We are in public session. We are joined by the Minister of State, Deputy Kieran O'Donnell, accompanied by his officials. We are here to discuss some planning regulations. Members have been circulated with the relevant papers. I invite the Minister of State to make his opening statement.
Planning and Development (Amendment) (No. XX) Regulations 2023: Discussion
I thank the Cathaoirleach and members for affording me the opportunity to present to the committee these three sets of proposed draft planning regulations. The three sets of draft regulations consist of Planning and Development (Exempted Development) (No. 4) Regulations 2023; Planning and Development (Fees for Certain Applications) Regulations 2023; and Planning and Development (Amendment) (No. XX) Regulations 2023. The first two I am taking on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien. The final one I am bringing forward myself.
Section 4(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 provides that the Minister may make regulations to provide for classes of developments to be exempted from requirements to obtain planning permission.
Section 4(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 provides that: “The Minister may by regulations provide for any class of development to be exempted" from requirements to obtain planning permission. Section 246(1) provides the Minister with the power to set local planning authority fees for planning applications while section 176 sets out the Minister's powers to draft regulations to give effect to the environmental impact assessment directive. Section 262 requires that such draft regulations made under sections 42, 176 and 246(1) must be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and receive a resolution approving the draft from both Houses before the regulations can be made. The consideration of the draft regulations by the committee today is part of that approval process.
Taking those matters in order, we will deal with the SI 250 of 2023, Planning and Development Act (Exempted Development) Regulations 2023. The first set of regulations are being sent for consideration by the committee today. The Planning and Development Act (Exempted Development) Regulations 2023 propose to amend Part 1 of Schedule 2 entitled “Exempted Development — General”, to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, the principal regulations, by revising class 20F with respect to temporary change of use by or on behalf of the Minister for Children, Equality Disability, Integration and Youth of the structures listed to accommodate and support the persons seeking international protection. The draft regulations propose to extend the time period of the exempted period previously provided under SI 605 of 2022 from 31 December 2024 to 31 December 2028. This is to allow the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth greater flexibility in agreeing leases with potential accommodation providers, many of whom have been seeking longer leases to justify undertaking necessary upgrading and refurbishing works on premises to meet the accommodation needs of international protection applicants.
Furthermore, to provide greater flexibility to that Department in how they use the accommodation it sources, the proposed regulations extend the scope of the exemption previously provided under SI 605 of 2022 to also include persons displaced by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It is important to note that there is no change to the structures listed from that which was provided under the previous regulation in this regard. The proposed planning exemption provision is a temporary measure which, it is indicated, will now expire on 31 December 2028, with the use of the relevant building and structures for this purpose ceasing to apply on the expiry of the regulation. It should be noted that neither the granting of planning permission or the provision of an exemption from the requirement to obtain planning permission reviews the requirement to comply with any other statutory code, particularly with regard to building controls and regulations. The aim of the building control regulations is to provide for the safety and welfare of people in and about buildings. It is important to note in the context of these exempted development provisions, that compliance with Building Regulations, 1997 to 2021, including building control and fire safety standards, must be achieved under normal building control procedures and will still apply before any such building can be occupied.
The Planning and Development Act (Fees for Certain Applications) Regulations 2023 are the second set of regulations for consideration. They concern the introduction of new planning fees to be applied in respect of the provision of an opinion or notification under section 32I of the Act with regard to flexibility in respect of certain details of a proposed development to be submitted as part of a planning application. These provisions were introduced in July 2022 by the Planning and Development, Maritime and Valuation (Amendment) Act 2022 but have yet to be commenced, pending the approval of these proposed fees regulations and the finalisation of further supporting regulations. The draft fees regulations propose to amend section 2 of Schedule 9 of the principal regulations to provide a fee of €2,500 for the pre-application consultation process for proposed projects availing of the new flexibility provisions, including the conducting of a pre-application consultation meeting and the provision of an opinion or notification by the planning authority further to the pre-application meeting on the proposed development.
