May I raise a point of order?
Planning and Development Bill 2023: Second Stage
Is it a point of order?
It is a point of order. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle can tell me-----
What is the point of order?
The point of order is that 20 minutes are allocated to the Minister. Is that correct?
Twenty minutes have been allocated to the Minister in the context of introducing a Bill-----
I am not sure it is a point of order. It sounds like a point of information. I will leave it to the Ceann Comhairle.
The Bill is 700 pages long. Normally, the procedure would be that the Minister, as well as any general explanation, would take us through every section of the Bill. Maybe the Minister will surprise me and state that he is going to take us through all 541 sections of the Bill in his 20-minute slot, but I would be highly surprised if that were the case.
It is just indicative of the lack of time and lack of opportunity for proper scrutiny by the House of this Bill of enormous proportions and of huge scope.
I thank the Deputy and he has made his point. We will have less time if we do not begin.
Tá mé sásta an cheist sin a fhreagairt.
Yes. Ar aghaidh leat.
First, I appreciate all the work that everyone has put into this Bill, including the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The Chairman is here, as are many of the members who have been heavily involved in this Bill as it was brought forward and was being produced. We have had extensive input into it. There is no truncation of the Second Stage process at all. I do not intend to read every single section but I intend to provide a good outline and overview of it. Second Stage will run into next week as well, as will Committee Stage, and the full process of both the Dáil and the Seanad will be used. We are in no way, shape or form rushing what is really important legislation. The time of the Houses is best served to listen to Second Stage speeches. There was a briefing held again today by officials. Deputy O'Callaghan was there as well. There will be further briefing for the joint committee. This is the third largest piece of legislation since the State was founded and I will give a good overview in the House today. We will take feedback from Members. We want people to engage on this constructively as people have heretofore. I do not see that there is any truncation of the process at all, to be honest.
The Minister should take us through every section.
Well I am not going to do that.
That is what the Christmas break is for.
The Minister should be taking us through every section of the Bill.
It is not for the Deputy to decide what the Minister does or does not do. On you go, Minister.
I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
It is difficult to understate the importance that planning plays in almost every aspect of our day-to-day lives. Good planning can deliver generational benefits that will last many lifetimes. Blockages within the planning system can delay critical infrastructure such as housing, renewable energy, transport, and even discourage development from coming forward for consideration. Planning is, by its essence, a complex process. It balances the wider needs of society and the common good with the concerns of individuals; considers the environmental, social and economic merits of a proposed development; expertly weighs up the array of technical documentation; while also taking into account the critical input of citizens, stakeholders and environmental NGOs, among others.
Each planning decision is decided on its own merits, accounting for the unique environment and set of circumstances to which it relates. It is in this context that, in 2021, the Government instigated a review of the Planning and Development Act 2000. There is no doubt the planning landscape has changed profoundly over the past quarter of a century, and therefore it was clear that the legislation underpinning the planning system required a major overhaul. Some have criticised the length it has taken to do this work while others have suggested the process has been rushed. The truth is this work has been conducted methodically, in the first instance underpinned by a 15-month review by the Attorney General, informed by dozens of key stakeholder voices in the planning arena in particular, put under the microscope in the form of a draft Bill at the beginning of the year, and then subject to an extensive three-month pre-legislative scrutiny process within this House.
Throughout, we have ensured the Bill remains aligned to our European and environmental obligations while also protecting public participation, which is the hallmark of our planning system. All of the scrutiny, review, debate and analysis that has taken place has been welcomed, considered and deliberated to produce the Bill before us today, the third largest in the history of the State. Through this Bill, I am enhancing clarity, improving consistency and increasing confidence in the planning system. I am achieving this through the alignment of national, regional and local tiers of planning, encouraging public debate and participation at the plan-making stage, and through the review and refinement of many of the processes, parameters and timelines of the current planning system.
I will now go through some of the pillar reforms within the Bill to demonstrate how it will form the cornerstone of the planning system for the coming decades. The national planning framework will continue to spearhead the planning agenda in Ireland and the Bill proposes a plan-led system and structure whereby all tiers of planning, from regional to local, align with the strategic objectives set out in the national planning framework. Put simply, lower order plans will be required to align with higher order plans, with development plans aligned to regional strategies and, in turn, to the national planning framework and national planning statements, and with the area-based plans aligned to the development plans. Ministerial guidelines will be updated to be replaced by national planning statements. These statements will be subject to consultation and approval by Government and provide much greater clarity, whereby alignment with national planning policies and measures will be mandatory, whereas the associated guidance that will outline how these policies should be implemented, will be discretionary in nature. This will allow the system to remain responsive to change and allow Government policy to inform project and programme delivery throughout the life cycle of the NPF.
To ensure consistency in a timely manner, there will also be a process to expedite review of development plans after any changes to the NPF or when new planning statements are introduced, to make sure that the system remains in alignment. These provisions also greatly improve scope for the various tiers of the planning system to more closely relate to one another, thereby providing greater clarity and consistency for all involved, from individual citizens to residents' groups to landowners to developers and, ultimately where necessary, to the courts, which have become the final arbiter of some planning decisions in recent years. Development plans will have a ten-year lifespan rather than the current six-year lifespan and will be more strategic in nature than under the 2000 Act. An interim review of the development plan will occur in year 5 to take account of wider changes since the plan was prepared and to allow it to be updated if required. This will provide both more up-to-date and strategic plans and greater certainty that there is sufficient zoned land available at all times to align with the needs of housing and economic development and, again, provide much greater certainty over a longer period for all stakeholders and all our citizens. The ten-year cycle, with five-year reviews, will mean that every elected member will be involved, at minimum, in either the making of the development plan or the review and possible amendment via the interim review. Local area plans will be replaced by specific types of area-based plans, to better enable local authority objectives to be prioritised, rather than simply being mandatory in nature and drawing resources where not always most needed. I also reassure Deputies that the provisions relating to allotments, which had been inadvertently omitted from the draft Bill in January, have been restored in line with the current Act.
There will be a clearer distinction between different categories of consents, and, most importantly, statutory time periods will be introduced for decision-making for all consent processes, including, for the first time, for an coimisiún pleanála. This will bring increased certainty to the planning consent process for both the public and stakeholders involved in the delivery of key infrastructure such as housing and renewable energy. The headline time periods for an coimisiún pleanála will range from 18 weeks for appeals of decisions of planning authorities on smaller scale development proposals to 48 weeks for larger scale strategic infrastructure developments. The varying timelines reflect the differing complexities of applications dealt with by an coimisiún. These timelines will be introduced on a phased basis, starting with those for strategic infrastructure developments, and that includes energy and transport projects. There will also be a system of proportionately escalating measures in place if the commission does not make decisions within the mandatory timeframes set out.
There will be a new organisational structure for the board, which will be renamed an coimisiún pleanála, and three central pillars. There will be the planning commissioners, who will be responsible for all decision-making regarding appeals and applications made to them under the new Bill. There will be a separate corporate structure which, led by an overall CEO, a strengthened management team and organisational structure, will undertake all organisational and technical functions to support the core decision-making role. There will also be the governing body, which will be responsible for the governance and performance of the organisation.
Government is already backing these reforms with resources to match the ambition. Since October 2021, I have agreed to 117 new staffing posts in An Bord Pleanála, 93 of these within the past 12 months.
When all the approved posts are filled, more than 300 people will be employed by the board. This will represent an increase in the overall agreed staffing of An Bord Pleanála by in excess of 50% since 2021. The board now has a full statutory complement of 15 members, more than ever before, and arrangements are in place for the new recruitment process for permanent board members, including the chairperson, who will become the chief executive-designate.
The planning process is influential as the gateway through which all major development proposals must be validated. Increased complexity and risk of litigation have placed significant demands at all levels and mean greater levels of input are required than in previous years to deliver comparable outcomes.
The staffing increases approved at An Bord Pleanála are also required at local authority level and for marine planning. I am preparing a ministerial action plan to support this approach, which will set out a series of actions to be delivered on by stakeholders. In addition to the need for increased resourcing of the public sector planning service and matters relating to recruitment and retention of staff, there is a need to develop education and training initiatives to increase the availability of personnel with the necessary skills and expertise in planning and related professions across the public and private sectors.
Another crucial area of reform this Bill introduces is a range of reforms to the judicial review of planning cases. To be clear, there is an important role for judicial reviews within our planning system, one that will, appropriately, remain in this Bill. However, the number of judicial review cases has grown significantly and in a manner that is delaying delivery of housing and critical infrastructure such as wind energy and housing delivery. We introduce these reforms conscious of the need to protect the role of judicial review and our obligations to ensure access to justice under the Aarhus Convention. In the first instance, by moving to a more truly planning-led system and ensuring greater consistency of approach with regard to planning policy, it is intended that this will reduce the scope for material contravention of plans and policies in subsequent planning decisions. It is therefore envisaged that, in time, there will be fewer instances of judicial review.
To improve clarity to the processes and parameters of judicial review, sufficient interest, or standing rights, and provisions relating to the grounds for such challenges have been reviewed. Applicants will no longer need to apply to the High Court for leave to take a judicial review case, which will save time and cut expenses while improving access to justice. Another important change is the inclusion of a provision for so-called unincorporated organisations, such as residents' associations, to take a judicial review, subject to certain criteria, including taking a vote of members. This will serve to ensure transparency within the system while accommodating the important role of residents' associations. Environmental non-governmental organisations will still enjoy special status within the Bill, aligned to our commitments under the Aarhus Convention and subject to certain criteria.
The Bill also introduces provisions relating to the costs associated with judicial review to ensure they are not prohibitively expensive, in line with the Aarhus Convention. First, there will be a scale of fees for all planning-related judicial reviews, and a successful applicant can seek his or her costs back from the respondent in line with that scale. Second, a new environmental legal costs financial assistance mechanism will be established. Where applicants for judicial review are unsuccessful in a case or do not receive costs, they will be able to apply to the mechanism for a contribution to their costs, depending on their circumstances. This will improve access to justice by removing a significant cost barrier in what is acknowledged to be a high-cost legal environment. The scheme will be administered and regulated by my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, who will also set the scale of fees. The introduction of these cost measures will bring a level of certainty and predictability to the State's exposure to judicial review costs while not limiting or diminishing in any way the important role judicial review plays within the Irish planning system.
I also intend to introduce an amendment on Committee Stage relating to the duration of planning permissions to ensure that, where a judicial review is taken in relation to a consent and is unsuccessful, the duration can be extended by the period of time the judicial review application was under way.
The Bill provides for urban development zones, UDZs, in place of any new SDZs. This will facilitate the identification of areas with potential for significant development, including housing, to ensure the opportunities can be maximised and development can take place in a timely manner. These arrangements will provide for fast-track planning in accordance with an approved scheme. It is intended that the UDZ designation will be applicable to large-scale areas in single or multiple land ownership that could include public and-or private lands and transport-led development areas and are intended to be a focus for State investment to ensure development, including housing delivery at scale, can be progressed.
I will now outline the main provisions of the Bill. It consists of 23 Parts and six Schedules.
Part 1 contains provisions of a general nature, including definitions.
Part 2 re-enacts certain provisions of Part 1 of the Act of 2000, with modifications, and includes the definitions of "development" and "exempted development".
Part 3 deals with plans, policies and related matters and is set out in six Chapters. This Part includes definitions; details on the preparation and review of the national planning framework; the introduction of national planning statements and the preparation of the various tiers of planning, including regional spatial and economic strategies; and the making of a development plan and area plans by each planning authority, which provides the framework within which all planning decisions are made.
Part 4 sets out the procedures for consent for the four categories of consent application. They are standard applications to planning authorities; applications directly to an coimisiún pleanála; alterations, extensions and revocations of permissions; and local authority and State authority development. It also sets out the mandatory timelines for decision-making by the commission.
Part 5 restates, with minor modification, the provisions inserted into the Act of 2000 by the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019.
Part 6 relates to environmental assessment and sets out the procedures for conducting environmental impact assessments and appropriate assessments.
Part 7 will replace Part V of the Act of 2000 with only very minor modifications. It will continue to include provisions for housing supply as part of the planning system as well as the preparation of housing strategies by planning authorities to ensure sufficient social, affordable and cost-rental housing is provided in their areas.
Part 8 relates to miscellaneous powers of planning authorities, including control of development, taking in charge, acquisitions, areas of special amenity and public rights of way.
Part 9 relates to judicial review. It sets out the processes regarding the taking of a judicial review as well as providing for the establishment of the environmental legal financial assistance mechanism.
Part 10 concerns the protection of architectural heritage.
Part 11 concerns the enforcement of the planning code and the prosecution of offences arising under the Bill. It provides for the establishment of regional enforcement authorities to allow enforcement of certain types of development such as quarries and peat extraction to be dealt with on a regional basis.
Part 12 relates to appeal procedures, the planning register and records, and miscellaneous powers and procedures. This Part assembles various powers and procedures relating to the function of the legislative regime, provision for which has been made in various Parts and Chapters of the Act of 2000.
Parts 13 and 14 deal with appropriation, disposal and development of land, and compulsory purchase and acquisitions, respectively. They generally re-enact the provisions of Part 14 of the Act of 2000, and most provisions are largely unchanged. Reform of this area will take place in future legislation that takes into account the recently published report of the Law Reform Commission on that matter.
Part 15 sets out the rules on compensation and generally re-enacts the provisions of Part 12 of the Act of 2000. Most provisions are largely unchanged, although there are some material amendments and restructuring of the sections.
Part 16 provides for the licensing of certain outdoor events and funfairs by a local authority and broadly replicates Part 16 of the 2000 Act.
Part 17 provides a new organisational structure for An Bord Pleanála, separating its decision-making and corporate-organisational roles. The board is renamed an coimisiún pleanála.
Part 18 relates to the Office of the Planning Regulator, which has powers to evaluate and carry out assessments relating to planning matters and provide observations and recommendations on those matters, to conduct reviews and examinations, and to conduct education and training programmes and research on planning matters.
It replaces Part 11 B of the Act of 2000.
Part 19 sets out further provisions relating to planning bodies, including codes of conduct and requirements regarding matters relating to beneficial interests.
Part 20 sets out financial provisions relating to planning authorities, including the power to set fees and arrangements regarding development contributions.
Part 21 restates certain provisions of Part 9 of the Act of 2000 in relation to strategic development zones already designated prior to the commencement of the relevant provisions in this Act.
