that this Bill is not ready for the road and a significant amount of work remains to be done.
Do not get me wrong; we fully support the move towards a plan-led approach to planning developments but that must involve everyone, from the local authorities to elected representatives and communities. They must have the full set of tools and resources to develop good quality, 3D plans. We welcome the fact that we are talking about urban development zones and that there is a more flexible replacement for the strategic development zones. For some time now, planning conditions and so on have meant we have not had the flexibility required to allow us to produce what is needed by the communities out there and meet their particular requirements. We can stop and start in relation to everything from business infrastructure down to the provision of housing and, as Deputy Martin Browne said, ensuring we put plans in place to provide a transport infrastructure that will work for us in future. It is as simple as that.
Rather than repeating what everybody else has said, I will say that this is significant legislation that promises a lot. We know what it needs to do. We know we need a system that has to be fit for purpose. We know we need to be able to deliver for the people out there. We know we need to be able to deliver big infrastructural projects. We saw the madness we are dealing with in the "RTÉ Investigates" programme the other night, which showed that people having commodified or found the means to make money from the planning system. That is in no way beneficial to residents or the people involved in some of these sorts of planning developments. I think we were all sickened but not, unfortunately, shocked by what we saw.
We all know the other issues that exist. We could talk about the problems the OPW has in delivering flood defences. Again, there are instances sometimes where this is used as an excuse.
We understand the State is responsible for delivering on the planning conditions and constraints in that part of the country. We need to make sure that happens. We cannot have people being negatively impacted by flooding conditions that could be rectified by mitigation and flood projections but that cannot be put in place because of certain spurious complaints, observations or obstacles being put in the way of necessary infrastructural projects that need to be dealt with.
The fact remains that it needs to be ensured that we can engage communities and ensure they have the right and ability to put forward observations. We cannot have vexatious observations that can hold up things for too long, which obviously impacts financially on those involved. Sometimes the easiest thing for people to do to date is to pay somebody off. That is not good in any way and does not serve any of us. They are the sort of things we need to deal with and it is straightforward. We need a system that works for everybody inside and outside the House. We need to deliver on the infrastructural, residential and transport projects we all require to make Ireland into the best place it can possibly be.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and welcome Minister Noonan to the House to listen to our contributions. When my parents moved to a parish called Ballyroan in Rathfarnham, it was the last development before the Dublin Mountains. Tallaght was a village. When we were on a journey down the country, we gave the famous children's catchcry, "Are we there yet?", when we got to Tallaght village, which was very much set in the country.
In the subsequent 50, 55 or 60 years, a huge amount has changed. Much has stayed the same. Much could have been done differently. The area in which I grew up, lived, moved to and serve comprises Templeogue, Greenhills, Knocklyon and Ballycullen. Much of Knocklyon dates from the 1960s. Much of Firhouse did not exist until the 1980s. As I said, Tallaght was a village and there was a mass movement from the city of Dublin. We know the history of that. There were few amenities at the time. South Dublin County Council was established in the mid-1990s and has addressed a huge amount of that, but we still have one of the most disadvantaged and challenging areas in the country in parts of Tallaght.
We now move to the burgeoning suburb of Citywest. I was a member of South Dublin County Council for 17 years. One of my objectives was to preserve the rural character of the roads that led to the mountains. We managed to achieve that. Another goal was to maintain the line beyond which development was not possible, and we managed to maintain that in terms of a 400 m boundary line around the Dublin mountains. I do not know how sustainable that will be into the future. Those 17 years certainly informed me on how I view planning. I have a few comments to make on it. I will go in no particular order and I ask forgiveness for moving from one topic to another.
One of the things the State has failed to do is something I recall addressing in one of my first contributions to the council in 1999. Traditionally, every village and parish in the country was served by a church of some particular denomination and a parish hall. That was the focal point of every community. My local authority has failed miserably to replace those religious and pastoral focal points with a civic space equal to that. We do not have town or village halls. In the 1990s and the 2000s, they were replaced with village or neighbourhood centres. Neighbourhood centres were shops and with some amenity space above them. On the continent, every village and town has a village hall where people can meet. There is not a TD in this area, in particular in Dublin, who will not say that for 20 years there has been a chronic shortage of meeting, performance, artistic and indoor public spaces. We could map geographically what is there.
In my constituency, the churches ceased to exist in the parishes and areas built in the 1970s and 1980s. There may have been a parish church built in the 1990s. There are no churches in the brand new areas in Citywest. I am not calling for churches, but the State has not replaced these central focal points in people's lives with a civic parallel. We have not provided a civic centre, which was traditionally provided by a village centre and was, because of our history, generally dominated by church buildings and institutions. I am not calling for churches to populate all of our newer areas, but, as a State, we need to have a serious debate.