A new article 166A proposes to amend the principal regulations to provide that the fee payable in respect of a subsequent planning application for a proposed development that has been the subject of such an opinion shall be twice the standard amount, or three times the standard amount where the application is also accompanied by an environmental impact assessment report, EIAR, or a Natura impact statement, NIS. Where the planning authority requests that either an EIAR or NIS be submitted in respect of a planning application accompanied by such an opinion, the fee payable in respect of the submission of the report or statement shall be three times the standard amount, less any fee already paid in respect of the application.
Finally, the draft regulations propose to amend section 3 of Schedule 9 of the principal regulations to provide that where an application is accompanied by an opinion, the maximum fee payable in respect of the application shall be €100,000, or €150,000 where an EIAR or NIS is submitted.
These new flexibility provisions are likely to be most relevant to renewable energy projects, including wind energy projects, where the full details of a proposed project, for example, the turbine tip height, the blade width or the grid connection route, are not definitively known at the time of the planning application and where all of the likely options and parameters can be assessed by the planning authority. However, other forms of development will also be able to avail of these new flexibility arrangements as appropriate. The fees proposed in respect of this process reflect the more complex and time-consuming assessments incurred by planning authorities in considering applications incorporating a degree of flexibility. Furthermore, the fee levels are considered appropriate in order to deter speculative use of the process.
Finally, the third set of regulations for consideration by the committee, the Planning and Development (Amendment) (No. XX) Regulations 2023, provide for a minor amendment to Part 2 of Schedule 5 of the principal regulations. This schedule of the regulations transposes annexes I and II of the EIA directive into the planning code, setting out projects that require mandatory environmental impact assessment under Parts 1 and 2, namely, those projects that must be screened to determine if EIA is necessary or not.
The draft regulation before the committee will insert into Part 2 of Schedule 5 the project type at paragraph 1(a) of annexe II of the directive, which is projects for the restructuring of rural landholdings. This project type was previously considered an on-farm-agricultural activity only and there is an EIA consent regime in operation by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in respect of such projects. However, it has recently come to our attention that commercial development projects moving through the planning system can include an element of rural land restructuring and, therefore, require screening for EIA in accordance with the directive. These regulations will give planning authorities the necessary jurisdiction to carry out that EIA screening in respect of such projects.
I commend these three sets of draft regulations to the committee. Their approval will support Government policy in the relevant areas, particularly in providing for: accommodation for persons seeking international protection and beneficiaries of temporary protection, that is, displaced Ukrainian citizens at a time when there is unprecedented demand for the provision of such accommodation; flexibility in respect of certain details of a proposed development to facilitate the roll-out of wind energy development, in particular; and planning authorities to carry out EIA screening for projects that include the restructuring of rural landholdings and the removal of the dual consent process.
I look forward to what I know will be an engaging discussion with the committee on these regulations and I will endeavour to answer any questions the committee members may have. Finally, Chair, if these draft regulations are approved by positive resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas, I intend to sign the EIA related regulations, with my colleague the Minister, Deputy O’Brien signing the other two regulations, at the earliest possible date. I thank the committee for its attention.
I thank the Minister of State. I believe that other documentation has also been circulated to the committee explaining these matters.
Responding to the raised hands of the members, I will call Deputy Ó Broin, and Senators Cummins and Fitzpatrick. As the committee has a briefing at 4 p.m., I kindly ask that members might be direct and to the point and to identify which planning exemption they wish to discuss.
I agree but two of these sets of regulations are significant so we also need to give them adequate scrutiny.
With regard to the first of the regulations, does the Minister of State know how many buildings have availed to date of the two existing sets of exemptions for people with temporary protection orders and in the international protection system? How many buildings are currently in use in that regard?
I do not have specific figures with me today but I will provide them-----
I can get them from the Department myself but does the Minister of State know of the buildings that have availed of the exemption to date and how many of them are subject to enforcement proceedings by local authorities? There is a reason I am asking this question I am and I am not trying to trap or trick the Minister the Minister of State.
That is okay. We do not have specific details but the Department is aware that some local authorities are taking action in this regard.
It is something we can follow up with them.
This one I have the answer to. It is three. South Dublin County Council forced the evacuation of Dolcain House, which housed about 189 individuals in non-fire safety compliant conditions. Fingal County Council recently initiated enforcement action in similar circumstances and Kildare has had to do the same, not on fire safety grounds but for breach of protections in the original regulations brought in front of us on built heritage. That is not the responsibility of the Minister of State or the officials present. It is to do with planning enforcement and the behaviour of the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth.