Part 22 relates to urban development zones and sets out the arrangements for the identification of suitable sites, the inclusion of candidate urban development zones within a development plan, the designation of urban development zones by Government and the making of a development scheme for all or part of the area.
Schedules 1 and 2 deal with Chapter 4 development. Schedules 3 to 6 relates to compensation, including the rules for determination of compensation and reasons for which compensation is excluded. Schedule 7 relates to compulsory purchase. While largely unchanged, the schedules have been updated to take account of changes made in this Bill.
At this stage, Members will have a sense of the scale, complexity and interdependence in the legislative framework for the operation of planning in Ireland. The Bill before them is the product of an already massive collective effort by the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, a wide range of Departments, in particular my Department and I thank the officials who have worked so diligently on this very important Bill for well over a year, and input from a diverse range of stakeholders, each of which share a common goal to deliver the best possible planning system for the country.
At its core, the Bill is centred on achieving clarity, certainty and consistency in our planning system. I am committed to building cross-party support in this critical area. It is vital we embed structural changes in our planning system to help tackle the need for more housing and improved infrastructure and to urgently address climate change. I will bring forward a number of amendments on Committee Stage. In particular these amendments will deal with transitional provisions to move the planning system from provisions of the 2000 Act to those under the new Bill, as well as relating to the organisational structure of the Office of the Planning Regulator and the extension of duration for consents that have been subject to judicial review, as I have already mentioned. There will be also a number of technical amendments, including relating to compensation in the maritime area and refinements to Part 6 relating to environmental assessment.
Legitimate policy disagreements are the beating heart of political debate. However, politics can also reach consensus on badly needed change to meet shared goals. In turn, I will consider openly the input of the Members of the House, as I have done throughout this process. I will seek to respond to specific questions and engage further on Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House. Go raibh maith agaibh.
A good planning system is vital for any well-functioning society. It enables us to plan and to build in a co-ordinated and sustainable way to provide houses, schools, hospitals and transport infrastructure, to create and sustain jobs, to ensure our businesses and communities have access to renewable energy, and to protect our urban and rural environment.
Much of our planning system works well but decades of underfunding of our planning authorities by the Government, alongside years of bad Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael planning legislation have created problems that must be addressed. There are too many delays in our planning system, particularly in An Bord Pleanála. There are too many conflicting sets of planning laws and rules that create conflict in our planning system and lead to litigation. The transposition of EU environmental legislation too often has been partial and inadequate, leading to bad planning decisions and regular European Commission infringement proceedings, along with hefty fines.
There are too many delays in long-promised regulations, whether for wind energy or rural planning, leading to inconsistency across local authorities and confusion for applicants and communities. Much needed planning and environmental legislation for our marine area, including the marine protected areas Bill have been, and continue to be, delayed. This undermines the delivery of much-needed offshore wind energy and the protection and restoration of our marine biodiversity.
Too often communities rightly feel excluded or insufficiently equipped to positively shape planning outcomes. Instead they are forced into a zero-sum conflict on individual planning applications. Like so many other areas of government policy, the challenges and problems in our planning system today are a result of bad decisions by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Of course it does not have to be this way. Sinn Féin has long campaigned for a planning system that meets the social, economic and environmental needs of our society. We want a planning system that delivers good quality planning decisions in a timely manner. These decisions must be made following meaningful public participation. The planning system must work in a manner that allows the State to meet the social and economic needs of society. This must be done in a way that allows us to meet our Paris Agreement emissions reduction targets for 2030 and 2050 and halt and reverse an unprecedented level of biodiversity loss.
We urgently need new homes, schools, hospitals, public transport routes, and wind and solar energy. These can be delivered in a way that does not deepen the climate and biodiversity crisis. To achieve this we need to undo decades of underresourcing of our planning system and decades of planning legislation by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. For too long local authority planning departments, An Bord Pleanála and the courts have been chronically understaffed. While there has been some improvement in staffing sanctions for An Bord Pleanála only half of these have been recruited and more are needed. The situation for our local planning authority is less positive, with limited new sanctions only just approved and chronic understaffing in our planning and housing departments. Likewise, the Government has promised to increase the number of judges dealing with planning cases but this is yet to materialise.
The consequence of this persistent understaffing is significant delays in planning decisions, particularly at An Bord Pleanála. A total of 60% of the board's decisions are delayed, some for two years or more. Rushed planning is bad planning but nobody benefits from these lengthy delays. This was made all the worse by a series of bad planning legislation, often rushed through the Oireachtas by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. The strategic housing development mandatory ministerial guidelines on building heights and apartment designs, two sets of substitute consent legislation and transitional arrangements for large-scale residential developments have all caused chaos in planning system. Too often, particularly under the current Minister, complex planning legislation has been introduced in the dying days of a Dáil term as Report Stage amendments to other Bills, leaving little or no time for meaningful scrutiny. Despite significant efforts on the part of Opposition parties submitting hundreds of amendments to planning legislation in good faith and in order to improve on Government proposals, the Minister, like his predecessor, rarely listens.
The consequence of all of this has been the creation of multiple layers of conflict between Europe, central government, local authority planning and environmental law, rules and practice. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the disaster of the combination of the strategic housing development and a series of controversial section 28 mandatory ministerial guidelines introduced by Fine Gael in 2018 with the full support of Fianna Fáil. This toxic combination created unprecedented levels of conflict between planning applicants, local authorities and communities. An Bord Pleanála repeatedly made bad planning decisions that were legally unsound and, in turn, were challenged in the courts. In the majority of cases the courts upheld the judicial reviews yet An Bord Pleanála continued on this disastrous course. As a consequence, the State is now paying out up to €10 million per year in legal costs for lost cases.
Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael planning policy has resulted in bad planning decisions, increased litigation and significant planning decision delay. While the Minister eventually replaced the strategic housing development process with a return to local authority-led decision-making on large-scale residential developments he added to the problem with ill-conceived transitional arrangements and left the legally questionable ministerial guidelines in place.
Underresourcing and bad legislation are the issues that lie at the heart of the challenges in our planning system. I want to tell the Minister that Sinn Féin is up for fixing this. When the Minister announced his intention early last year to review and consolidate the Planning and Development Act 2000 we welcomed it as an opportunity for much-needed reform. We welcomed and engaged positively and constructively with the officials and all affected sectors throughout 2022.
We were disappointed but not surprised, as the Minister's much-hyped deadlines for publication and passage of the legislation came and went. When, eventually, an incomplete draft Bill was published in February of this year, the members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage worked constructively to conduct an intense period of pre-legislative scrutiny. Ten meetings were held in five weeks, running across 30 hours of hearings.
You said it was rushed.
During the course of those hearings, significant criticism was levelled at the process by which the Bill was drafted and its contents. Some of the most damning criticism came from our planning professionals and the legal experts who work in the area of planning law. Others, including local authorities, developers, community organisations and environmental NGOs, also highlighted profound deficiencies with the process and, more importantly, the substance of the Bill. The committee's report, published in March, contained more than 150 recommendations, demonstrating the scale of change needed with the Bill. Indeed, Sinn Féin would have liked these committee recommendations to have gone much further.
Despite the joint committee undertaking the pre-legislative scrutiny in a timely manner, the finalisation of the Bill was greatly delayed. We were told by the Minister himself that it would be published before the Dáil's summer recess. Then it was to be at the start of September. Finally, a memo went to the Cabinet in early October, but the Bill was not actually published until last week. At a private briefing with departmental officials this week, members of the housing committee learned the Bill is still not complete and significant additions will be brought forward as amendments on Committee Stage. This week, the Minister wrote to my colleague Deputy Eoin Ó Broin-----
No, I did not. I wrote to-----
-----and other Opposition spokespersons, seeking to work on a cross-party basis, across Government and Opposition, to get this Bill right.
-----Deputy Cian O'Callaghan as well.
I am sorry, but this is my time. Can we keep that until after? I thank the Minister.
Carry on. This is great stuff.
Given the Minister's form to date, it is not unreasonable for the Opposition to take this offer with more than a pinch of salt, but Sinn Féin is willing to work constructively with the Government to undo the damage caused by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and to progressively reform our planning system. In the coming weeks and months, as this Bill passes through the Oireachtas, we will put the Minister's promise to the test to see if it is more of his usual bluster or a genuine offer to work to reach consensus. This has always been Sinn Féin's approach to planning legislation and it will continue to be so in future.
The legislation in front of us is not only one of the longest Bills in the history of this House but also one of the most delayed and, possibly, most controversial.
You said it was rushed, though.
The widespread criticism, not just in the housing committee hearings but also in the wider public debate, is a matter of public record. The big question now is whether the Minister has listened. Has he listened to the experts, to communities, to industry, to environmentalists and to the Opposition? Given that the 700-page Bill was only published last week, we are still carefully analysing the detail of this legislation. However, at this stage, it is clear the Bill is nowhere near ready. Some elements of it are most welcome, while other sections are problematic and in need of modest amendment. However, there are also significant sections that, if enacted as currently written, will make our planning system much worse, leading to more conflict, more poor planning decisions, more litigation and more delay.
Sinn Féin fully supports the move towards a planned approach to planning and development. The sections of the Bill dealing with plan-making in general and with new types of urban area, priority area, and co-ordinated area plans are a positive development. However, further clarity is needed on the process to be used in drafting these plans and their scope. We need to move to a genuinely three-dimensional planning system, based on early and meaningful public participation that gives planning authorities, public and private developers, and communities the clarity and certainty they need.
We welcome the revisions to the urban development zones, from the earlier general scheme of what was originally separate legislation, as a more flexible replacement of the strategic development zones. It is disappointing that the land value sharing proposals have been withdrawn, although we understand these may be brought forward on a later Stage. We also welcome the governance changes to An Bord Pleanála and the introduction of statutory timelines for appeals and decisions. The scandals that rocked the board last year badly damaged the public reputation of a public body with a long track record of good public service. The behaviour of a small number of senior members was not reflective of the overwhelming majority of employees of the board, who have always and continue to operate to high standards. Government policy, as detailed earlier, and Government appointments are part of the context in which this scandal occurred. Significant progress has been made in the last year to address these issues, and we are watching closely to see if the board's decision-making backlog starts to reduce from January 2024.
The restructuring of the organisation is sensible. The implementation of the recommendations of the Office of the Planning Regulator is also welcome. The sections of this legislation dealing with development plans and housing plans, while broadly moving in the right direction, are in need of some amendment. Longer development plans must be combined with a thorough mid-term review, in which elected members of county councils and the wider public can have real input into revising and improving the plans, particularly as circumstances change. It is disappointing that the Government did not take the opportunity available in this Bill to strengthen the housing plan sections to place a greater focus on affordability for workers and families and housing adequacy, particularly for people with disabilities and for Travellers. There must be a stronger statutory obligation on local authorities and central government to address the full housing needs of people with disabilities and wheelchair users. Similarly, the planning recommendations of the expert group on Traveller accommodation should have been and still must be included in this legislation.
The areas where this Bill is most flawed include the sections on national policy statements, additional powers being granted to the planning regulator, the lack of CPO reform on land acquisition and changes to judicial review. It is clear that the Minister has not listened to the planning and legal experts who gave testimony to the housing committee. If he had listened to the detailed exchanges between members of the committee and representatives of the Irish Planning Institute, the environment and planning law committee of the Law Society of Ireland and the Planning, Environmental and Local Government Bar Association of Ireland, he would have heard very loud warnings of the dangers of these sections of the Bill.
As it stands, this legislation risks repeating mistakes of the section 28 mandatory guidelines in the Bill's formulation of the planning policy statements. This would be a grave error, setting our planning system Act back a decade. Of course, the Government must set a State-wide planning policy, but this must be done with adequate Oireachtas oversight, scrutiny and approval. It must also be done in a way that understands the difference between development planning and development management, and in a manner that ensures meaningful public and local government participation.
Similarly, the proposed changes to judicial procedures are very likely to be in breach of the State's international commitments under the Aarhus Convention, as well as a series of EU directives, not to mention natural justice. While the percentage of planning decisions that are judicially reviewed is small, at about 3% of all applications, according to the OPR, it is Sinn Féin's view that such judicial reviews are a result of failures in the planning system and planning law. Attempting to restrict people's access to the courts to vindicate their rights is not only legally and ethically wrong; it also simply will not work. The legal experts who addressed the housing committee made it clear that the real-world impact of the proposed changes in the Bill will lead to an increase in litigation on planning matters, including satellite litigation and appeals to superior and EU courts. If the aim of these sections is to reduce the number of legal challenges to planning applications, the evidence is clear that this will not work and that it will, in fact, have the opposite effect.
Sinn Féin is also very concerned with the significantly increased powers to be granted to the Office of the Planning Regulator and what we believe is the blurring of that office's enforcement role, which we support, and what appears to be a new policy formulation role, which is properly the role of the Government. We are disappointed at the lack of reform of the compulsory purchase order sections and the lack of any sections to assist the State to acquire land for strategic development at an existing use or at a discount from market cost. It is also very disappointing that the Bill has not been used to address the issue of embedded carbon in the built environment, whether to reduce demolition, to increase the reuse of development materials or to measure and reduce the embodied carbon in our building materials and processes. Sinn Féin will be tabling amendments on all these sections and issues, as well as on other issues, such as community gardens and allotments.
The planning system will only work fairly, effectively and efficiently if it guarantees good-quality planning decisions that are made in a timely manner following meaningful public participation. This is the only way to ensure we build the homes, schools and hospitals we need; to provide the underlying water, wastewater, utility and transport infrastructure; and to ramp up the delivery of much-needed renewable energy at the pace required to meet our 2030 renewable energy targets. It is time to get planning right. It is time to undo the mistakes of the recent past. It is time to undo the damage of decades of bad Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael planning policy and practice. It is time to properly resource our planning authorities, An Bord Pleanála and the courts. We can and we must have a 21st century planning system, with a plan-led approach, so that the Government, communities and industry can deliver on the social, economic, environmental and biodiversity needs of our society, not just today and tomorrow but for generations to come.
I welcome the opportunity to debate this important and long-anticipated Bill in the Chamber. We are all very conscious that the planning process has a key impact on addressing the two most major crises faced by our country today, namely the housing disaster and the climate emergency. We know we need robust and effective planning laws in order to deliver the urgently needed increased supply of housing and the necessary infrastructure to enable us to develop our renewable energy sources and meet our climate targets. We are all very conscious of that as we debate the Bill. We are very conscious that the current system is simply not working effectively to deliver on housing or climate infrastructure. We need a robust response.
