I thank the Chairman. A long list of questions have been asked. I might answer some of them myself and I shall pass the remainder to my colleagues, Mr. Terry Sheridan and Mr. Niall Cussen, as needed.
I shall address some of the points raised by the institute in the first instance. A question was asked about whether there has been a move towards a centralisation policy. The action plan on housing has identified and acknowledged that we have a dysfunctional market, a crisis and a need to accelerate and expand all forms of delivery. It is solely within that context that the legislation has been framed; it is not a lever to start drawing other things inwards. It is very clearly defined within a band of 100-plus housing units and for a time-limited period as well.
The importance of the local function of spatial planning and policy has been acknowledged. That remains the case because under the system, through the development plan, the local area plan and other processes, it is the function of the local authorities to provide that context. Applications submitted under this system will only be considered where the lands have been zoned or had local area planning within that process. We do not assume that lands will jump and shall not pre-empt any decisions that will be taken as to the appropriateness of those locations for housing development as members and others will have signalled.
Some of the other issues raised are more cogent and relevant to the root-and-branch review, which is obviously a policy issue separate from the Bill. I can assure the committee that as part of this broad review of planning, a lot of the issues that have been flagged will be considered. We have not set the broad terms for planning. The action plan states it will be a root-and-branch review of all aspects of planning. I am sure that the Department would be happy to engage with the institute, other public bodies and this committee in terms of trying to elicit many views on what is working and what can be done to further enhance the system. Perhaps a lot of those issues are not relevant to the core of the legislation.
Having the public involved in decision-making was mentioned and it is a view reflected by other members of the committee. As Mr. Sheridan has outlined, there will be a full opportunity, on the same basis as currently available, for third parties or interested parties to submit their views. The fees will be no more. In fact, fees are not covered in the primary Act and are always covered in regulations. The fees in respect of applications, third-party observations and prescribed bodies all will be dealt with in the regulations that will follow and flow from the Act. We can give assurances that the current rates charged for making a submission to a local authority planning application will be exactly the same, if not less than or no more than, what goes to An Bord Pleanála, which is €20 as it stands.
The delays associated with strategic infrastructure and the controversy and issues that may have been generated at local level have been flagged. We are using, in very broad terms, the structure and process associated with strategic infrastructure but very much recognise these applications are not of the same complexity. In all cases they will not involve an environmental impact assessment, EIA, because it would require a much longer period.
In response to the point made by Deputy Casey, as part of the initial pre-consultation process that will be formalised between the board, the local authority and the proposer of the development, the assessment as to whether an EIA is required will be decided then. If an EIA is required the process will take longer because it would involve a full environmental impact statement, EIS, as required. It means that it would be premature to lodge an application with the board until such time as the EIS and the assessment by the board could be delivered.
In terms of issues around resources for the board, of course that is not a matter for the Bill. The Minister has signalled in the past and in our discussions with the board, it already has signalled the requirements in terms of administrative and technical supports, to create a strategic housing unit. The board is engaged with the Department and as we are prepared to fully stock the board with the necessary skills and supports to ensure it can fulfil the mandatory timeline, that should not be an issue. By the time this Bill is enacted the board will have an operating strategic unit set up and will be ready to deal with all applications from day one.
On the question of compliance and enforcement timeframes, the local authorities will be the enforcement authorities. The timelines that apply elsewhere in the Bill will apply to enforcing developments.
On the question of increased costs for developers, that is a substantial issue that will be dealt with as part of a broader issue of costs in the system and the ability of the system to capture the full costs of dealing with applications. In the context of reform around e-planning and the submission of online applications and appeals, we need to reflect on the real costs to the system but it is important that a portion of any fees that will go to An Bord Pleanála in respect of an application under the strategic housing initiative, will be released to the local authorities to cover the costs they would have incurred in engaging with, supporting and assessing the application during both the pre-application and in its formal assessment of any submissions received and in making its report to the board as part of its decision making. If a local authority can demonstrate that it spends X amount of time and resources to deal with that, it should be entitled to a portion of the costs from the fees that a developer would pay.