The Deputy is probably aware councils are independent in their duties.
I understand that. That is not my point. It is a problem that, in bringing forward a significant change to the two sets of regulations, which we willingly supported previously, no assessment has been done by the Minister of State or his officials of the operation of the previous two. It is not the fault of the Minister of State's Department’s or his officials that the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth on three occasions has been responsible for significant breaches. Our planning authorities should not be forced to take enforcement action against a Department, international protection accommodation services, IPAS, and commercial building owners. That is not a good situation for any of us to be in. If we want the public to support our efforts to ensure people fleeing war and persecution are adequately supported, which we do, the lack of a joined-up approach among Departments is a problem. We went through this before at some length. The Chair will recall, and Deputies O’Callaghan and McAuliffe were here. We urged the two Departments to have a joined-up approach to this. We were guaranteed it would happen but it has not to date.
I want to be supportive of this first regulation but at what point does temporary become permanent? In my constituency, I have no issue with commercial buildings being used and repurposed to provide good quality temporary accommodation for people fleeing war and persecution. Myself, Deputy Higgins and others have taken the right approach on this. However, we have to be honest with the public. If a building is going to become a permanent facility, let us say that and give it proper planning permission. If such facilities are made temporary for five years, they will become permanent.
I am saying this out of frustration. We had detailed discussions and considerations in private and public session when the previous two sets of regulations to which this relates were brought in front of us. We were given a certain level of assurances from both Departments that there would be joined-up thinking and that we would not continually extend the temporary exemptions. If stuff would be permanent or semi-permanent in the medium term, we would properly regularise it. I do not blame these regulations for the bad behaviour of other Departments or private landowners but there is a grey area. A temporary exempted development can lead some people to think the ordinary building control rules do not apply. The Minister of State said clearly and rightly they do apply but this is not a good way to proceed.
I will not stand in the way or make politics of this but I urge the Minister of State to ask his officials to talk to their counterparts in the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and IPAS about a better approach to this. We should not have three local authorities forced to take enforcement action against three commercial buildings under potential licence with IPAS and the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and, in two cases, putting the residents of those buildings at risk because they were not compliant with basic fire safety. I cannot stress that enough.
The officials are aware of the cases in Fingal, Kildare and south Dublin and they have followed up. There are two different issues here. On the issue today, as the Deputy is probably aware, there is a Cabinet sub-committee and a humanitarian response. That is a whole-of-government approach. They have come back and made this request. The five years is important in getting people to come forward to make leases but they are still temporary. We will follow up with the local authorities. The Deputy’s point is well made but, ultimately, enforcement is the responsibility of the local authority.
It is, but my point is different. Our local authorities have done their job properly. I understand we might have ten or 15 commercial buildings subject to these exempted developments. If three out of ten are in breach, we have a problem. If a Department and IPAS cannot do their job properly, I am not sure we should extend exempted development status. We should not give that status to another State agency that cannot comply with basic fire safety and building control. There is work to be done between the two Departments to engage.
My second question is on the fees in the second regulation. In setting the figure of €2,500, what metric was used? We often hear, particularly from our planning authorities, that fees are not commensurate to the time it takes to process the matter at hand. How was it determined that this was an appropriate fee? Will it adequately compensate the planning authority for the time involved?
The €2,500 is the same fee for pre-consultation for large-scale residential developments, LSRD. That is the basis of the fee. If someone has an opinion and go forward for full application, it depends on the circumstances. If there is not an environmental impact assessment, EIA, involved, it is double; if there is, it is treble the fee. It is a maximum of €100,000 or €150,000.
In basing the fee on the LSRD preplanning consultation, were there discussions between departmental officials and the Local Government Management Agency? The agency has repeatedly told the committee the fees do not reflect the amount of time------
I can confirm-----
Just let me finish.
Sorry, please finish.
It continually comes to us telling us the fees set do not compensate for the time officials spend on these decisions. Separate to the Minister of State deciding to take LSRD and apply it to this, were there discussions on whether this was commensurate to the level of work done by planning authorities on these matters?