I have engaged with our local representatives and councillors around the country. They tell me Ireland deserves a best-in-class planning system. We are all in agreement on that, but we need a system that can ensure the rapid scaling-up of the building of homes and installation of essential public infrastructure, especially renewable energy infrastructure.
Regrettably, there are flaws in the Bill as currently drafted. We will seek to amend it. I hope there will be sufficient time and opportunity for us to engage in that constructive process. I do not think I received a letter from the Minister on this, but I am happy to engage with him on the Bill. We are all conscious that this is a massive Bill. The Minister said it is the third largest Bill in the history of the State. I tried to think what the first two were.
The Companies and Taxes Consolidation Acts.
A good deal of the Bill, as we know, restates existing provisions in previous Acts. While I was preparing for the debate on the Bill, I was reminded of a debate on one of its predecessors in 2010 when I was a Senator, namely what became the Planning and Development Act 2010, introduced by Fianna Fáil and the Green Party in government. It was found to have serious issues. However, despite having evident defects it was rushed through both Houses. I recall my frustration at the time when I sat in the Seanad Chamber on the last sitting day before the recess, wading through endless amendments, none of which we had sufficient time to scrutinise as thoroughly as we would have liked. As we approach the Christmas recess with this Bill, I very much hope we will not see that exercise repeated. Significant improvements to the Bill will be needed. I want to identify some of the areas we have examined, albeit that we have had a relatively limited time to peruse the 715 pages in the Bill.
At its core, what we have been presented with, despite undoubted levels of engagement from planners, public representatives and civil society, is still clearly a developer-led Bill which is incapable of carrying out the kind of drastic overhaul of the planning system that is needed. For starters, where is the use-it-or-lose-it clause that we understood would be in it? Where is the clause that would demand that developers act to activate planning permission where granted and consequences where they did not do so? I have previously called for a reduction in the time periods for which planning would remain live from the current five years to three. We understood there would be a provision in the Bill to address that concern about land hoarding. Apparently, however, the provision has been left out of the Bill. That would be a big win for developers but a loss to the public. It is a case of the tail wagging the dog at a time when we need strong State-led action to address what is the civil rights issue of this generation, namely the supply of homes and the fact people cannot access housing.
Today we heard from the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, about shocking increases in rents despite the fact that most of the country is under rent pressure zones. The current system is simply not working and we know that crucial to addressing this is ensuring a supply of more houses and the building of more homes. It is not just about reforming planning in order to make the planning process more efficient; it is also about ensuring that we have the activation of existing planning permissions. It is well known that there are shocking levels of dormant or non-activated planning permissions for homes. At the end of last year, there were more than 100,000 such applications in the State, more than 50,000 of which relate to Dublin where we know the housing crisis is severe.
I speak as a representative of a constituency where nearly half of the properties are rented in the private market. Large numbers of people, including families, are renting privately, many of whom are in fear of losing their homes because of the lack of protections for renters. They are deeply fearful of notices to quit at this time because they cannot even find somewhere to live, never mind whether it is affordable. A sizeable proportion of the people I represent, including renters and those who seek to buy, would much rather have the security of owning their own home but simply cannot access an affordable home anywhere in the area.
In that context, it is utterly unforgivable to see speculators and developers hoarding good land and sitting on sites where planning permission has been granted for homes that could be built for the people who so badly need them. We will seek to introduce measures to ensure the use-it-or-lose-it provision is built into the Bill. We want measures to give effect to the Kenny report, which is now decades old but remains important in terms of addressing the chronic issue of land hoarding. We need to make it an imperative that people act on the planning permissions that are granted. That is crucial and should be a primary objective in the Department of Housing, Heritage and Local Government and a primary focus of the Bill.
There is a discussion to be had as to how much of the 715 pages of the Bill will actually make meaningful changes and how much is simply, as I said, restating existing laws and falling short of what is needed. As the Minister said in his speech, further legislation will come and he spoke about some amendments he will bring forward. The reforms recently recommended by the Law Reform Commission will apparently now take effect through different legislation. The Minister might confirm when it is proposed to bring that forward. I do not think he has given us a timeline. It would be helpful to try to get a picture as to when an entirely new and robust planning system will be in place.
One aspect of the Bill is the establishment of a new planning commission. It will be established from the ashes of An Bord Pleanála, but with an enormous backlog of work already on its hands. We need to know that there will be more here than just a change of name. We need to know that the change will be more substantial. An Bord Pleanála, as we all know, has been in the news for all the wrong reasons over recent months. The actions of a small number of individuals should not have driven a headline change in a name. If it is just an exercise in rebranding, that is simply not good enough. In October, it was reported that the backlog in An Bord Pleanála in deciding appeals has now grown to some 3,600 cases, roughly a whole year's intake. Serious efforts are under way to get through that backlog and many of us have met An Bord Pleanála to discuss this issue. The major critical issue currently facing the board as currently constituted is not the legislation, the legislative process, judicial reviews or NIMBYs; rather, it is a shortage of planners and staff. The Minister acknowledged that in his speech when he referred to hiring more staff. It is, of course, welcome to hear that staff numbers will be increased, but the question remains as to whether that will be enough to address the backlog and deliver on the increased supply that we all know is needed.
I have spoken many times in the House about the shortfall in Government housing targets. When I addressed the Taoiseach on this recently, he acknowledged that there would be a review of the targets and that the figure of 30,000 homes per year is now seen as too low to deal with increased demographic demand. We all know the real need is more like 50,000 to 60,000 new builds a year. We will need not just a change of name and new legislation but, crucially, more planners and staff, as well as people working in construction and whatever new planning system emerges as a result of the Bill and other legislation. The new commission, as envisaged in the Bill, will inherit existing staff. The Minister has said there will be an increase, but will that be enough to take on new roles, deal with the new challenges and deliver the vastly increased supply that we all know is needed? Anyone who speaks across planning and construction raises with us the shortage of planners as a major concern, as well as the shortage of staff generally. We know it is exacerbating the housing crisis and adversely impacting on the demand for development more widely.
It also undermines the function, role and public perception of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and local authorities.
To put it bluntly, people simply do not believe the capacity is there throughout the State, at both local and national level, to deliver the increased levels of housing that are needed. This needs to be addressed, but nothing in the Bill indicates that the historical under-resourcing and understaffing of our planning system is being addressed. If we are putting in new statutory obligations and timeframes, that is welcome, but if we do that without investing the necessary resources, we will undermine credibility in the new system and people's belief in its capacity to deliver on the changes. Given the current backlogs caused, as we know, by the lack of staff and personnel, the intended legislation seems to miss that factor and perhaps ignore it. There is a need for a more holistic view on funding for third level courses and apprenticeships. The Minister stated in his contribution that work is going to be done on this, but it needs to be done rapidly and it should have been happening before now. There needs to be engagement with the Minister for further and higher education and we need to hear what measures are being taken, such as through the critical skills list, to ensure we have the levels of recruitment we are going to need.
This is needed not just to ensure we will meet the demand for housing that we all know exists so patently and painfully throughout the country; it is necessary also for us to build the climate infrastructure that both the Minister and I have spoken about. We cannot meet our 2030 climate change targets, just six and a bit years away now, without making the necessary investment. I have engaged extensively with those working in wind power and solar power and they all tell me planning is the major obstacle to the development of the infrastructure they are keen to develop. There are now many national and international bodies, companies and firms with new technologies and reduced costs for developing solar and offshore wind at scale, with exciting potential, but the planning system has created a real obstacle to progress. In the week of COP28, this should be uppermost in our minds. We need a planning system that is robust enough not just to deliver the increased levels of housing that are needed but also to deliver efficient and effective infrastructure for renewable energy capacity. Again, it is about funding, resources and personnel and not just about law reform.
Looking at some of the measures where the Bill will repeal and replace existing provisions, there are concerns it may detract from democratic accountability, a concern raised with many of us by many individuals and organisations. For example, when the national planning framework was introduced in 2018, section 18 of that year's Act required the Government to submit any draft of a revised or new framework for the approval of each House of the Oireachtas before it was published. That requirement, admittedly, did not extend to the then current national spatial strategy, which was simply renamed as the national planning framework and was continued in force without approval by either House. Now, however, this new Bill proposes to dispense with Oireachtas approval altogether, and will continue the current unapproved framework that is in force and enable the Government to make new or revised frameworks without the requirement for the approval of the two Houses. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response on this because it raises not just issues relating to democratic participation and accountability but also constitutional issues relating to what is effectively law-making without the participation of the Oireachtas. That, again, is a real concern.
This power, it seems, will be supplemented by a ministerial power to issue national planning statements detailing a Minister's instructions on anything and everything, from the contents of a regional, spatial and economic strategy to the layout of amenity spaces. The Bill will specifically enable the Minister to repeat instructions given by a predecessor regarding the promotion of a particular type of development - we might all think of the collapsed and somewhat hare-brained effort to shift Dubliners into tiny, costly so-called co-living spaces - but with this Bill there will be no requirement for Dáil and Seanad approval for the making of what will, in effect, be legislation of that sort. That is a concern, and we will seek to amend the Bill to require that these powers not be exercised without the prior consent of both Houses, because we are concerned the legislation will represent a massive centralisation of control in the hands of Ministers without adequate safeguards and oversight over power and its impacts.
Another example of what might be described as a power grab is the change in approach to how the Government, Ministers, the planning regulator, An Bord Pleanála and local authorities can be held to account for the lawfulness of their decisions. I am speaking, obviously, about the judicial review measures. Representatives of environmental NGOs, such as Attracta Uí Bhroin of the Irish Environmental Network, have described the proposal as an unprecedented regression in access to justice rights and the ability to hold authorities to account before the courts. The Minister has spoken about the Bill as streamlining judicial review but these are valid concerns. While there are, certainly, some who could be described as serial objectors, their interventions have had a minimal impact on the efficiency of the overall planning process and they are often used as scapegoats in this regard. The data say, for example, that just 0.25% of the overall planning decisions in 2021 were subject to judicial review, so I think we tend to overstate this issue.
During pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, countless stakeholders warned of the dangers of making changes in this area and the risk of delays with what is often referred to as satellite litigation, where several lawsuits relating to major proceedings take place in another court. We see that with arguments on preliminary issues such as scope and locus standi before substantive issues can be resolved. The former Chief Justice Frank Clarke has stated that plans to cut red tape will herald a new era of lengthy legal delays as cases are referred to the European courts, while the European Commission has indicated we could be heading into another decade of litigation. These are all issues that need to be raised.
We are concerned that, as drafted, Part 9, on changes to judicial review, may create significant obstacles for ordinary groups and associations that come together informally to address issues in their community. I refer specifically to the proposed environmental legal costs financial assistance mechanism - there must be a snappier title – in Chapter 2 of Part 9 and the concerns that unduly centralised control will be exercised by the Government through this mechanism and that it will not increase access to justice, as the Minister suggested, but rather may act as an impediment to those with valid legal issues.
I have a sense of déjà vu in making some of these arguments because, to cast our minds back to 2010, the original section 50(b) in the then Planning and Development Act provided for the current special cost rules in environmental cases, and there was a concern then that this would make environmental litigation unsustainable. We want to make sure litigation is not the preserve of those who are very wealthy, which would be utterly wrong in respect of access to justice. As we know, that provision was finally amended by a subsequent Government.
Public and environmental NGOs are concerned about being put at a material disadvantage in trying to address or ameliorate unsustainable development. Developers will not be constrained by the cost rules and will enjoy the benefit of there being no order as to costs if they lose a case. This is a significant concern, not least at a time when the climate and biodiversity crises should be at the top of our agenda. It seems that in recognition that there may be some who seek to exploit the system, there is a danger that we strike the wrong balance when it comes to ensuring rights of access to justice for the many and for the ultimate good that comes from diligence, oversight and good planning. We need to ensure planning is good and sustainable and we need to legislate in a proportionate and informed way to address this issue.
Another issue was brought to my attention by Fórsa, the trade union, which represents employees of An Bord Pleanála. I am told that despite the proposed legislation, including, as we all know, significant changes to the organisational structure of the board, to date there has been very little, if any, engagement with Fórsa on the proposed changes, yet the Bill will have a substantial impact on the duties and responsibilities carried out by its members. There is a concern about the lack of consultation on significant changes affecting members. I would be grateful if the Minister could address that point in his response. How will he engage with the concerns of staff?
Planning and development legislation is profoundly important, even in the case of Bills that are less weighty in size. This legislation, and the infrastructure it will create, will shape the physical world around us. It will decide whether our State is up to the task of providing for its people and, in particular, decide whether we can deliver on the much-needed increased provision of housing for our people and the increased and more effective provision of climate and renewable energy infrastructure. I very much hope, therefore, that this will not be a wasted opportunity, that we will have an opportunity for constructive engagement to ensure the concerns we and others have for the Bill will be addressed, and that improved and revised legislation will finally pass to ensure we will have a fit-for-purpose planning system.
We now go to Deputy Steven Matthews, who is the Cathaoirleach of the housing committee.
It has been a long process to get to this stage. I feel like I have been working on this for approximately two years, possibly longer. It is significant and major legislation, as people have noted. I suspect I am not the only person who will speak today who has not read the publication we received recently in its entirety.
We all agree that while the 2000 Act served well in many areas, it has been amended so often over the years that it had become almost impenetrable and impossible to understand and was creating difficulties. It is important that we consolidate and bring everything into this one Bill. Some significant changes to planning legislation have also been proposed in it. I hope the Bill will be remembered for the right reasons. We have a number of Stages to go through during which we will have the opportunity to read it. I expect we will be taking Committee Stage at the start of January when we return from the recess, so people will have an opportunity to get up to speed. I am not suggesting that everyone should spend their Christmas holidays reading this Bill, but I intend to.
A stocking filler.
I got involved in politics because of my interest in planning and because I understand that if we do not have a proper planning system, everything else fails. When you get planning right, people generally do not notice, because things are good, but when you get it wrong an entire generation or generations can live with the legacy. We see some of that in the urban sprawl we have seen in the past 30 to 40 years and the traffic issues, car dependency and climate emissions, etc., that come with that. The decisions we make in planning impact intergenerationally, and this Bill will have to serve the next couple of Oireachtas terms and generations. Perhaps it will be in place for the next 15 or 20 years. I have no doubt there will be amendments. When a Bill is this size, it needs to be amended as things evolve and change.