As Senator Boyhan is not present, I will deal with the points he raised when he returns. On the question of ready to go sites raised by Deputy Ó Broin, I will pass to Mr. Niall Cussen who may have more information, but I can give general information. There were 18 applications in the course of 2016. We have the information on a spread sheet and we are happy to share that with committee members who can look at the timelines and dates. As Mr. Cussen said, we took a snapshot from 2016, reflecting the most recent activity. If members would like further information from previous years, we will look at that, recognising that the figures would be fewer and fewer as one goes back when there was not a significant level of planning activity.
On the issue of requests for further information, Mr. Niall Cussen will be able to address that issue. It is recognised that it arises from a combination and not just from one issue, whether it is developers who might not be providing the right level of information or, it might be, as reflected in our presentation, that local authorities are assigning conditions, where in many cases the conditions might be too detailed or excessive and when appealed to An Bord Pleanála it may have considered and reduced some of those conditions. It is probably a combination of that but Mr. Cussen has some further information on that issue.
On the issue of the 10% loan charge, it is the last 10% to 15% of the funding that tends to be the higher cost. Of those who have been able to secure planning permission on zoned land, they are still paying for that last bit and it is the final amount of a high value and potentially high risk funding that tends be transferred into the costs, but Mr. Cussen might be able to elaborate on some of those issues.
The ability of An Bord Pleanála to make detailed assessment through the pre-application consultation is the reason we have structured the nine week mandatory period, putting the local authorities which has all that information central, both in terms of engaging with An Bord Pleanála and with the developer but also in providing a report to An Bord Pleanála as to whether what is proposed fits with the regional plans, the developments plans and the local area plans and also aligns with the investment programmes in respect of local road and water services. As
Deputy Ó Broin rightly points out that information is crucial to assessing the viability of a project. If An Bord Pleanála or the local authority feel the project is premature in terms of putting it forward, that is a key consideration and will determine in the first instance whether An Bord Pleanála will accept the application or whether it will say that it will not accept the application because the applicant has not met what are seen as minimum criteria. An Bord Pleanála itself will have expertise and can have many of its planners and administrators have worked for the local authority so they understand the process but that is not to dismiss or undermine what will be a key role for the local planning process which has an expertise.
In terms of third party inputs, the issue is two-fold. There will be an opportunity for all interested parties to make their submissions just as they can in relation to any applications, but maybe more crucially, and what has been factored in as Mr. Terry Sheridan has outlined, beyond the initial five week period of the 16 weeks, the local authority has three weeks to make its own submission to An Bord Pleanála as to whether a proposal is correct and in that instance the local authority can access and assess, having regard to local comments that have been made, so not only is the local authority making a submission to An Bord Pleanála on its own views but it can also take account of local members and can also assess whether these are subjective or more fundamental issues associated with it. I will leave the question of environmental impact assessment screening to Mr. Sheridan to deal with.
There are three planning elements in this Bill. There is first, An Bord Pleanála fast track planning, the separate issue of environment impact assessment pre screening process, which we are bringing in to try to facilitate a quicker and more efficient system to deal with issues such as flood relief works, where under EU law there is a requirement to assess whether any project has an environmental impact or a habitats impact and make an appropriate assessment. Within the Irish system if the projects are below a certain threshold they are exempt from planning but they are not exempt from a screening process. By actually bringing in a separate screening process to a planning application, a local authority can assess whether an application does or does not have significant impacts. If it states it does not have then the exempted thresholds apply and a local authority can go and do some works. There is a twofold benefit to this. By confirming and ensuring we are fully compliant with EU law by providing for this screening process, but a screening process that meets the requirements will also enable us to look at the exempted development regulations and the thresholds that currently apply and for the likes of flooding works it is quite a low threshold. lf one can demonstrate there is a system that assesses, whether it is an environment impact assessment requirement or not, then one can raise thresholds in the regulations so that one could allow more not to have to go through the formal planning process. That is a requirement.
If I have not covered all the points, Mr. Terry Sheridan can touch on them. On the question of the Minister's additional powers, I think many of them relate to regulations and the process as to how the system will work and would be quite standard in terms of other procedures and administrative aspects of the work itself.