Yes, with the County and City Management Association, CCMA. Generally, there is a broader discussion on reviewing planning fees overall but in this case it was agreed with the CCMA.
I ask that the Minister of State undertake to speak to his colleagues in the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and that a joint note be given to this committee on the first matter, particularly on the number of buildings and enforcements. I urge his Department to be more proactive in engaging with counterparts in the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth and IPAS so we do not have another one, two or three enforcements coming down the line. It is not helpful in doing what we are all trying to do.
There is weekly engagement.
On this issue, there is not.
There is a Cabinet sub-committee meeting on a broad range of areas. On the issue raised, enforcement lies with the local authority. Buildings should not be occupied unless they are in compliance with building regulations. We take that. We undertake to provide the information requested to the committee.
Finally, we should not give exemptions to people who abuse them. There have been three cases. I know the one in my constituency very well. Our local authority was exasperated at the lengths it had to go to get the property owner, IPAS, and the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth to comply with the most basic level of fire safety in a building in which we were putting people fleeing war and persecution. There is more the Minister of State’s officials can do to square that circle, notwithstanding enforcement and building management resting elsewhere. If they keep doing this, we should be more careful about what exemptions we give them.
Regarding the first regulations, the extension is from 31 December 2024 to 31 December 2028. The rationale set out is to allow the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth greater flexibility in agreeing leases with potential accommodation providers. The issue I have is when it goes on to say the structures to be included are not changed. We are moving towards a more semi-permanent arrangement when we should limit the number of buildings and structures the regulations apply to.
For example, universities, social centres or community centres are not commercial accommodation providers where they would be looking for additional flexibility on lease arrangements in order to upgrade stock. That rationale does not hold water for many of the structures that are included and are set out in the regulations. Why has there not been an attempt to narrow the number of structures to which these regulations are applicable when we are extending them out to 2028 on the basis of the need to provide flexibility for these providers?
There is a couple of aspects to that. First, this is a request that has come from the humanitarian response Cabinet sub-committee which is cross-departmental. The Minister, Deputy O'Brien, and the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, have made this request on the basis that in terms of getting adequate accommodation on a temporary basis - there is a sunset clause up to 31 December 2028 - there is a requirement to extend the period of time for 31 December 2024 to 31 December 2028, and furthermore to extend the range of premises that are available for Ukrainians similar to international protection applicants. There are a number of practicalities. For instance, student accommodation is not included unless out of term time. Out of term time, it is excluded. That is a practical measure. However, we are in a situation where we have people coming from Ukraine from of a war-torn country and we want to welcome them. There are practicalities involved in ensuring we can get available premises. Going back to Deputy O'Brien's point, the premises have to meet standards of building controls and safety. This is something on which we will be very insistent and for which we will redouble our efforts, particularly with local authorities.
We are talking about a four-year extension; we are not talking about a two-year extension. It is a significant period of time. It is said to be intended to provide greater flexibility in agreeing leases for potential accommodation providers, many of whom have been seeking longer leases in order to justify undertaking necessary upgrading and refurbishment works on the premises in order to meet the accommodation needs of international protection applications. I would argue that this applies to a small number of the structures included in SI 605, not the wide range that is encompassed here. I fully appreciate the rationale and I can understand why a potential provider who needs to undertake significant works would want a longer lease. That makes sense to me and it makes sense that it would be extended out for that period. However, that rational does not apply to all of the structures that are included and set down here. That is the point I am making.
The Senator makes a valid point but it would very much apply for commercial buildings that require refurbishment. What has come back from the Cabinet subcommittee is that there is not sufficient take-up of available accommodation from providers. We are in 2023. It is due to finish in a year-and-a-half. Therefore, as we stand at the moment, looking back there has been quite a large increase over the past 12 months. When we are looking at it over a period of time, building it out to 2028 provides that five-year period.
I do not want to labour the point as I know the Minister of State is only the conduit here who has been thrown into the den, albeit not as significant a lion's den as next door's committee where all the media are.
I suspect there will be a lot less media here.