Much of the commentary we have seen is based on the publication that came out in January, which was problematic. We heard expert witness testimony in the quite intense pre-legislative scrutiny we did over a short period. We brought in a wide range of experts and practitioners in planning. There were problems with the Bill, so people need to take what is here, study it carefully, compare it with the January document and remember that the comments, many of which are in public circulation and were made by people whose comments I respect, may have been rectified in this version. I draw attention to one example. It is the problematic thing about the board being able to correct any error in law. I understand that has been rectified. Now a judge will make that decision. That is a positive move because it was a step too far and would probably have encouraged planning consent applications that were not complete. We do not want to encourage sloppy applications or people leaving bits out because they think they can go back to correct the application as an error of law. I appreciate the Minister taking on board the committee's view on that. It appears to have been rectified.
Planning is incredibly complex. I know many people who work in the planning system because I studied planning more than 20 years ago, even before there were strategic environmental assessment directives.
While I welcome the tightening of timelines to give certainty - everyone wants a little certainty in the planning system - I recognise that, given the sheer array of information that comes at planners who are trying to make such complex decisions, if you put a tight timeline on them, while they are also constrained by resources - people have covered resources, and I will come to it in a moment - that is when you get mistakes in decision making. When the applications are complex, it is also when you get mistakes in the applications.
We need to be careful when we are critical of the planning system. Our planning system is quite good. It is democratic and participative at every stage, from electing councillors to crafting county development plans and dealing with the decisions that are made on those plans. We have the bones of a really good planning system. I do not like the narrative that delays in the planning system are the root cause of every problem. They are not. We need to differentiate planning infrastructure. We go through all the different stages from public spending codes to the development consent process and so on. Our local authorities are quite good at meeting their development consent process timelines. Most of them meet the timelines with eight or nine weeks or a little longer for those that require environmental impact assessments.
There are delays with An Bord Pleanála. There is no doubt about that. Its representatives were before the committee recently. It was not a well-attended meeting. It probably would have been 12 months earlier, but an RTÉ celebrity was next door and stole the audience. However, I was quite comfortable with what I saw coming from An Bord Pleanála. It is up to full speed. It has its full complement of decision-makers. It can operate multiple meetings now and, from the latest report I have seen, it looks like it will be up to good speed by early next year so we should start to see the delays in the process easing. When the constant narrative is that the planning system is a problem, it almost provides ammunition for people to attack the planning system by stating we need to regulate it more and pushing down more on it. We need to avoid that and as public representatives we have a role to play in respecting the role planners do and in looking deeply at why there are problems in the planning system. It is because it is under-resourced. We are addressing that.
I will table a number of amendments to the Bill. I will refer to the original section numbers because I am not up to speed on the new ones. Under the original section 5, anyone could seek a declaration on whether something was development or exempted development. It seems the opportunity for any person to do so has been removed. It should be put back in. I note that the pre-legislative scrutiny report states this is problematic. In the pre-legislative scrutiny sessions, we did not get that message. I do not know why the message changed between the pre-legislative scrutiny sessions and the pre-legislative scrutiny report. I would like to see that re-instated.
Section 25(a) of the original Act is important in the context of regional planning. It requires Departments and each local authority to report to the regional assemblies every two years. That is critical. Regional planning is as important as county planning and the continual monitoring of regional planning is particularly important, especially when we try to report back on the national planning framework.
Thank you, Deputy.
I look forward to tabling a number of amendments and discussing them with the Minister. I will not need any books over the Christmas period. I have my reading list sorted now.
Thank you, Deputy. I call Deputy O'Rourke.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Planning and Development Bill. It will not come as news to anyone here that the current planning system is not fit for purpose. Decades of mismanagement, under-resourcing and an utter failure to future-proof policies by successive Governments led by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have brought us to this point. As a result, the State is at risk of squandering our incredible potential in renewable energy among other things, while scuppering any opportunity to achieve an energy secure and independent Ireland at the same time. This must change quickly.
A slow and adversarial system that is racked by uncertainty will not deliver solutions to the social, economic and environmental needs of our society. Renewables projects are stuck in the planning system for an average of 92 weeks. The statutory maximum is supposed to be 18 weeks. As a result, many renewables projects never come to fruition because they simply time-out of their contracts. This is not good enough. Our planning system needs root and branch reform. This Bill is long overdue. However, in its current form, it falls far short of addressing the systemic problems in Ireland's beleaguered planning system.
I acknowledge that some aspects of the Bill are welcome and while we are still analysing the detail of the Bill - it is more than 700 pages long, as has been mentioned - it is clear that substantial sections, if not amended, will make the planning system much worse. Sinn Féin has long campaigned for a planning system that will deliver good-quality planning decisions in a timely manner and where such decisions would be made following meaningful public participation. Citizens and communities must be protected. Notifiable bodies and, in the area of environmental planning, environmental bodies must be resources to play their role. I raise specifically with the Minister that it is essential we get this right. This means we must depart from the Government's tendency to rush through legislation that is not thought through.
We must be forward-looking.
In that context, I call on the Government to ensure that the roll-out of regional, spatial and economic strategies are co-ordinated with the roll-out of renewable acceleration areas as part of the renewable energy directive and the identification of the most suitable areas for renewable hubs that is currently being carried out by EirGrid and ESB Networks. We cannot make the same mistakes as before, which have made the delivery on investment in renewables woefully inefficient and lagging behind our European counterparts. There are considerable opportunities to turn our natural resources into national wealth for all. This Bill, if we get it right, can play an important role in that.
The stated intention of the Bill to provide a more efficient and robust planning system is a good idea. A consolidated and streamlined Bill is necessary and welcome, and I acknowledge that a great deal of work has gone into it. However, it falls short of its stated goals. For example, it does nothing to ensure meaningful and early engagement in the planning process with communities, which would reduce conflict and delays. Such engagement should be strong under the Bill. We do not see provisions on co-creation, which featured in the pre-legislative process. We heard good examples from other countries of how co-creation could be useful in bringing communities on board, with them shaping and designing major projects in their areas. There is nothing in the Bill to facilitate co-creation, yet we know from international experience that it is very successful and works.
There are legitimate concerns that, instead of reducing planning conflicts in the courts, the changes to judicial reviews under the Bill will lead to more litigation, including satellite litigation, where the legality of the legislation is challenged in terms of its compliance with Ireland's EU environmental obligations and the Aarhus Convention.
I will cite the former Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Frank Clarke, who said of the Bill that the Government's push to amend the planning laws would likely lead to a large number of legal cases being referred to European courts and slow down the planning process. He stated:
If the theory is to make quick decisions to allow proper development go ahead, creating a system where there will be references to the Court of Justice of the European Union and the inevitable delay before there’s clarity about the law seems to be counterproductive to the purpose it is intended.
Furthermore, Mr. Gregory Jones, the barrister in planning and environmental law who chaired the review of An Bord Pleanála in March 2016, stated that some of these changes would not speed up the planning system and that we would be on a European tour of Geneva, Strasbourg and possibly even Luxembourg, which would be good work for the lawyers who practised in that way but led to depressing thoughts of delay and adverse impacts on the economy. I would add to that the impact on the people of Ireland if we were to introduce legislation that resulted in a number of delays.
Worryingly, the Bill fails to do anything to ensure that housing will become more affordable. For example, it prohibits local authorities from introducing affordable housing zones. This is a key weakness in the Bill. The programme for Government refers to the Vienna model of affordable housing, yet this legislation, like the current legislation, will prevent local authorities from zoning for affordable housing. It fails to fix the problem. It is important to say that good planning should have multiple goals. One of its key goals should be the provision of affordable housing. When the planning process first started and attempts were made to put a system in place around housing provision and other construction activity, it was never the intention to make housing less affordable. If a planning system is to have regulatory controls and be effective, then it must have specific measures to address affordability.
I have a concern about the narrative around planning. Planning should not be seen as a burden. When done well, it ensures the provision of housing in communities that is designed well and has good amenities and facilities. Many of our current problems with a lack of infrastructure, urban sprawl and high prices are associated with poor planning processes. We need to resource planning and get it right. We cannot afford to do otherwise.
This Bill centralises control and reduces public accountability.
I welcome the Minister's comment to the effect that he will engage with us during this legislative process. I will table a number of amendments to improve the Bill. I hope some of them will be taken on board. For the record, the Minister may have written to Sinn Féin, but as far as I know, he did not write to other Opposition parties.
We certainly did not receive any correspondence from him. This is not the first time the Government has claimed to have engaged with the Opposition only for it to turn out that it had just engaged with one Opposition party. This poor practice needs to change. We would welcome any engagement.
The Bill runs to more than 700 pages, making it one of the largest ever produced in the history of the State, yet there was only one week between it being published and Second Stage. No rational person could expect us to have read all 700 pages to inform our contributions. We asked for an extra week so that we could take a good stab at it, but that was not allowed. We asked when the Bills digest from the Library and Research Service would be available. It was available early this week, but that Bills digest, which is an important resource for us as parliamentarians in terms of any Bills we examine, did not go into the Bill in depth. Clearly, there was not time to do so. The digest is very cursory. In fact, there is little examination in it once one takes out the report from the Department on the pre-legislative scrutiny recommendations and the introductory material on the background of the Bill and so forth. There is very little analysis of the Bill in the Bills digest.
The explanatory memorandum is highly problematic. I shall give an example. The explanatory memo reads:
Section 17: Evidence
This section provides for the evidential value of the development plan.
That is not what section 17 of the Bill appears to be about at all. Instead, section 17 is actually about stipulating what is required in terms of certifying and providing evidence in respect of a whole range of matters to the relevant body or authority and covers a considerable amount more than the development plan. It refers to the national planning framework, national planning statements, regional, spatial and economic strategies, urban area plans, priority area plans and co-ordinated area plans in addition to development plans and the relevant standards and bodies for certifying such materials. The explanatory memo is deficient in a number of respects. I ask that the Minister of State commits in his closing comments to updating it and giving us a more comprehensive one.
We lack information on what changes are being made in this Bill compared to the provisions in existing legislation. The Minister’s comments on this matter were incredibly cursory, with him just going through a few sections of the Bill in this debate. We have had no comment from him at all on Second Stage about significant changes. There are many deficiencies in this process. Members of the committee have been asking the Minister to provide the rationale and evidence base for the changes and an actual list of the changes the Bill makes compared to existing legislation. That is not an unreasonable thing for us as legislators to ask for.
There are a couple of key reasons for the significant backlog in An Bord Pleanála. One is that the board has been understaffed and under-resourced. It is good to see that some progress has been made in this regard. Another reason is that, when serious issues were raised about the board and without any of us asking him to do so, the Minister started to deplete the number of people on the board. As members resigned or their terms finished, he did not replace them. At one point, this left us with a board of five members making decisions. The Minister's decision, which was not called for by anyone, was one of the contributing factors to the backlog. It is good that this issue is now rectified.
There needs to be clarification as to why the Minister did that. As people's terms were up or they were resigning, they should have been replaced. That should have been done quickly. It should not have been held back for a prolonged period.
It is worth noting that attempts to short-circuit planning sometimes backfire and lead to further delays. This happened when so-called fast track of SHD planning was introduced by the Government. This was going to speed up the delivery of housing, we were told. However, we now have a situation where SHDs, so-called fast-track planning applications, are taking up to 79 weeks for An Bord Pleanála to make decisions on, with 22,000 potential homes remaining stuck in the process. Let us not forget when SHDs were introduced - this is well recorded, the research has been done and it is on the record - it was after extensive lobbying by developers who said that Government Ministers had implemented their proposals lock, stock and barrel.
It is worth noting that in recent years, the Government has done almost everything asked of it by developers and their lobbyists. Some 28 mandatory regulations issued by the Government that were lobbied for have reduced standards and yet failed to deliver sufficient affordable housing. Of course, we should be trying to have as few planning matters as possible decided in the courts. The best way to do that is to invest in forward planning and co-creation in order to reduce conflict and get communities involved at an early stage in helping to design large projects in their areas. To reduce delays in the courts, a much better approach than what the Government is talking about, would be to assign more judges to ensure that appeals are heard quickly and hire more planners. Rather than having more cases and judicial reviews going into the system because of a failure to comply with environmental law standards, it would be much better to prioritise compliance with the EU environmental legislation, instead of trying to find ways of getting around our obligations. That would be a much better way to do things.
In order to speed up the construction of housing, we need to tackle structural delays such as connections for utilities. For Uisce Éireann and other utility companies, this is a massive issue. We need to do much more to get skilled construction workers and more people into apprenticeships. In some of the key wet trades we are at about 14% or 16% of our 2006 levels of apprenticeships. A really good start on that would be to pay at least the minimum wage for people in construction apprenticeships. They should not be exempt from minimum wage protections.
We must not lose sight of the importance of good planning. In terms of this Bill and the issues around centralisation of control and reduction of public accountability, we see that in the environmental costs scheme. There are significant concerns about the eligibility restrictions, means testing, requirements to provide financial statements and the political control on this through the ministerial role and ministerial control which is not appropriate.
With regard to restrictions on access to justice, we see in this Bill that members of residents' associations will be required to vote by a two thirds majority in order to take a judicial review. Significantly, however, each member who votes "Yes" will have their name and address published as part of the process. Clearly, that will have a chilling effect. It is designed to intimidate people. Let us be clear about what is proposed. It will reduce access to justice and reduce levels of accountability. It means that everybody who participates in the planning process, be they developers or anyone else, will not have to publish their names and addresses. If they participate in a judicial review, however, ordinary residents will have to do so. There is no legal justification whatsoever for this discriminatory and invasive practice.
Regarding declarations on exempted development, the Minister even raised this point in his introduction. This is designed to eliminate the one measure that members of the public can use to ensure some level of accountability for local authorities regarding exempted development and potential lack of enforcement. In a good planning system we should be able to use and expand the use of exempted development. If we do not have measures to hold local authorities to account for failure to enforce, that will not be possible. We need to have public confidence in enforcement and a mechanism to hold local authorities to account.
I want to give one example. I will quote a member of the public, who stated:
I believe this change in relation to Declarations will undermine the rights and entitlements of ordinary people In Ireland in the context of planning and development, especially in relation to unauthorised development.