Citywest is a classic example of this. It is a burgeoning suburb, but there is nowhere for people to gather to meet democratically to discuss issues that affect them. There is simply no meeting space because none was designed into the area due to the fact that nobody thought the community would need a focal point around which it could rally, gather and express itself. We put in shops and perhaps the odd crèche. There may be a community centre, which turns into a glorified badminton hall or pilates centre. They are very badly needed, but they tend to be retrospective rather than designed into suburbs. We have an opportunity to re-envisage things. Adamstown is one of the few designed towns in Ireland. That is one of the things I have learned.
South Dublin County Council, after much public consultation and deliberation, formulated an area action plan for the Citywest geographic area. It was designed in 2013 or 2014 and set out where schools, libraries, Garda station, post-primary schools and amenities should be. That was for a classic residential area. The previous Government introduced strategic housing developments, SHDs. Those laws overrode the local area and county development plans and provided for densities never envisaged by the local area plan.
Planning permission was granted by the board or council for developments allowing for something like 100 parking spaces, but residents might have 200 or 250 cars, which are now being parked on major public roads. There are appeals on social media to rent a car parking space in someone's driveway from those who have them. That is how planning has gone in this country. That needs to be addressed. For example, there are planning laws requiring 1.5 or two spaces per residential house. That is fine for a three- or four-bedroom house owned by a couple who plan to have a couple of children. However, when everything is in Dublin is build to rent, a three or four-bedroom house will have three or four adults in it, all of whom have cars. These are small, but really important, issues. Residential areas are clogged because planners did not have the flexibility to take this on board. Parts of the planning system are very messy.
I welcome this groundbreaking Bill. In fairness, Minister O'Brien will be exhausted at the end of this term of government. If one was to judge him on the raft of legislation he has brought in, he has been one of the most dynamic housing Ministers in the history of the State. We cannot judge him exclusively on that.
The Bill is groundbreaking. I used to be a great believer in the Big Bang solution whereby we would try to sort everything out in one go with one Bill or power that the Government could use, but after many years in public life, I have drifted over time more towards incrementalism having seen how difficult it is to produce legislation that will solve a problem.
If we pass the Bill, and I think we will pass it with amendments and so on some time next year, the Minister might adopt an incremental approach and pick some of the most urgent aspects that can be enacted quickly. One of the most pressing aspects relates, for example, to timelines for An Bord Pleanála. When the legislation has been passed with amendments, the Minister and Ministers of State might discuss what are the most important measures in the legislation that we should get moving on now, and I think what those issues are will become obvious as the debate evolves. It is clear the Government is not going to be able to implement in one go all the laws that will emerge from the Bill, so it should prioritise the steps that need to be taken.
In my area, for example, before I was elected in 1999 to the local authority, there was a development plan in 1998. Twenty-five years later, despite that land having been zoned as residential and despite numerous planning applications that, if they had been granted, would have resulted in significantly less dense areas than what is being applied for now, planning applications have failed for huge tracts of that land. Many of them were decent planning applications but that is a matter for the local authority and the board. Twenty-five years later, I do not know who owns the land. Certainly, if you are in business and you applied to have land zoned and intended to develop it, the original owners will not own it any more. I do not know how the State or planners can expect businesspeople to hold on to land for that length of time and not develop it.
We know why we need these laws now. A number of the issues have been outlined by colleagues who have just spoken, not least the fact we need development to accelerate and we need the planning laws to reflect that. Moreover, we need a planning system, as others have said, that is properly resourced. I reiterate, for the benefit of members of the public who might be just coming to this debate, that when the Bill was undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny, there was a strong democratic input from the stakeholders that contributed to it. I would like to let my constituents know during that democratic input at pre-legislative scrutiny, when the draft legislation was scrutinised line by line by the housing committee, residents' associations, the Dublin Democratic Planning Alliance, architects, Royal Town Planning Institute Ireland and pretty much anybody who has a stake in planning and development in Ireland had a say and will continue to have a say as time moves on. Even at this stage, people have had significant input into this.
What I have seen in respect of planning in my lifetime as a public representative is interesting, and I would be interested in hearing what others have seen as well. I mentioned land having been zoned for 25 years that still has not been built on. I have seen vacant and derelict sites left vacant and derelict, despite the laws we have introduced, in parts of Rathfarnham, Templeogue and Tallaght and no laws seem to be able to make an effective impact on this dereliction. I have seen massive and significant changes in densities over the years. Of course, densities would not matter if a decent public transport system were backing it up. In fact, we could all cope with incredible densities if we were confident the transport system was capable of taking it. Here we are, 30 or 40 years on since metro was first mentioned, and it is still not in the ground. I do not know what it is about this country, what slows down these developments or whether it is something in the planning system. I have seen planning applications by developers and builders for land they did not even own, where people have chanced their arm. I mentioned the granting of crazy planning permissions that took no account of issues such as parking requirements in certain areas.