However, the point still remains. If we are extending out by that period of time in order to have longer leases to justify undertaking significant works, that makes sense but it does not make sense that this applies to the whole host of approximately 20 or 30 structures which are included in the regulations. What I would like is that the structures included under SI 605 are narrowed to be applicable to the purpose for which we need the extension.
The providers of properties are looking for maximum or the widest measures in terms of flexibility. This is a whole of Government decision. It is based on need. The Senator raises particular points but I refer to what is coming back from the market. We have a duty of care to people coming from Ukraine to provide accommodation. To get the requisite accommodation, we have to work with what the marketplace requires at the moment. Providers require a certain element of security in terms of fit-out and they are looking for that five-year period. That is the reason this particular regulation is being brought forward before the committee today.
I have one last question on the second set of regulations, and the fees. It says that these would be more suitable obviously for renewable energy projects and highlights these where the full details of a proposed project, for example turbine tip height, blade width, grid connection route, are not definitively known. The question raised by that explanation is why would they not be known. If there is a significant amount of work that goes into a project, if a route to a grid connection requires, for example, the creation of a new pathway and the felling of a forest in order to facilitate same, surely the impact would have to be adjudicated as part of it. If we are making provision where that can be adjudicated on at a later point, I am looking for some clarity on whether we are allowing flexibility for all of that to be looked at at a later point. It seems to me that all of that should be front-ended and should be assessed at the outset.
The Senator raises valid questions. I will make a couple of points. First, planning permission is normally given for a five-year period. There was the Derryadd judgment case recently with An Bord Pleanála. It basically raised the whole issue of the question of flexibility and that is why this regulation is being brought in. We want really to expedite renewable energy. We must remember this is a process with detailed preplanning. An element of ambiguity came with the Derryadd judgment case but it basically said there was not sufficient knowledge or information within the grant to allow that level of flexibility even though it would be implicit normally with planning applications. Any of us dealing with planning over the years know that it comes back to some level of flexibility. What we are putting into the regulation here is that we want to streamline a process whereby if a person goes for preplanning, pays a €2,500 fee, he and she gets an opinion on the basis of that preplanning which will provide the flexibility. When the person comes forward to apply for planning, obviously the fee will be determined by the type of preplanning. If environmental impact assessments, EIAs, are required and so forth, it could be double or treble the standard fee. When the planning application itself is made, the applicant will be required to include in the planning application the opinion that was given to them in preplanning and the level of flexibility they require. Therefore, there is no ambiguity around it. This is instead of a situation where people may not do preplanning, that level of flexibility is not known and suddenly there is a planning application coming in and a degree of ambiguity around it. We all know of cases where an inch here or an inch there was significant. This would provide absolute certainty. However, in the market place, particularly with, say, wind turbines, what they are looking for may not be on the market at the time.
This would provide flexibility during installation, allowing for small changes to provide more efficiency through things that were not on the market when the opinion or planning was applied for.
My concern, which I have to put on record and flag, is that if somebody is looking for permission for a wind turbine of 80 m with blades of a given size, we may suddenly be looking at a taller wind turbine with bigger blades.
That will come down to the-----
We have already legislated for that under the Valuation Act. This is about the fees that apply to pre-planning consultation.
I am just putting a point to the Minister of State. He is here to address this issue so I am just putting a point to him.
It will be down to individual planners in the local authorities to make these assessments.
I thank an tAire Stáit and everyone from the Department. With regard to the first regulations, I appreciate that the Minister of State is responding to the request made by the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth on behalf of the Government's committee on humanitarian response. Has that committee assessed how effective the existing regulations have been? Is there a statement from that committee or a summary of how the regulations have been used, how much accommodation has been provided, where it is located, what the quality of the accommodation is, what the quality of the humanitarian experience is for those who have availed of it, and how the integration of those facilities into the existing communities has worked? Do we have any view on that from the Government's humanitarian committee?
I will say two things. The first is that the regulations the Senator speaks of have only been in place since last November, which is a relatively short period. I cannot speak on behalf of the Cabinet committee but I expect that work is under way in that area. It is an ongoing review. Deputy Ó Broin referred to this issue already and we have very much taken on board what he said. However, the regulations have been in place for a relatively short period of time.