I myself have had cause to seek a Declaration about unauthorised development carried out by the owner of a property next to my home after the planning enforcement section of my local planning authority stated the development in question was exempted development.
My ability as ‘...any person’ to obtain a Declaration enabled me to prove the development in question was not in fact exempted development, thereby requiring the planning enforcement section of my local planning authority to take appropriate action.
Had relevant legislation at the time allowed '... only the owner or occupier of land or a person with their consent’ to seek a Declaration then it would not have been possible for me to prove the development was not exempted development and to require the planning enforcement section to take action.
I regret that, based on my personal experience, I have little confidence in planning enforcement in Ireland
I was told by a planning enforcement officer .... that the relevant authority does not like to take planning enforcement action because it does not want to have to pay associated legal fees; and, secondly, that when I complained to the Ombudsman about this case the Ombudsman found that the planning enforcement section had been responsible for maladministration.
This Bill will remove the ability of a member of the public to seek such a declaration. What I read out from that individual absolutely matches my experience when I was an elected member of a local authority. There were lots of issues around planning enforcement. The declaration mechanism is the only one to hold the planning authority to account in the context of exempted development. Even though it is not greatly used or known about, it is very important existing legislation nonetheless. Seeking to remove it leaves people with no ability to hold a local authority to account. I have been told by people working in local authorities that they do not want to go down the route of planning enforcement because they are afraid of the associated legal costs.
I want to raise the issue of the Irish language in the context of this Bill. There has been a step backwards in terms of the provisions in this regard. It would be a grave mistake to go backwards on the limited measures that have been put in place over the years on a piecemeal basis to improve things for people in Gaeltacht areas who have issues with the planning system and trying to get housing.
There are also issues regarding people with disabilities. I will be bringing amendments on those as well. The Bill does not contain the measures we need to improve access to housing for Travellers and people with disabilities.
The provisions on compulsory purchase orders, CPOs, need to be strengthened. There is also a lack of measures to implement the recommendations of the Kenny report. Another thing missing from this Bill are use-it-or-lose-it measures that were promised by the Minister. Also missing is the land value sharing tax.
We do not have effective measures with respect to land hoarding. The Bill also lacks measures to promote home ownership and there is a lack of measures in terms of new build apartments to ensure that some of them are available for people to buy instead of having the rental only model continuing to dominate apartments in urban areas. There are also a lack measures around co-creation and early engagement.
The Bill also fails to address the issue of affordability. It perpetuates the entire system of passive planning that is led by market actors. If we want to address the issue of affordability, we have to have active planning. This can be seen in countries like the Netherlands where it is very effective. Serviced land with infrastructure is assembled by municipalities or local authorities and made available for housing at affordable rates. This is missing from the Bill, which is a terrible pity
Issues raised about Fórsa and the lack of consultation with its members about changes to An Bord Pleanála and the name change are very relevant.
Totally missing from the Bill are measures to improve situations on conditions requiring bonds. This is a big issue in new developments where the bond system has been ineffective and has not worked well enough.
One of the really important things in the context of the Bill is the failure to address the issue of taking in charge that affects people in newly built areas. For example, in my constituency, the public areas in estates that were built about 20 years ago have still not been taken in charge. There is nothing in this Bill that will put proper timelines in place for that. It perpetuates the status quo.
That is a very serious issue for the local authorities and local communities. Fifteen or 20 years on, people are paying property tax and management fees to management companies that are running public areas, such as roads, footpaths and green spaces, that should be taken in charge by the councils.
The legislation is not fit for purpose and this Bill is not fit for purpose. I accept that a lot of time has gone into it, but the fact is that these things are not even on the Minister’s radar, are not even referenced in his introduction and there is no attempt to fix these major problems with the planning system. If there is good engagement at committee level and the Minister takes on board some of our amendments and works with us on these, then we can fix some of those deficiencies. I look forward to doing that.
Deputy O’Callaghan has raised two points that are of keen interest to me, no pun intended. The Deputy finds fault with the explanatory memorandum and he has criticised the Bills digest. I have to say that in the years I have spent in this Chair, I have never, ever heard anything other than compliments for Bills digests and have never heard the explanatory memorandum found to be inadequate. I will have those two matters looked at and I will revert to the Deputy.
I always find the Bills digest very useful. It is just that they did not have time to do a comprehensive one.
I suppose they had as much time as anyone else.
I commend the Minister for bringing the Bill to the House. It is certainly a mammoth piece of work that, as Deputy Matthews said, will have a generational impact because we will be living with the consequences, good or bad, of this Bill for many years to come. I hope the Minister has got it right. Getting it right is critical because if we want to create a healthy, happy and thriving society, one that provides opportunity for ourselves, our children and grandchildren, planning is critical to that. I hope the Bill is the framework for that success in the future. I concede that I have not read the 700 pages either, although I am going to have a look at it over Christmas, when I have more time, and get into it in more detail. However, I am passionate about the importance of planning.
I want to offer a climate perspective to the Minister and the House, and to speak in particular about two fundamental pillars of our climate solution. The first is district heating, which we have not done in this country historically, but it is a significant part of our climate action plan to deliver district heating networks in this country. The other is rail. We have a long and proud history of rail transport in this country right up to the 1950s and 1960s, but then, from that point on, the car and the lorry were seen as the way forward for transport. It is only now that we are realising that those 20th-century transport innovations were good up to a point but we need to embrace rail again because there are limitations to what car and truck transport can do in terms of how they deliver transport services to our society and economy.
I would like the Bill to enable both district heating and rail development in this country. In order to do that, in tandem with the review of the national planning framework, the Bill needs to get densities right in our urban centres, and around our urban centres in particular. We will not have district heating or rail development unless we have high-density urban development. When we design and build high-density developments, we have to ensure that they are high quality because a mistake that has been made in the past is that the quality has been missing. Other countries have done quite well and we can do it well here also. With that high-density urban development, we need to develop high-capacity transport systems, and bus and rail are that. The Bill needs to shepherd this country in that direction such that those kinds of infrastructural developments - district heating networks and high-capacity transport systems such as rail and bus services - are supported and promoted by this legislation.
I want to discuss the importance of the protection of our built heritage, and this Bill is important in that respect. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, and I come from Limerick and represent it as best we can. Limerick is a very proud city with a very ancient and beautiful built heritage. That has been undermined significantly over the years and decades through private and public development, and the Minister of State will know about the threat that our Georgian city faces through dereliction, vacancy, poor maintenance and lack of investment. Just two weeks ago, a building on Thomas Street had to undergo emergency repairs as it was in danger of collapsing. It is very remiss that, in this day and age, the proud and beautiful built heritage that we have is still under threat.
I think it was an act of cultural vandalism that the previous incarnation of An Bord Pleanála permitted the demolition of Curragower House. There were very questionable decisions by An Bord Pleanála in Limerick city over the years. While I am very supportive of the Limerick 2030 project generally, I wonder if that previous incarnation of An Bord Pleanála would have permitted a 15-storey tower on Merrion Square, given it has permitted that at Bank Place in Limerick. That decision is made and there is no turning back on it, and I give my full support to Limerick 2030. However, just looking at the decisions in Limerick over the years, we can see that we have not been protecting our built heritage as we should be. This is about planning and getting it right. I would like to think that given all of the reforms that have been brought in during the last year or two with respect to the board, and the new personnel there, we will see better decisions made, not just in Limerick, the city that I am familiar with, but in every town and city across the country. It is important that our heritage is protected and the Bill should seek to do that as well.
There should be strong provision in the Bill to compel local authorities. It is not just about the private sector. We must compel our local authorities to protect the built heritage that we have. It is not about wrapping these old buildings in cotton wool. We have to be able to work with them, invest in them and make alterations and modifications to them when necessary, so that is not what I am talking about, but those points are very important.
Our planning system is in disarray as a direct result of decades of underfunding, under-resourcing and bad planning legislation, often rushed through by this and previous Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments. A proper, fit-for-purpose planning system needs to deliver good quality, timely decisions with proper public consultation. Here again, the twin spectres constantly haunting the Government raise their heads - recruitment and retention. Local authority planning departments, An Bord Pleanála and the courts have endured decades of under-resourcing at Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil's hands, leaving them chronically understaffed.
In my county of Kildare, a recent report by the Office of the Planning Regulator highlighted the council's ongoing challenges with staff retention and recruitment and their negative impact on the council’s ability to effectively deliver planning services. We are in the throes of the worst housing crisis in living memory yet an estimated 65,000 new residential units were caught up in either planning appeals, judicial reviews or strategic housing development processes as of March of this year.
The courts cannot process planning cases without judges. We need more judges - they have been long promised but have still have not been appointed. Delays of 18 months-plus are the norm. Add in bad planning legislation and chaotic and confusing requirements for strategic housing developments and it is a perfect recipe for disaster. Our planning system has to work and has to be workable in order to end the current repeating cycle of bad planning decisions leading to more litigation leading to more delays.
We can all agree that planning legislation is far from simple. This legislation was promised for the end of 2022. Yet here we are at the end of 2023, and it is patently nowhere near ready despite being pored over and reviewed by councillors, planners, developers and environmental NGOs, to name a few, most of whom were fairly critical of it. At 700 pages, it does not exactly make for light reading.
The Minister said that he wanted to achieve consensus on this. It is time to get down to business. The Government needs to have heeded the words of the stakeholders together in this - the experts, communities, industries, environmentalists and Opposition parties in this House. That is what a consensus means.
Sinn Féin welcomes some elements of the Bill, such as the urban development zones and proposed Government changes. However, there are areas where more serious issues arise, such as, for example, the lack of reform of the compulsory purchase process. To put it simply, our planning system must be fair, effective, efficient, properly staffed and properly resourced. I expect nothing less for County Kildare. We fully support a move towards a plan-led approach to planning and development through proper resourcing. Sinn Féin has campaigned long and hard for a planning system that is fit for purpose to deliver new homes, schools, hospitals and other vital infrastructure in this country. Sinn Féin is more than ready to work with the Government on this.
This Bill deals with matters that are very important in the context of our society, the people of this country, our environment and many of the challenges we face. The latter include the acute housing crisis, climate change, the need to develop the infrastructure necessary to sustain our society and key matters like environmental justice and access for ordinary people to justice when it comes to planning and development and matters that affect them. It is terribly important to address these issues. On the face of it, the rationale for trying to improve and streamline those processes is a reasonable objective to make things more efficient, streamlined and consolidated. This is the main rationale for the Bill that seems to have been put forward by the Government. We have, however, heard evidence from others here and experts in this area that we are not off to a good start with this Bill in that regard.
We have a Bill of 700 pages that was published a week ago. For those of us who are not members of the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage and who have commitments relating to other committees - in my case, three other committees, so it was not possible to have gone through the pre-legislative scrutiny process - to have to grapple with all of this one week after the Bill was published means going through 100 pages per day, if you have the time to do that, which, self-evidently, we do not. I doubt the Minister has read this Bill. We have already heard that the Cathaoirleach of the committee that deals with it has not read the Bill. I doubt whether many of the people who have spoken here today have read all of it.
I reiterate the concerns about the information available to us. This is not in any way a criticism of the officials who produced the explanatory memorandum or the Library and Research Service - far from it. They must be in a desperate state trying to grapple with producing information, analysis and summaries in respect of this enormous piece of legislation in order to make it understandable, but that sort of timeframe simply does not allow it. This was the Government's decision. It was a ministerial decision to have a very short timeframe available to officials, the Library and Research Service, the public and elected Members of the Oireachtas to allow them to grapple with and understand what this Bill does - all 710 pages of it, 22 Parts, 541 sections and six Schedules.
This is why it was not a trivial point I made earlier when I said the Minister should have taken us through every section. People should be aware of this. Generally speaking, when Ministers come in here and introduce Bills on Second Stage, they go through every section. I agree that this is a big task when you have a Bill of this scale but to imagine that we could get a reasonable summary of this Bill from the Minister in just 20 minutes is just preposterous. It is, frankly, an insult to the Members of this House and any member of the public who might take an interest in the Bill.
The failure of the explanatory memorandum to align with the Bill has already been highlighted, but let me highlight it again. Regarding section 17, the explanatory memorandum states: "this section provides for the evidential value of the development plan." If you are looking for a summary, that is apparently what section 17 is about. When you actually look at section 17, however, it also refers to the national planning framework, the national planning statements, the regional spatial and economic strategy, urban area plans, priority area plans and co-ordinated area plans, in addition to the development plans and the relevant standards and bodies for certifying such materials. This is a small section of the Bill. If, with regard to section 17, the explanatory memorandum does not align accurately with what is in the Bill, we have got a big problem because it means that we cannot trust the explanatory memorandum. If we cannot trust the explanatory memorandum with regard to one section, we cannot be certain about it in the context of every section. We are dealing with a major deficit of information.
The Library and Research Service has produced two documents - Note 1 and Note 2 . Fair play to the staff of the service, because I do not know how they did it. However, none of the notes does what most of these things do, which is take you through every section of the Bill. Indeed, how could they given the timeframe involved? I reiterate that this is not a criticism of the Library and Research Service. It is being asked to do the impossible, and, not surprisingly, it could not do it. What we get is background and some fairly general summaries of the different Parts of the Bill, but we do not get that detailed explanation that we need because what this Bill is doing is replacing a Bill that ran to 800 pages. Where are the lists of the differences between the two? One of the phrases that is repeated in the various documents we have states that one section re-enacts or largely re-enacts what was in the Act ,but with modifications - sometimes with many modification and sometimes with substantial modifications - but we do not have a comprehensive list of what the modifications are and the rationale behind them. This is the sort of information we need because in order to understand this Bill, you have to cross reference it with the previous Bill of 800 pages to actually understand what the hell has changed here. What are the differences?
In all these 541 sections of the Bill, what was the reason for this change, what is the change precisely, etc.? We are being asked to do something that is virtually impossible and the Government could not even give us an extra week. Of course, this makes one worried straightaway. Perhaps rightly or wrongly, it makes one suspicious.