I am very interested in the judicial review aspect of the legislation. I opposed the programme for Government, as my colleagues will know, on the basis of the impact of strategic housing development legislation on my constituency, where it drove a coach-and-four through local area plans, county development plans and density rules imposed by local authorities, and height restrictions imposed by local authorities. It basically ignored any democratic input and removed the voice that ordinary people, residents and citizens had. We have done some work on that and I welcome what the Minister has done on it, but it led people, residents and community groups who had never previously considered taking judicial reviews to feel they had no option but to do so.
I was criticised recently for making a comment in the Dáil about how all it took to finance a judicial review was ten cake sales. People were on to me saying it was much more expensive than that and that you have to have deep pockets. That reference to ten cake sales, however, was given to me by the representative of a group that has taken multiple judicial reviews, who said that is all it takes. They said judicial reviews are not as expensive as people think, given there are some community groups who feel it is only wealthy areas that can take a judicial review. That was a direct quotation from a lead individual of a group that had mounted judicial reviews, some successful and others unsuccessful, and in my view knew what they were talking about. As we have said in this House, judicial reviews have ended up before judges who might not have any experience in planning law or planning rules making decisions about residential developments. In summary, I like the rules being brought in with respect to judicial reviews.
On the ministerial powers the Bill will change, I can see both sides of this. I can see that national policy may demand a Minister make a decision effecting immediate and real change in the way planning is handled in certain areas. If I were a local authority member, I might baulk at that and ask whether it is not a further diminution and centralisation of power at a time when the OECD and other organisations are saying we have one of the most centralised models of local democracy internationally.
The other side, however, which I can see as a former member of a local authority, is that sometimes local authorities find it hard to make the really difficult decisions, so we have to find some mechanism that will enable local authority members to take the tough decisions and face the electorate, because that is why they lose powers. It is because they will not make decisions and Ministers and Governments decide they are going to make those decisions for them. Over a period of 20 or 30 years, I saw local authorities' powers diminish as a result of their being unwilling or unable to make changes. Our briefing on the Bill states that with these changes, county councillors might find their decisions more scrutinised for alignment with national and regional strategies, and that is good too. Most local authorities do advise their members in the making of a development plan in that regard.
Returning to the judicial review provisions, I think this is going to attract a lot of interest. I have seen organisations or groups in my area take judicial reviews. They might even be residents' associations of which I might not be aware, although I know my area pretty well, that might not have met for ten years. Likewise, there may be other organisations that were set up specifically to mount a judicial review. The changes proposed by the Minister in this regard are to be welcomed. They are worthy and deserving of scrutiny, but an organisation should have to have been in place for a period and to comprise a certain number of members. I would say that if it is a residents' association, those members should have to be local and be residents of that area.
They should be able to demonstrate they have met in the previous year or two years and that they are affiliated with the local authority. I do not want to diminish the right of people to take a judicial review, but as a TD and former councillor, I recognise that the splurge in judicial reviews arose specifically out of SHD legislation. People felt powerless and their only recourse to respond to a planning application was to take a judicial review. That has stalled many developments, certainly in my constituency, which means it has stalled homes and driven up the price of rent and properties for sale in my constituency.
My sole interest in participating in a debate on the new Planning and Development Bill is to make sure that whatever we approve and move forward with will ensure that people who live in my constituency, in Citywest, Templeogue, Knocklyon, Ballycullen, Rathfarnham, Firhouse or Greenhills, have houses that are affordable for the typical couple that used to exist such as a nurse married to a garda or a garda married to a teacher. Homes should be affordable to buy, not only to rent. Everything we do in this new Planning and Development Bill should focus on that. We should be able to deliver homes speedily, efficiently and in a cost-effective way that enables people to live full lives, achieve their potential and live in communities and not just in houses.
I will ask Deputy Cowen to propose the adjournment at 6.20 p.m.
I join others in commending the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, on bringing forward this significant Bill. While I and others might argue it has taken too long to get to this point, it is better late than never. I do not underestimate the work the Minister and his officials have done on this mammoth Bill. I commend them and the parliamentary draftspeople in the Office of the Attorney General on their work on the detail. There is more work to be done on it so it can become even more important for the future of the country.