I appreciate that. I have the advantage of being in Dublin Central on the northside of the city. We have already provided a very significant amount of emergency homeless accommodation. I believe we provide approximately 70% of such accommodation in the greater Dublin region covered by the four Dublin local authority areas. We have also provided a very significant proportion of the accommodation for people fleeing the war in Ukraine and those seeking international protection. It is right that we, as a State, do this. It is right that the State funds and supports it. However, I question the quality of the experience for those who are seeking refuge.
I have really serious concerns about extending temporary accommodation up until January 2029. To be fair, none of us knows that another extension will not be required between now and January 2029. It would be really helpful if the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth could share its housing strategy with the committee because none of these people qualify to apply to the social housing list in the local authority area in which they are provided with emergency accommodation. They are in temporary emergency accommodation and such accommodation is not fit for purpose for anything beyond meeting very short-term needs. I know that because I see the experience of those availing of it and the experience of the communities where it is being provided. I have real concerns with this. We obviously want to support the Government and to support the State's efforts to respond to the humanitarian crisis. The commercial providers have commercial imperatives. We have more than that. As a committee, we cannot allow an extension up until January 2029 to be given without having something on the other side of that discussion that speaks to a strategy for integration and actually escaping traumatic experiences and beginning to rebuild lives. We need the Department to come before us with that strategy.
I support all of the other issues around enforcement. I have been dealing with Dublin City Council on a number of issues. Building control and fire safety are important. It is great that everybody gets involved in trying to respond to the issue but we have the highest commercial vacancy rate in Dublin in decades. Approximately 15% of office space is vacant. There is a lot of opportunity to turn offices into homes. I do not mean temporary bunk beds, which really should not be used as accommodation for more than a matter of weeks. I do not know if the Minister of State can respond to that. I really do appreciate that this is not solely within his remit.
We have been asked by the humanitarian Cabinet committee to extend the regulations to include Ukrainians under the existing international protection regulations. That is a whole-of-government request. Government has to make choices. I have a couple of points to make. The guidelines for buildings for this purpose were recently revised to reflect a move towards independent living. The Senator is probably aware there are modular homes under construction for Ukrainians. On the key point she has raised, there is ongoing review but we are now just short of eight months in, the regulations having come in last November. There is ongoing review but I will take the message back to Government that we need a significant review of the operation of the various schemes at this time.
We need that review but we also need a plan. Where are these people going to be in six months? There has to be some sort of path for six, 12 and 18 months down the road. We are looking to January 2029 here, so this is not a short-term emergency response anymore.
The Senator will appreciate that the response to the incoming Ukrainians was an emergency response.
Absolutely. I believe we have done the right thing. The State has done the right thing and we need to continue to do the right thing. However, my real concern is that the commercial private operators will now be given leases up until January 2029 and will buy bunk beds next month that will still be in use in January 2029. That is not good enough. Those leases and contracts are very lucrative. I am seeing concentrations and clusters of these properties where a building that should have accommodated six people at most is now accommodating 50. That is just not right. The State should not be funding that. It is welcome we engage with everybody who can help us to respond but, in so doing, we have to recognise it is not for a couple of nights or a couple of weeks anymore. This is potentially going to be until January 2029. These providers need to provide accommodation that is fit for purpose.
I take the Senator's point.
I support the very well-made points of my colleagues on the committee. I have no issue with emergency measures. In general, I am very supportive of what is being done to provide emergency accommodation for people fleeing war and seeking international protection. I share the concerns about the potential impact of these measures. We are now looking at fairly poor accommodation being provided for people in inappropriate locations, potentially for five years. One of the benefits of a planning process for residential accommodation is that such a process looks at these issues in the round. If you are providing a lot of residential accommodation, it asks what is needed along with that accommodation and whether green open spaces, play facilities and so on are required. With these exemptions, accommodation is now being provided in locations where it otherwise would not get through the planning process. We see accommodation in industrial settings. Whatever about doing this on an emergency or temporary basis, this has the potential to go on for years. The human impacts that will have will create very significant issues for people trying to integrate and get on with their lives.