The third element of the planning that we have not touched on but I think Deputy Ó Broin raised it was the timelines in regard to the Part 8 process. In summary terms and again we can go through it in more detail, there is an initial six weeks process for a public consultation. It is currently eight weeks. Once a proposal for a local authority's own development, including for houses for social housing or any other housing on local authority lands, there will be an initial six week period, then there is a process which is a manager's report and that has to happen in eight weeks. Under the current system, there is no time limit on a chief executive presenting a report to the elected members. We are setting an eight week time period, that the chief executive has to deliver that to the elected members to consider. The elected members then have six weeks in which to consider whether they accept, reject or vary the proposal. The end stop of that 20 week period is that where the elected members fail to make a resolution on the issue, the chief executive's report is deemed to be accepted. It is a 20 week period for the three phases and that is the maximum period.
I see that Senator Boyhan has returned. I might leave it to Mr. Niall Cussen to deal with the levies. I acknowledge that levies are adopted by the elected members so it may be a matter to look at the scale of them that may be more cogent to colleagues in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown itself.
In terms of democracy and engagement with the local council, I had outlined previously the system where an individual, a local authority can fully engage. The local authority will have full powers and controls in relation to zoning in terms of local area plans, LAPs and its decisions as to where it sees land appropriate for housing and at certain scales and at certain densities. Applications under this process will only occur within lands that have been zoned and within the parameters and objectives of the development plan or local area plan.
We feel that full accountability for and control of that process remains in the local area. The process for a third party to make submissions is fully enshrined. The local authority in making its own submission can take account of any submissions that have been presented.
Senator Boyhan asked about the appeals process. The evidence we tried to present in our initial presentation outlines that in many cases the outcome of a decision or an appeal is broadly the same in many instances, perhaps with the exception of a reduction or a slight tweak to some of the conditions. The question is whether the system can be made more efficient by having that engagement and ensuring there is that discussion between the local authority, the board and the developer with the right information.
We are trying to shorten the process and make it more efficient. Bringing the board into it provides an opportunity for a greater consistency of application and consideration, but that is not to say that each of the 31 local authorities would make decisions themselves. We feel this is the right balance given the urgency to deliver on the huge number of sites. The Senator makes a very valid point in the context of the lands that are zoned and have planning permission. As I said at the start, this is not the silver bullet that will fix everything in the planning system.
What we are doing elsewhere in pillar 3 and across the five pillars of the action plan is focused on looking at the cost associated with development, releasing and accessing lands through infrastructure provision, looking at making better use of mixed-tenure developments where a local authority and private AHBs may together develop a better integrated project, and engaging with NAMA over lands that are currently tied up. We hope that all of these together will help to release some of those lands that have potential and planning permissions but are not reaching the market for a range of reasons.
The Senator mentioned some broader issues outside the Bill relating to consolidation of the planning Act and the planning regulator. It goes back to the point raised by the institute about the root-and-branch review. The Bill deals with fairly tight issues. Starting a consolidation of the planning Act is not an easy process, but we have tried to make it as simple and accessible as possible by having a formal-informal consolidation, so to speak, that the Law Reform Commission has actually done - it is on our website. Any amendments made to the planning Act or the planning regulations are integrated into a master document. While it might not formally recognise a consolidation or a simplification of the planning Act, we have tried to make it as accessible as possible through the Department's website.
The planning regulator is obviously a key element of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill which is on Second Stage in the Dáil. That primarily relates to the Mahon tribunal recommendations and the establishment of the office of the planning regulator. As part of any root-and-branch review that will happen early next year, it will take account of the functions the Department, the board, the planning regulator and the local authorities should have.
Deputy Casey asked about the nine weeks and the consultation. He might have slightly mixed up the EIA for the screening process and what happens within the nine-week period. The nine-week statutory period will involve an assessment of whether a project needs an EIA. That will be determined in consultation with the board and the local authority. So both sides will be able to determine if it is of a scale or a far bigger project. If it is an EIA, it would not even be ready for submission to the board until the EIS has been prepared and further analysis done. It almost kicks a project back. If it is for EIS, it will not actually be ready to go into the system and that is where the pre-consultation is so vital.
As I mentioned the fees are covered in the regulations, so there is no reference to the issues there.
I will let Mr. Cussen deal with some of the items, followed by Mr. Sheridan.