In the overview document from the Library and Research Service, certainly my ears pricked up in the third paragraph. This is the overview of the Bill. It refers to a recent industry survey, which revealed that property professionals believe that a streamlined planning system would be the most effective way of improving housing supply. The survey was carried out at Mason Hayes & Curran's annual property conference. It is encouraging, indeed, that that is one of the first references we have. The conference was called "Planning & Building for Tomorrow". In May 2023, it was attended by 500 industry professionals and included a panel discussion on the Bill. The survey found, not surprisingly, that 91% of the conference attendees believe that streamlining planning would have the biggest impact on boosting housing supply. It also found, fairly ironically, that 57% of the same industry professionals who were in attendance think that the Bill will have no impact on reducing bottlenecks in the planning system. One could not make this stuff up. They all want planning streamlined and we know why that is. When do they ever stop jumping up and down saying that it is the planning process that is the problem for them and we hear it then echoed by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Deputies that this is the problem. Then we get a Bill which may well be, let me put it this way, dancing to their tune but they have absolutely no confidence that it will make any difference even from their point of view.
This is where the question of the rationale for all of this is important. The rationale for the changes is something I have referred to. In fairness, the Library and Research Service referred to it in one of its notes. The IGEES report, produced by the Department of Public Expenditure, National Develop Plan Delivery and Reform and the Department of Finance, a couple of years ago states, first of all, that we do not have a sufficient evidence base to assess whether the planning process is in any significant way an obstacle to the delivery of housing and infrastructure but we need more evidence, all of which is lacking here for the rationale, the justification and the evidence base for what we are doing. However, what it pointed to, as I have pointed out on a number of occasions, was that looking over a certain period of time at the planning consent process for residential development, it found there was no problem, by and large, with planning permissions. Some 85% of planning applications get permission. It varies in different areas and they give reasons. In rural areas, the level of refusal is far lower. In urban areas, it is higher, but it says that is probably because it is more complex in an urban area because of the different factors that would have to be weighed up. By and large, there is not a problem getting planning permission.
The number of planning permissions is far in excess than the number of commencements and completion. It goes on to say that, very possibly, the explanation for why we are failing to deliver in the output of housing is because of speculation, land banking, etc. IGEES speculates that the property people are speculating and that the evidence would suggest that may well be the case. To be honest, the dogs in the street know that is true. We can all see examples of it in our own areas where they have the planning permission, they have the SDZ and the whole bleedin' lot but it takes years because they drip-feed the development in order to suit themselves, whether they are flipping property, sitting on it waiting for the market conditions to be suitable for them to maximise the profit or whatever it might be, or for Government to legislate even more in their favour or to get more subsidies from the Government to build infrastructure or whatever it is. The market dictating is the problem, and not planning permission.
This also brings me to one of the omissions in the Bill, namely, the use-it-or-lose-it provisions. If land-banking, hoarding and speculating is a problem, we should have the use-it-or-lose-it provisions Government has been promising for a quite considerable amount of time and many of us have been demanding for a longer time that they should not be allowed speculate on land, property and planning permissions, etc. Let us not forget, it was in November 2019 that the then Minister for housing, Mr. Eoghan Murphy, said we would have use-it-or-lose-it coming very soon; it did not come. In November 2020, we were told it would be in the coming months but, of course, we had a report, I think from Mr. Killian Woods, suggesting that the CIF had been lobbying intensely to prevent the use-it-or-lose-it provisions being put in the Bill. There are no surprises there. Let us remember that Mr. Woods also reported previously, as was mentioned earlier, on the ill-fated SHD that did a lot to discredit the entire planning process and that it was lobbying from the developers that led to that legislation. At the time, Mr. Woods quoted developers saying, "We gave [the Minister, Deputy Coveney] our recommendations and they took it lock, stock and barrel and stuck it into the new housing Bill." Is this more of the same? Through emission, or through what is in it, is dancing to the developers' tune the very thing that has got us into the mess?
I should have probably said earlier in my narrative that something I have endlessly repeated in regard to the old planning Act 2000 - and I am sure many things need to be changed and I am not against consolidation and streamlining - is whether there is evidence that that Act has been a significant obstacle to housing supply over its history. The answer is, "No." In the period running up to 2008, we had 70,000 to 90,000 houses being built a year. The Planning and Development Act 2000 did not inhibit that. There were other problems such as places being built on flood plains, places that should not have been built and all sorts of things such as environmental damage, but that Act did not inhibit supply. The equation that all these objectors are blocking supply is just not true. There is no flippin' evidence for it and yet we have people from Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael jumping up and down saying that all the time. Of course, that is the narrative of the developers and the property people who make money out of it.
Then, of course, we have the measures on access to justice. I am trying to fully get my head around it. It looks as if its purpose is to limit the ability of ordinary people and groups in communities who may have genuine concerns about the environmental impact of certain types of developments, whether they are on the marine where property developers are now grabbing our marine in the same way as the property developers dictated on land and led us into an absolute mess. Of course, the housing crisis is to do with that. That is the real reason we have a housing crisis. It is not because of the planning system but because we had a cowboy housing sector, totally privatised and totally driven by developers. Then it crashed and we had ten years of a desert because the developers decided it was not profitable for them to build housing and the Government compounded that decision by stopping building public housing for a decade. Even worse, when it has all the land banks briefly in its hands with NAMA, what does it do?
Does it build public and affordable housing? Does it move away from the developer-led system? No, it flogs it all back to a new gang of speculators, or, in some cases the same old speculators but now working in conjunction with hedge funds and wealth asset management companies from all over the world who are seeking to profit, benefit and exploit the housing misery that has been visited on the people of this country.
Returning to the access to justice issues, some of the campaigns we have had in our local area with groups like, for example, Save Our Seafront, have done the local community a big service in stopping completely inappropriate development in key areas such as Dún Laoghaire Harbour and the seafront, which would have damaged our environment, local amenities, marine life and so on. It seems to me that such groups effectively will be prohibited from taking judicial reviews in certain cases. All of the chips are going to be stacked in favour of the developers who have the money. They have the money and are not worried about costs but ordinary community groups will have more hoops to jump through to make their views known. It will now be up to the Minister, with the centralisation of power this Bill seems to involve, whereby Ministers will be doing up plans without proper accountability to or involvement with this House. It will be the Minister for the environment who eventually effectively will decide what local community or resident groups can actually take judicial reviews, together with what the costs of such reviews will be. It seems to me to be clear that there will be a chilling effect or it will be made harder for local groups to have access to justice when it comes to important developments which impact upon them and on their local communities and environments. That is both unnecessary and completely unfair and probably is in conflict with the Aarhus Convention obligations.
Irrespective of one's views on this legislation, and we have heard many views expressed today, it is a remarkable achievement for the Minister and for his Department officials, to put together legislation that runs to 709 pages, contains 541 sections and is divided into 22 Parts.
The purpose of the legislation is to try to consolidate our law in respect of planning and development. When one looks at its length and complexity, it indicates the extent to which the Oireachtas regulates this area. It is an enormously regulated part of human behaviour in Irish society and so it should be. We certainly do not want a situation in Ireland where people are just entitled to put up a development wherever they wish just because it suits their own personal interests.
Another factor arises as a result of the length and complexity of the legislation, which is that inevitably, there are parts of this legislation which the Minister will probably have to look at again more closely when it gets to Committee Stage. Some Deputies have complained about how we have to debate legislation of such complexity in here in such a short period of time. Obviously we are not going to be able to go through the Bill in that level of detail here but it is the Minister, his officials and the other members of the housing committee who will have to go through this legislation, not just page by page through the 709 pages but line by line, to assess whether the sections are correct or can be improved upon.
I note that some Members here are complaining about the fact that it is a Bill of such length and that it is difficult to comprehend it. Unfortunately, part of our job is to draft and consider legislation that is put before the House. If there is legislation of such length, unfortunately, there are no shortcuts for us as politicians. We simply have to go through it, to read it and to appraise it.
As I have not been able to look through it all in the detail that I would like to for the purpose of this Second Stage debate, I propose to look at one Part upon which I believe I may be able to make some useful comments. That is Part 9, which concerns judicial review and decision-making. We should recall at the outset that these Houses of the Oireachtas are entitled to try to change the law and to expedite the processes in order that one can achieve the political objectives of these Houses of the Oireachtas. The political objective of the Government behind this legislation is to try to ensure that we can get houses built in a quicker fashion. I acknowledge there are criticisms that can be made by saying there are other mechanisms which need to be looked at for the purpose of building houses. Of course there are, but it is unquestionably the case that many developments have been delayed because of judicial review applications. I fully accept that people are entitled to bring judicial review applications but similarly, the Oireachtas is entitled to put forward legislation for the purpose of trying to expedite that process. That is what is being done in Part 9 of the Bill.
The first notable change contained within the Bill in Part 9 is in section 252. At present, if somebody wants to judicially review a decision of a local authority or of An Bord Pleanála which has granted permission for a development, it must apply in the High Court for leave to bring judicial review proceedings. Under section 252, we will have a different procedure. One will no longer have to seek leave to apply for a judicial review. Instead, judicial review can be initiated by simply issuing an originating notice of motion. That is provided in section 252.
I believe that is a much preferable method for an individual seeking to institute judicial review proceedings. The standard route is to seek leave. A very low threshold is required by the courts. People then meet that threshold and one then goes on to have a return date for hearings where the respondent comes in. The leave process delays the whole application and for that reason I welcome the fact that section 252 seeks to do away with leave and now simply states that if one is issuing judicial review proceedings, one does it by an originating notice of motion. There are specific rules set out in section 252 as to which parties must be put on notice when one is bringing that application and that is only necessary and appropriate.
Section 253 deals with the time limits. The time limits are not that different from what exists at present. The time limits, as set out, are that one has to commence one’s application within a period of eight weeks. It is appropriate that if one wants to challenge a decision, one does so promptly. At present, the general law in respect of judicial review is that one has to do it promptly and the Planning and Development Act also provides that there is a tight time period for it. There is also provision which allows the court to extend that time whereby, if one cannot do it within the eight weeks, there is a procedure whereby it can be extended. It is also a requirement, under section 254, that if one is going to court to challenge a decision on grounds of judicial review, one is limited to what one states in one’s grounds. One cannot then subsequently, when the case comes on for hearing, decide that one wants to extend one’s grounds beyond what is contained there at present.
The significant issue is that the Bill puts in the statutory regime the test that one has to have a sufficient interest in order to bring judicial review applications. The 2000 Act stated that one had to have a substantial interest. That subsequently was changed, by amendment in 2011, to having a sufficient interest. The courts have adopted the fairly broad interpretation of what is a sufficient interest for the purpose of bringing an application for judicial review.
One will see in section 258 that it expressly states that one will not have sufficient interest unless one can show that the applicant is “directly or indirectly materially affected by the matter”. That is a useful provision and if it is the case that somebody is bringing judicial review proceedings in respect of a development and that they are not affected by it in any way, then they should not, in my opinion, have the locus standi to challenge that application.
There are different rules, however, when it comes to the environmental cases and they are set out subsequently there. That is why this Part of the Bill distinguishes between cases which affect individuals and entities personally, and those which have an impact upon the environment.
I have only had seven minutes and have no further time to speak. I would like to speak more about it but, as I say, I believe all of the work will be done on Committee Stage.
I am glad to get the opportunity to speak on this Bill. As has been previously said by some of my Sinn Féin colleagues, we want to see a planning system which meets the social, economic and environmental needs of society. Public participation is key to this but it is very important that this be meaningful participation. I say that in particular on behalf of rural communities which, I would say, feel even more and more isolated from decisions taken over the past number of years.
People often feel frustrated when they hear there is going to be a consultation process. They engage in that consultation process in good faith and then it feels like nothing they have said is taken on board. That is why there is sometimes considerable scepticism when some of these decisions being made. People are told there is local consultation but they often feel it is not adequate or that what they have been saying has not been taken on board. If we are going to say that we want public participation, which we in Sinn Féin would like to see happen, it is important that we listen to people and take on board their views, particularly those of communities. Every area will be different. It is important that the views of rural areas are seen in that context.
Another point I want to touch on is the delays. Some speakers have spoken about this already. People are entitled to make objections and everything else, but there are often significant delays in applications. We see that in rural areas too. I do not know if it is a staffing issue or what the difficulty is, but there can be significant delays in getting a decision communicated in the first place. If that then has to go to An Bord Pleanála, it slows down the whole process again. In many cases, they are genuine cases. We must have that process but it needs to move more efficiently and swiftly.
It was said that the housing committee made approximately 140 recommendations in its report. I am not on that committee but I chair a committee and know the level of work that goes into pre-legislative scrutiny, committee reports and the various meetings the committee has. When a committee reaches consensus on a certain number of recommendations, it is important that they are looked at. I know there are other Stages of this Bill to go through. I am hopeful that those kinds of recommendations will be taken on board because it is at the pre-legislative stage that the committees really delve into issues. Those reports should be looked at in much more detail. My time is up, so I will leave it at that.
Resources, resources, resources. All the pages of legislation in the world will not change a thing unless the Government starts to put resources into the planning system. We have the worst housing crisis in the history of the State. It is estimated that about 30,000 homes are delayed due to the courts system in the State. Applications for more than 22,000 other homes are stuck in the planning process due to the decision-making backlog within An Bord Pleanála. That startling fact hangs around the neck of this Government. The Government itself is responsible for the backlog of 22,000 homes in the middle of a housing crisis.
These planning applications were made under a strategic housing development process. In that process, they are described specifically as fast-tracked development homes. An Bord Pleanála has a statutory mandate to issue decisions within 16 weeks but that statutory mandate amounts to a hill of beans because, right now, under this fast-track system, applications are averaging 79 weeks for a decision. The frustration that causes right around the country is immense. That type of Government uselessness is not unusual. Planning applications take aeons. It took eight years to even submit an application for the Midleton flood defences. Not one wind farm in the country has obtained planning permission in the last 12 months. Seven offshore wind turbines have received permission in 20 years. All of the applications have been put into the system. There is a major problem as regards the Government's ability to resource the planning system. Lives and livelihoods right across the country are being negatively affected by this.
The Government's lack of resources is the biggest blockage to the building of homes and infrastructure. I raised this issue with the Minister, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, in the committee just a couple of weeks ago. His attitude was that we cannot get the staff. If I want to open a sweet shop on Trimgate Street in Navan and I want to employ staff, then I would have to come up with a wage and terms and conditions that are attractive for people to take the job. If the Government, our local authorities or An Bord Pleanála want to employ staff, they have to be able to create terms and conditions and salaries that are attractive for the job. If there are no skills in the marketplace, the Government simply has to work on workplace planning. That means providing university places for young people to get the necessary qualifications to be able to do this work.