I will focus on a number of issues I have taken up before. I look forward to the Minister of State's responses when he wraps up so that I can adjudicate on whether further amendments are needed. The first issue I raise is my contention that councillors should be afforded external professional advice when engaging in the process of making a development plan. As it stands, the council executive develops a draft plan, which can be amended by councillors after a consultative process. However, if councillors wish to alter the plan or offer an alternative policy in a plan, they are personally culpable in the event that any such policy leads to an action against the council. For example, I am conscious that, in circumstances where it is the prerogative of a development plan to provide a fire service plan, if the members disagreed with and altered that plan and an action were to take place thereafter, they would be culpable because they do not have alternative professional advice available to them. That needs to be identified. I urge the Minister of State to bring that message back to the Department.
Making a development is a consultative process, as we know. For example, in zoning land for residential purposes, the development plan must have regard to such matters as the national and regional spatial strategies; set density guidelines; demand design standards; the need to ensure there is infrastructural capacity, whether that is water, sewerage, roads or pedestrian access; and the need to respect building, construction and engineering standards, rules and regulations. Another issue, as was mentioned by Deputy Lahart, relates to height being determined for a zoning area. That is published in draft form and put on public display, inviting observations and so forth. Thereafter, it may be altered by county managers based on consideration of submissions and reports. Many people participate, but those who do not and actively do not, in essence acquiesce to the development plan. Later, however, when an application is made on the same lands, their rights stretch to the potential to delay a development by up to four or five years.
There has to be some link between those who participate in the consultation process on and setting of a development plan and the planning applications made thereafter. For example, it may be that when a permission is granted, it should point to an application being in compliance with the development plan, specifically in respect of various aspects of the application such as density, design or height. That list should then be barred from an objection because it is in compliance with the development plan and has adhered to the result of the hugely consultative process that is the setting of the plan.
Earlier this year, I put forward a Bill that would force An Bord Pleanála to give decisions within a fixed timeframe. I agreed to it being left aside until this Bill came before us. As the Minister of State will be aware, this is a chronic issue for energy projects, urban renewal schemes and housing. Were these projects delivered on time, our energy future and the housing statistics would be in a much better place. I am interested in finding out what will be done with the 80 or more pending projects for strategic housing, the applications for most of which were submitted in April 2022 and are still with An Bord Pleanála. The Minister of State should make sure the Bill remains under a duty to determine all these applications or appeals. Where an application or appeal has been pending for 12 months or longer - and there are many of those - the board should be forced to decide them within six weeks of the passage of this Bill. The board has enough time and resources if it starts now.
Where an application or appeal has been pending for a long time, the relevant considerations might have changed since the application or appeal was made. The applications, many of which are for necessary housing, should not be prejudiced by this. An Bord Pleanála needs to be held to account to deliver decisions based on the criteria in place when the applications or appeals were made. For the citizens and the economy, the board now needs to be held accountable. It needs to meet statutory timeframes for decisions, which are provided in this Bill, and for the large number of cases that are outstanding. It is not a small number of applications that are impacted by a development plan having changed. It is understood from a widely reported study prepared by Mark McDonald that the quantum of SHD housing units caught in the board's backlog of cases stood at 28,786 at one stage. For context, this equates to approximately 96% of Ireland's housing output for 2022 alone. Many of these applications are located, as has been said, in the Dublin planning authority's area and are at risk of being refused as they were prepared for determination under the plans in operation at the time they were lodged. If they are determined under the new, adapted development plans, they will undoubtedly materially contravene those plans as regards certain policies and objectives.
In a recent High Court judgment issued by Mr. Justice David Holland in a case involving Crofton Buildings Management and another versus An Bord Pleanála, Mr. Justice Holland noted:
Surprisingly, the question has never been explicitly decided which development plan applies in deciding a planning application where the development plan has been replaced (or even varied in a relevant respect) while the planning permission application is pending.
The judgment later notes that legislative assistance would be welcome should the problem arise in the future. Based on the number of applications for SHDs that are still in the system, it obviously will arise. I hope that during the course of this debate, the Minister will give legislative clarity in this regard. The Crofton case has since been appealed to the Supreme Court. A decision on that issue may well cater for an amendment to be made subsequently. I ask the Minister to do so.
I read recently that the failure of An Bord Pleanála to get its finger out means there is still a backlog of at least 22,000 units of 2021 and 2022 housing stock. These could be lost to the State which is still badly in need of them as we enter 2024. You would not think from An Bord Pleanála's attitude that there is a housing challenge at all.
I read that number of 22,000 recently in the context of a press release by a councillor on South Dublin County Council, Barry Saul. I read his comments with some wry amusement as the same councillor has been a ringleader for dezoning land for housing in south Dublin, depriving thousand of students at UCD of accommodation. It is easier for Dubliners to stay at home for college than it is for us country people but people from outside Dublin should not be deprived of a room by opportunistic councillors who give false information to support their contention.
Debate adjourned.