It is different from buildings in an industrial area being transformed en masse into residential accommodation, when there is underutilisation in an industrial estate, and all the facilities being put in and so on. We are talking about converting individual units in an industrial setting and it will potentially happen for five years.
I take fire safety seriously. It is not good practice for a State body to be involved in contracting accommodation where there have been breaches and for it then to look for extensions of exempted development status. The regulations are there to protect and save lives. Fire safety regulations came in after more than 40 young people lost their lives in the Stardust. They are there for a reason. Regardless of the exempted development status, I accept that accommodation must comply with fire safety regulations, but it does not give confidence when extending exempted development status.
In general, when looking at extensions of exempted development status, we ask whether the previous exemptions have worked well and whether standards have been complied with. A practice of them being breached or non-compliance with important standards such as fire safety is an alarm bell that extending exempted development in this area is not the right approach, as this sector has shown it is not capable of dealing responsibly with the trust, if you like, that is given by a development being exempted. The Minister of State's explanations draw this out. The approach - that the providers are looking for this - shows that the hands-off approach of lowering standards or bringing in or extending exempted development, because that is what the market is asking for or what the providers want, is the wrong approach. If anything, it speaks to a need for a more hands-on approach from the State in providing and sourcing accommodation. I know there are challenges with that.
Can we see the ongoing review the Minister of State referenced? Has any report of it been made? If so, can it, or they, be shared? Will the Minister of State share the reports of the ongoing review or tell the committee more about it, how it reports and what it has found?
The Department of the Taoiseach has set up a dedicated accommodation working group. It will consider all strands of accommodation for people who are beneficiaries of temporary and international protection, including Ukrainians. A review is ongoing. The regulations have only been up and running since last November. However, I will go back to the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, about it. He is the lead Minister in our Department on this issue. The Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth has direct responsibility for this. On the points that are coming up, some changes have been made as regards the refurbishment of properties. We are also looking for own-door accommodation where possible and for there to be adequate recreational space, as the Deputy referred to earlier.
The regulations are relatively new. A dedicated working group has been established which is conducting an ongoing review and I undertake to follow up on it on behalf of the committee.
When will the committee get a written report from the ongoing review?
I cannot answer that because the regulations are relatively recent. Furthermore everything has been about an emergency response. The request we got was on foot of the humanitarian subcommittee's statement that the current structures for securing accommodation do not allow it to get the requisite emergency accommodation. The Deputy raised further points, which are valid and I undertake to go back to the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, and the Department of the Taoiseach in order to be able to come back to the Deputy with information about where the review is and when it will be concluded. I have no doubt the committee will follow up on it anyway.
I appreciate the response. I will leave it at this. It sounds vague. We are being told about an ongoing review but that is all.
Absolutely.
I have two brief questions before I bring the Deputy in. We have a briefing to attend at 4 p.m.
On the matter of fees and pre-planning for flexibility - we legislated for that flexibility around this time last year - has guidance been given to planning authorities on how to judge flexibility in those?
What will happen is that the regulations will be signed. Following that, we will commence the sections of the Act that have to be commenced and then a circular will be issued by the Department.
The regulations will commence that Part of the Planning and Development, Maritime and Valuation (Amendment) Act 2022.
These regulations will enable the Minister to commence the sections of the Planning and Development, Maritime and Valuation (Amendment) Act 2022. The final part is that the Department will issue a circular to the local authorities giving guidance on interpreting the legislation and regulations. It the standard approach.
Will the Minister of State confirm I correctly understood the discussion on planning exemptions, fire certificates and so on? Fire certificates and all other certificates must be in order for a commencement notice to be issued. A commencement notice does not have to be issued to do this, so how can we ensure the fire certification is appropriate and valid?
The developer has to notify the local authority that works are commencing. Then the local authority will inspect the work to ensure it is to the appropriate requisite standard.
Okay. There is a parallel process. It is not a commencement notice. There is a notification to the local authority that the developer is availing of the exemption to convert accommodation. There is a fire certificate and that has to be-----
Yes, and the local authority will then do the inspection.
I have a quick question, a comment and a request to the committee. So that I am getting my facts right, am I correct that the original exempted development status for accommodation for people with temporary protection was for three years and for people with international protection was for two years?