Philip Jones of the Irish Planning Institute told an Oireachtas committee that understaffing was the elephant in the room. He said that without resources, this Bill was a complete waste of time and that An Bord Pleanála recently looked for 59 staff but only got 39. My worry is that this Bill will add additional responsibilities to the State, local authorities, developers and companies in the future, which will make the resource issue even worse. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a Government in the history of the State that does not think its job is to add further regulations and difficulties to the delivery of projects.
I also want to talk about judicial reviews. We often hear in the media that the Government blames judicial reviews for the fact that planning applications do not proceed. I agree that it is taking way too long for judicial reviews to proceed through the courts but that is because the courts system itself is banjaxed. It is completely inefficient and it does not have enough resources. There is not a TD here who will not tell you of a court case that is taking four or five years to proceed properly through the system. This project that the Government is involved in does not seek to fix a court system that is inefficient, slow and glacial. It seeks to remove it in a significant fashion from the whole planning procedure. That is a major difficulty that I have.
There is a problem with local authorities having planning authority over Gaeltacht areas. That authority should go to Údarás na Gaeltachta because it has a far better understanding of the need of Gaeltacht areas. Building large housing estates in Gaeltacht areas which have a majority of English speakers atomises that Gaeltacht because English becomes a dominant language in that Gaeltacht. I would like the Government to look at that.
This Bill includes an obligation for local authorities to develop draft plans for certain areas. We have all the draft plans we need in County Meath, for example, but Johnstown, which has a population of about 10,000 people and is nearly 25 years old, still does not have a playground or a community centre in the area. Navan has a population of nearly 40,000 people and the rail line has still not been reopened. Deputy Leddin mentioned that this country has a proud history of rail lines. This country has a proud history of lifting up rail lines and removing them. We have whole swathes of the country without rail lines. I am glad to see there is a renewed focus on rail and that Deputy Leddin is committed to it. Hopefully we can see projects develop in the future too.
The issue of taking estates in charge might seem small in the maelstrom of these discussions but there is not a TD here whose head has not been mithered by the fact that there are estates built 25 years ago that have not been taken in charge yet, where the developer has long since gone out of business and nobody is responsible for the upkeep of the area.
I do not have long left to speak but I want to talk about an element of litigation that is associated with development, which is strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP lawsuits. They are lawsuits that are intended to censor, intimidate or silence critics by burdening them with a high cost of legal defence which is designed to make them abandon their criticism or opposition. I know from people in my constituency who are environmentalists, have the best interests of the community at heart and work for the community for free that quarries and large companies are throwing lawsuits at them to beat the band.
These people are being given letters from solicitor firms for discovery in short periods of time and they are nearly doing a full-time job in providing material for these lawsuits. I would like the Government to look at the issue of SLAPP litigation in this Bill, to make sure we do not allow for vexatious SLAPP litigation and we allow for community organisations to engage properly with the system through the legal system as well.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on what will probably be the most important legislation to come through this House regarding the future of this country and houses, homes and where we are going. There are a number of issues about which I want to talk. I start off by saying that the pre-planning process has to be given the importance it needs. I see it in my own county in Galway where a pre-planning process was abandoned for a while. We ended up with planning applications going in without having the benefit of a pre-planning process, issues arising during the planning process, and then planners not being able to engage with the agents on behalf of the clients to try to sort out the issues that were there. The reason we do not have a proper pre-planning process is because the local authorities do not have the resources. I will continue to say that unless we resource our local authorities properly, we will not be able to deal with the plethora of issues that arise within a planning system.
We have a situation in County Galway where, under the county development plan, we have arranged to allow for clusters of up to five houses in villages. However, the planners do not have any guidelines by which they will actually adjudicate on these. So far, five applications have gone in and five were refused because there was a divergence of opinions as to what was right or wrong with these little clusters. I tell you something, five houses in a small place like Tynagh or Ballinderreen in Galway is worth 50 houses in Tuam or 500 houses in Dublin or Galway city. What it means is that we keep the local school with the teacher in place and keep the local GAA club right. However, we cannot even get that right. It is a great idea but there are no resources to deal with it.
The other issue which is a source of concern is when we are doing our local area plans, we have what we call the core strategy. I do not know what a core strategy is all about other than I can see from a construction background that we are actually limiting the amount of land we can zone in a local area plan. Therefore, we are keeping the price of the development land and of the house high and keeping it unaffordable, the net result being that no houses are being built.
That is right.
Many additional processes have come into planning but we have not resourced the local authorities with ecologists, hydrologists and all those people who are needed to deal with the information in the reports that are coming in. At the same time, we expect the client to deliver all of these reports but the local authority may not even know how to read them, understand them, or get time to read them. This is a huge problem. We can bring in twice as many more pages of new legislation but if we do not recoil it all back and ask how we are going to deal with this, it will not be resolved. I heard a Deputy talking about back in the mid-2000s when we were building 70,000, 80,000, 90,000 houses per annum with the planning process that was there. In fairness, the planning regulations and the climate action plan, and all of these things have come into being since. As well as that, the developers have left the market and I will come to that again.
If we are doing a local area plan in any town, we need to make sure it is relevant, allows for development, and is not just a desktop exercise where we zone land because we see it is in a nice place. That land might never become available for any reason and there is no due diligence done on the fact that this land, that is now being zoned and will create the core strategy, may never be available. Nobody asks the owner. The owner sometimes does not even know his land is being zoned and that is it. He might have no desire to sell it. He might be farming it. At the same time, we are bringing in the residential loan land tax. We have deferred it for a year. I tell you one thing, if functional farmers have to pay that land tax, we might as well close rural Ireland and stop farming. We could have a situation where we have what is called R2 zoned lands, that is, available land if R1 is used up, and that this land could also be taxed even though you cannot built on it. We have so many, what I would call, stupid little things going on that are creating the barriers and are in no way encouraging anybody to get involved. What I am being told by developers and by people who want to buy a rural house, is that the cost of a planning application is prohibitive at the moment between all the consultants they have to get in to try to justify the reason they need to build a house or a housing scheme. What we have done, in a time of crisis in our housing market, is that we have ground it to a halt.
One thing about the local authorities and the planning process is that they have eight weeks in which to make a decision. They make the decisions on applications within eight weeks and if they do not, the planning permission is given by default. If we are going to sort out An Bord Pleanála, we need to apply the same rule to it. We should give An Bord Pleanála X amount of weeks to make its decision and if it defaults and does not make a decision, the decision should be made automatically. If we do not do that we are only playing around with paperwork and with everything else. We need to have an effective way of doing things. The EU habitats directive also needs to be revisited because it is another burden. While it is something that is there as a generalisation, it is being held up as a stick to stop things going ahead which could otherwise go ahead. We have a lot of work to do on that.
I will concentrate on housing and explain what is happening in my own county. At the moment, two private housing schemes are being built in County Galway, the second largest county in Ireland. There are two. That is all. We are relying on social housing to build the number of houses we need. When I ask why we are not building more houses and why the developers are not building them, I am told the cost of the land is too dear, the cost of planning is enormous, the cost of finance is beyond reason, and the cost of construction has also gone up. Then you have local authorities on top of that requesting cash bonds for anybody who wants to build a housing estate. A cash bond is requested whereas a guarantee bond could be given by an insurance company, which would hold the same legal status. Developers who are trying to build houses, and who have to front-load all of this and wait to see what will happen at the end of it, are just walking away from it. The consequences of this is that we will end up in a situation - I can guarantee it is happening already - where there are foreign direct investment entities in this country which are not in expansion mode for one reason only. They cannot guarantee that additional workers will be able to join them because additional workers need housing and it is not there. They are not looking for social housing. These are people who do not qualify for social housing and need private housing. We are sitting on something and sleepwalking our way through a situation where in another three or four years, we will find the FDI market contracting and investors going to other places around the world where they can get people to work who will be able to find houses for themselves. This is in every kind of job.
I do not know if it is being taken care of in the Bill because I have not read much of it, but I want to refer to the taking-in-charge process. In my constituency, in every town and village in which houses were build over the past 20 years, they used what we call private wastewater treatment plants. Irish Water and the local authority are both running away from them, each saying it is not their issue. We have residents who have bought houses and are paying mortgages, and they have treatment plants which are on the tipping point of breaking down all over the place. We have an environmental time bomb and we know all about this for the past ten years.
The Department knows all about it but is doing nothing about it. It is waiting, silent. When somebody tells you the fish are lying up on their backs in the rivers and you are wondering what has gone wrong, it is that the sewage has seeped into the rivers. That is what is going to happen. We talk about climate action, the environment and biodiversity. This is a typical example.
The other side of the coin is that people in the towns and villages that do not have any treatment plant are trying to build houses and are being told by An Bord Pleanála that no house can be built there until a municipal treatment plant is put in place. The Minister announced about 18 months ago €50 million for treatment plants. We have had no allocation of any money to any treatment plant so far. The €50 million he has allocated will take care of about five or six treatment plants in the country, and we have a list of 30 in Galway to be done. That is the reality of the situation, whether we like it or not, and we seem to be just sitting on that.
The rail network came up earlier. We should have positive discrimination towards areas where we have railway lines and stations and land banks. We have them in Tuam, Gort and various other places. We should be able to talk to CIÉ and build residential houses there in order that the people there have access to public transport when they come out of their houses. It is a very simple thing.
As regards Galway city, we have been talking for about 15 years, maybe 20, about an outer ring road, a city bypass - I do not know how many different names are on it, but that is all it is. We have spent about €30 million on reports, applications to An Bord Pleanála, refusals and whatever else. What is happening in the background, however, is that planning permissions are being refused because there is no direction as to what will happen with that road. If developers decide they want to build houses within any proximity of that route, they are refused. That is leading to chaos in our city. Galway city is the heart of the west of Ireland and the economic driver around which every other place should survive. There is an onus on us all to do something quickly and be truthful with the people as to what will happen with that outer bypass. There are conflicting reports and comments coming from within the Government, including that it would be illegal to build it, that it will happen and that it is in the national development plan. Let us for once and for all get it right.
Thank you for your forbearance, a Cheann Comhairle.
You are more than welcome, Deputy.
Like most people, I will start by saying I have not read all 700-odd pages of the Bill. To be fair, most people have been truthful in that regard tonight. I have, however, cherry-picked bits and pieces in which I have a personal interest.
Going back to my days as a councillor, the one fundamental power or responsibility I felt I had as a councillor, as a local rep, was my input to the development plan. It is why I got involved in local politics back in 2014. I grew up in an area where we had no housing of any description - public, private, social or affordable - for about 20 years. I grew up in a very industrialised area, Little Island. Come my first opportunity to contribute to a development plan, in 2016, I was able to amend the plan. It was against the wishes of the management, but I was able to argue my case as a local councillor.
I have a real difficulty here. We come in here and talk about empowering local democracy. I am from a party that, before the last election, was going to try to restore town councils, for example, and look at where that is. The one fundamental power a local councillor has is the ability to contribute to the local development plan. I have a couple of concerns about the Bill, but my one fundamental issue with it is that, instead of allowing a councillor to go out to public consultations and engage in the process every five to six years, it will now kick that out to ten years. I have a fundamental problem with that. As I said, we should be empowering local councils, not stripping the few powers they have remaining.
I looked at Part 3, Chapter 5, subsection 40(2). I was under the belief that there would be a review built into this every five or six years. I gathered that from previous presentations, but the legislation actually reads, "Not later than 8 years". Anybody here who has dealt with local authorities knows that means eight years. I hope I am wrong in that respect, but if the Minister of State could clarify that for me in his closing comments, I would appreciate it.
The second point I wish to bring up relates to the board itself. I was listening to other Deputies make contributions earlier. We all know the problems with An Bord Pleanála over the past few years; we do not need to recite them again here. It is about resourcing. This Minister has given resources, well in excess of what An Bord Pleanála has ever had, and the installation of statutory timelines is pivotal and crucial. How many of us here have made representations for people who were waiting 18 months or 24 months for a one-off bloody house? I watched on the TV other Deputies - well, specifically one from People Before Profit - more or less say that the issue is not with planning per se because 85% of planning permissions are granted. I think that was his argument. That is not the point. This Bill seeks to streamline the decision-making process and put in statutory timelines that bind the board to decisions. Pedalling this rubbish that there is some bloody paranoid ulterior motive totally misses the point of what we are trying to do here.
Another area I have an interest in is variations to development plans. Maybe this is just something I experienced on my local authority - I would be interested to hear what other Deputies' experiences were - but, again, in my time as a councillor, any variations ordinarily came from management within the county council or the city council. Very seldom did they ever come from the floor. It seems from my cursory reading of this Bill that councillors will be able to table variations from the floor themselves. Obviously, there are provisions for management to do that as well, and it is to be welcomed that there is clarity on that whole area of variations.
There is one thing that genuinely concerns me, other than, as I said at the beginning, the erosion of the local councillor's power. The one fundamental problem I have with the Bill is as follows. Reading through its provisions with regard to economic and other strategies, I understand there is a new dearth of laws there as regards climate, habitats and so on that have to be complied with. I am concerned, however, that the amount of legislation we are providing for here conversely, or perversely, will actually slow things down even further. That is my only concern. We have saddled this with so many different strategies that have to be gone through, be it local authority, regional assembly or whatever else. There are just so many layers, so many boxes that need to be ticked and so many groups that need to be consulted. I hope I am wrong but, in a perverse way, I think this saddling with so many different strategies will actually be counterproductive in the long term. I genuinely hope I am wrong on that.
That is more or less my bit. Before I close, I will reiterate my concerns about the local democracy side of things. When councillors on the ground become familiar with this, I think we will all be hearing about it. As regards my initial foray into politics, I was motivated by the idea that I could contribute to my own area directly. It was a long, drawn-out process that took two years, but at least in my term I had a chance. Now one might need to be a councillor for two terms to get one's chance. We need to reflect on that.
Thank you for your words of wisdom, Deputy O'Sullivan. We now go to our colleague, Deputy Martin Kenny.
I think all of us have complained for many years about the planning situation the length and breadth of the country and the many difficulties in which people find themselves, whether they are in a rural area looking for planning for a one-off house or trying to build something to contribute to their community, to create employment or whatever else. They find that they have to jump through all kinds of hoops. Then, when it comes to infrastructure in our towns, we find we have huge problems there as well. In many places in my county, County Leitrim, there are sewerage systems in towns that are at capacity, yet those towns need to build more houses, and even if a site is available etc., they cannot get planning because a sewerage system that would cope with that is not available.