It is important to understand that the quality of the accommodation we are talking about is significantly below that of direct provision or standard homeless emergency accommodation, for example. I know that because I go in and out of a few of these facilities. In general, these are large rooms with multiple beds or bunk beds in large communal spaces with outdoor portaloos and limited communal cooking or recreational facilities. It is even more basic than the basic level of emergency accommodation in direct provision. Due to the challenges that face the international protection accommodation service, we are seeing significant overcrowding in some of these facilities, including people sleeping on floors or on dining chairs that have been put beside each other. That is what we are talking about. My big concern is that the vast majority of this accommodation is not for people fleeing the war in Ukraine. To date, it has been for people seeking international protection. I have no objection to that whatsoever, but it is not an emergency. We have known we have not had sufficient capacity in the direct provision system for many years. The stresses on that system have been growing year on year since 2018. What will happen if this is extended to January 2029, as Senator Fitzpatrick said, is that we will fill these buildings with people. The standard of accommodation is inferior to the already substandard accommodation of direct provision. If we are lucky enough to be re-elected to this body, we will be having a conversation about what to do then. That is where we are going to be. I understand that the significant number of people fleeing Russia's unjust war in Ukraine has placed significant pressure on the system. I get that. It is more than 80,000 people. That is significant. However, the majority of the accommodation these exemptions apply to currently is not for Ukrainians, but for people in the international protection system. That is a fact.
My big worry is at a time when we are meant to be reducing direct provision and creating own-door human rights-compliant accommodation, we are just repeating history and creating a second tier of substandard direct provision accommodation under the guise of temporary exempted developments. That is not the Minister of State's portfolio. It is not Terry's challenge. He has enough challenges in life keeping him up at night for that. I really want to put on record that I am deeply concerned at the approach here. So people are under no illusion, it is not on any basis objecting to the State doing the right thing in terms of providing good quality accommodation to people fleeing war or persecution from anywhere in the world. In line with Senator Fitzpatrick and Deputy Cian O'Callaghan, I think we are creating a whole set of other problems. Why are we doing this? In fairness to the Minister of State, he has been very straight. The commercial operators of these buildings now know what the actual cost is to meet basic levels of fire safety. They are not willing to enter into six-month, 12-month or two-year agreements. They want a five-year agreement because it is only over five years that they can make a return and cover their costs for bringing things up to a basic standard.
Here we are in a short hour having a discussion around this. This committee has always been constructive when it comes to these issues. Our committee needs to put in an urgent request to the two Departments and their officials at the earliest opportunity that our schedule allows after the recess, which we can discuss at our next private meeting, to have the two Departments here and to have a full and frank discussion around where this is all going. I am deeply uncomfortable with what we are being asked to do. I want to do the right thing; I think all members here probably share this view. However, if I am lucky enough to be re-elected and to be sat here in 2028 or 2029, I do not want, in addition to having 7,000 people in direct provision, to have another 7,000 or 8,000 people in lower tier commercial building accommodation, and to be trying to work out what we do with those 15,000 people. That is before we even start talking about the 5,000 men, women and children accommodated by IPAS who should not be in that system but who cannot get out because of the housing crisis. I ask the Cathaoirleach to take on board the concerns. With no disrespect to the Minister of State, we need to have the senior Ministers responsible for these matters who sit at the Cabinet table, and their officials, before the committee. I am really worried about where all of this is going. I am not standing in the way but the Cathaoirleach can see my concern and the concern of other members. We need to return to this as a matter of urgency after the recess.
That is a reasonable request and something I will certainly take back.
It is a request to our committee rather than to the Minister of State but the committee appreciates the Minister of State's support.
It is something we would be very supportive of as a Department.
Members are unanimous in our concern about this issue. I would go so far as to say that we object to extending these exemptions at this point. We recognise the ask and it is based on humanitarian grounds but we need the Departments to come back to us very swiftly. We need them to be very conservative in their use of these exemptions until such time as they can demonstrate the quality of what is being provided.
I thank the Senator. I thank the Minister of State and his officials. Members have had the opportunity to consider the draft regulations.