I have spoken to the Minister about group sewerage schemes on the outskirts of towns. The one in Carrick-on-Shannon is right beside the intake of the water for the entirety of south County Leitrim. There are 40 septic tanks and the people want to put a group sewerage scheme in place but they have been refused the grants to do so by Uisce Éireann. It is a ridiculous situation.
Much of this is about looking after the environment. This is welcome and it needs to happen. The size of the Bill is large. For years I dealt with the Department of agriculture and every time it brought in a new scheme we were told it was a simplification. However, it was actually a complication rather than a simplification. I fear this will be the same and we will have more complex and difficult hurdles to cross and difficulties to get over, rather than trying to make things more streamlined and easier for people to understand and work with.
I come from a rural parish. The soil type in County Leitrim means we have difficulty in getting planning permission for one-off rural housing. However, technology has advanced with regard to the treatment of sewage and it can overcome this but the guidelines will not allow examination of the new advances that have been made. This is something we need to look at with regard to areas in need of development that are suffering from depopulation, with schools losing teachers and clubs unable to field a full football team. We need a planning system that acknowledges the social need of people to build houses in rural communities. This is an important point.
In more urban areas, where we have great need for housing, the difficulties in this country have been highlighted for several weeks because of the situation with so many migrants coming to the country and so many people fleeing from war and the difficulty with accommodation. All of the stresses and strains come back to the issue that we do not have enough accommodation in the country. The intense competition for accommodation is causing great difficulties and problems. If we have a planning system that will complicate this more and make it more difficult for people to build more houses in more housing estates in urban areas and more one-off housing in rural areas and if it makes it more difficult for people to develop businesses and opportunities to get employment, we will intensify these stresses and strains.
We welcome the movement and changes in planning with regard to the long delays that people have, particularly with An Bord Pleanála. This certainly needs to happen. I fear, and most TDs on both sides of the House fear, that the Bill will make things more difficult rather than ease them.
I am disappointed with the Bill. The Bill has a massive volume but there are gaping discrepancies in it. With regard to rural housing, the rural planning guidelines introduced in 2005 have proved excessively restrictive, especially with regard to the urban influence. They are obstructing young families from realising their dream of building a house on their own land and in their own countryside. The Minister of State represents an area that has some rural areas in it and he should know this. It denies young people the chance to build their own homes.
Fine Gael pledged to introduce new guidelines prior to the previous general election, with the Government promising their publication by the end of 2021. What happened? The Green Party is holding it up and will not allow it. This is quite clear. It is scandalous that the guidelines have not been published. The situation is regrettable and represents a significant setback for rural communities. I do not see anything in the Bill about the guidelines.
The Government has failed to actively support young families building homes or to sustain rural communities, including essential institutions such as schools, sports clubs and churches. The current trajectory seems to be funnelling people predominantly into towns and villages. These areas, such as my own village, do not have sewage treatment plants. There are 30 other villages in south Tipperary that do not have one either. They would be at capacity even if they had one but they do not. It is like the flight of the earls from the land: drive them off the land. Cromwell did that with "To hell or to Connaught". The Government is saying to hell or into the towns or nowhere. We have 13,000 people looking for houses. These are people who have the capability to get a mortgage and they have a site but they cannot get planning permission. It pure and utter madness and blackguarding.
An Bord Pleanála being renamed will not do much. The proposed reforms and transformative changes embedded in the expansive Bill include renaming it as an coimisiún pleanála. Is maith liom an Ghaeilge, as the Ceann Comhairle knows, but changing a name as we did with Uisce Éireann means nothing. There is also the cost of it. We have to change every headed paper, every building and every bit of equipment it has. It is lunacy. It makes it look good. I wonder who dreams up these things. I wonder whether they went to the Gaelcholáiste in Ring or to Dún na nGall or Connemara.
The Bill mentions a ten-year development plan. People have lost complete faith in An Bord Pleanála with the scandals and the delays. My county of Tipperary is trying to survive. We have a fabulous racetrack and perhaps the Minister of State has been there. It is Tipperary Racecourse in Limerick Junction.
I know Limerick Junction.
It is Limerick Junction but it is known as Tipperary Racecourse now. It has a great board, team and supporters club. They put together a massive €40 million development plan. There was a house for the race manager fadó fadó. He is long gone and the current occupants of the house have lodged a complaint to An Bord Pleanála. They have put in an objection. That was almost two years ago. This is vital infrastructure and development and we want to develop it into a state-of-the-art facility. There is community involvement with Knockanrawley and the Moorehaven Centre and other such activities. It has been held up and it is shocking. This is despite request after request. It has been going on for almost two years. This is not good enough. I have been contacted by many people there. Deputy O'Donoghue and I have met people there. It is on the edge of County Limerick. It is a concern and it is not good enough.
In Clonmel, the community in Baron Park are very upset and concerned about the application to site a massive 5G mast, and it has been appealed to An Bord Pleanála. When the application was made, they made submissions. It went straight to An Bord Pleanála, which would not take further information from the people. They are ordinary decent residents who pay their taxes and have their houses. They are proper living people. It is beside a big nursing home and it is on the grounds of Clonmel Town soccer club. The land is owned by the county council. An Bord Pleanála rode roughshod over them. Since the application went in, three other 5G masts have gone up, including one on Emmet Street and one on the Cashel Road. Another application has got in and the late councillor Billy Shore, God be good to him, fought hard on it. It is near Clonmel Commercials in another part of town. What is going on with all the 5G masts? Does the Government want to fry the people and cook them altogether? Why do we need masts all over the town? There is ample service for broadband. I do not know what is going on that the Government wants masts all over the place.
It is very concerning. Other countries do not allow these near schools or houses but in Ireland those building masts can do what they like. The people took their case to An Bord Pleanála. The inspector came down and rejected it. First of all, south Tipperary council rejected planning permission for it. The inspector came down and did his report and rejected it fully out of hand, but the board overturned his decision. This is going on more and more. It is disgraceful. Good inspectors come out and do an honest report and the board just tears it up. That is not democratic or fair.
There is a housing development in another part of Clonmel adjacent to Connolly Park. The people living there understood the plans as one thing but the houses have been built up on top of the houses behind them, with the windows gaping into their back gardens only 1 m away from the boundary wall. This is shocking. The residents then had to get someone to take it on for judicial review.
I note that for some areas of judicial review there will be less prohibitive costs for environmental issues. This is welcome. We also have the situation with wind turbines. We have areas that are zoned as not suitable in the county development plans in Waterford and Tipperary, in my backyard. Planning applications are going in for massive turbines which are going straight to An Bord Pleanála. Recently, there was a court case which found in favour of the wind farms after An Bord Pleanála turned them down. Where is the democracy?
It is Government policy to bulldoze this in and allow these masts to go up everywhere. As I said, the situation in Clonmel will go to An Bord Pleanála so I cannot say much about that development adjacent to Connolly Park. It is near the old cash and carry opposite the old manor food factory, which was known as the Clonmel Foods factory. Development is being stalled and then the type of development people do not want is being bulldozed. It is literally being bulldozed through.
That is totally unacceptable, and it is not fair or right. There are huge issues, as I said, but An Pleanála will not deal with the issues it should deal with.
The Minister has addressed many areas in this legislation and we have not had enough time to look at them. I am interested in the streamlined judicial review. It is a very costly business and a frightening experience when people have to go to the courts. We should have an effective planning system and an effective An Bord Pleanála to enable people to get justice and ensure justice is seen to be done. It should not be the case, as I said, that phone companies are putting in these applications. The sad part about this is that they are putting these masts into all sporting clubs. These clubs are, as we know, strapped for cash. I support all of them and their commitments, whether it is Clonmel Town FC or St. Mary's or whatever. Another case involves the ground of Clonmel Celtic FC. People are infuriated by this. Money is being offered to the clubs which need this money. The clubs do not put the offer out for public consultation and tell people they are doing this. The result is a lot of angst and friction. The companies are being mean about this activity. They are coming in, putting in these planning applications and offering the carrot of funding for the clubs involved. Children are going to be playing in the fields right under these masts. There are health fears and health risks, but An Bord Pleanála does not accept these.
There are many areas in this planning legislation, which is mammoth. I do not see any restrictions being put on An Taisce, which has run riot. The organisation nearly cost us 300 good jobs in what was the Glanbia and is now the Tírlan plant in south County Kilkenny. An Taisce appealed that development all over the place, including in the courts. It went to the courts and then back in again and again. The then Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, in fairness, in answer to me in the House one day, said he did not like to see what was happening. Eventually, An Taisce stopped going to the courts. It is a quango that is full of money, and there are many more of them if we were to add them all up. They have too much say and too much funding. It is costing us €6 billion in taxpayers' money annually to fund these quangos.
I hate naming people but an individual from County Cork is well known all around the country. He has objected to every farm development, all over Munster, Leinster and beyond. Some reins must be put on the likes of these people. They cannot just decide to assess a proposal online, bang in an objection and hold up the whole show. People were delighted initially with this development. Measures were put in place to mitigate climate action impacts, including the installation of extra slatted outhouses, dry yards and dry cover. Permission was eventually granted after an arduous procedure with the county council. This project was ready to go, with a contractor appointed and then, hey presto, the next thing was Mr. Sweetman submitted another objection from 100 miles away. This should not be allowed. An objector should be materially impacted. In some places, some people give the State some service. He is costing the State a fortune and has nothing else to do but sit in front of a computer and lodge objections. Farmers organised money, loans, equipment and contractors and then the whole lot was delayed. Where was the environment then? Where were our Green Party friends then? We want the farmers to take this type of action, and they want to do it, but they are not being allowed to do it because of a frivolous objection from a person living 100 miles away. This is scandalous and shocking. I do not see anything in this Bill that will deal with this type of situation. It should be totally overruled.
We had a proposal for the redevelopment of the site of the old Clonmel Arms Hotel some years ago. It had been idle for 30 years but the site has now finally been bought. Now, someone from Limerick, the Minister of State's county, has objected. That is totally wrong. Objectors should have to be materially impacted. Sine I am on the subject, I do not know what my opinion is regarding the time for county development plans being extended to ten years. Maybe seven years would be better, but the Government has increased the time to ten years. I compliment all the councillors who work in county buildings, as I have, and the county officials and people who implement the plans.
As I am on my feet, I wish a happy retirement to Councillor Michael Fitzgerald of Golden. He has given 45 years' service on Tipperary County Council.
We all share the Deputy's sentiments.
He is from the Minister of State's party. He is a fine, decent man. We had many a sparring match. We went Sumo wrestling one night for a function. We had a good interaction there as well.
I am not sure what this has to do with this Bill.
It is related given the input and work of Councillor Fitzgerald on the county development plans over the decades.
I would not have thought you were cut out to be a Sumo wrestler, Deputy.
He is much bigger than me but I knocked him over, thank God, and I was able to handle him then when he was down. It is easy to climb a tall tree that is knocked over. Going back to the county development plans, I note the input and work that Councillor Fitzgerald put in. He was the whip of his party over the years. I wish him, his wife, Mary, and his family well on his retirement.
He is in the senior group now.
He has given sterling service for 45 years.
That is sterling service.
Councillor Fitzgerald replaced his late dad on the council, so the service in the family goes back even longer. I wish his mum, who is in her 95th year, well too.
I have minor concerns about the ten-year cycle for the development plans. It is very long. I know the plans can be amended but they seldom are and it is an arduous task.
We will be submitting amendments on these issues. Confidence in An Bord Pleanála is at an all-time low. I do not think changing the name in Gaeilge will do much to help it. There will certainly be a bigger board but the appointment of board members is another question. Where is the democracy in this? Is there any way for ordinary, intelligent people who want to have a say to do so, and not just planners and people with these degrees? We need a bit of common sense as well. We need to hear the views of ordinary people because they will have to live with the impact of what happens.
We have a Government policy but the Government will not tell us what the new guidelines are for rural planning. These were promised before the last election. It is to the Government's eternal shame that it did not do that because it is so unfair. It is delaying the building of houses and many developments in rural Ireland. The Government will not build houses for people. It cannot do so for everyone. There are people in rural areas who want to build their own houses, but the Government will not let them. There are many other things the Government will not let people in rural Ireland do either.
Then there is Irish Water and the treatment plants and the unfair and discriminatory practices of the EPA. Its representatives are going around demonising people. Any farmer who is polluting should be prosecuted, but the county councils and Irish Water plants are belching raw sewage into rivers and streams all over the place. A map of the impacted areas was produced recently, but it left out my county. There are about 60 of these plants in County Tipperary, although they are not plants at all but simply tanks. They were given the green light. That is unfair, wrong and deceitful. A public body should not be allowed to do this. It should be honest, go out and assess the situation properly and tell the truth. Why cover up the fact that Irish Water and the county councils are by far the biggest polluters? In some cases, though, they are then prosecuting farmers and others. They are also going around inspecting people's septic tanks. People who put in a septic tank look after them. They want them working well in their property and want to repair them if they are faulty. They do not need to have inspectors coming around telling them what to do.
This is the legacy of Phil Hogan. When we had democracy in the form of the town councils, Phil Hogan abolished it. The Minister of State voted in favour of that. Deputy Brendan Howlin's party supported it as well, but now, in fairness, he has said this is the biggest regret of his public life. The town councils had a fundamental role to play. They were costing a fraction of the implementation of the new system, whatever it was called. It was anti-democratic anyway and a bad blow against local democracy. Many people cut their teeth on the town councils and then went on to be county councillors, Teachta Dála and Seanadóirí. I hope the Government parties will have the restoration of the town councils in their manifestos, but I have little faith in that happening.
My county was then amalgamated. It was the ruination of our town of Cluain Meala, the vale of honey. All the powers and finance were taken from it. There was a budget of €15 million. Councillor Niall Dennehy, to be fair to him, and his Former Local Authority Members Éire, FLAME, organisation, took a case to the High Court at the time and I supported him. We were frustrated in finalising our case because of the parliamentary replies we received. It is still there. I had the privilege of serving a High Court summons on the former Minister, Phil Hogan. He was in the Members' bar at lunchtime, eating his lón. I served him the summons there. We brought the case but of course we could not get the facts and figures we wanted from the replies to our parliamentary questions. We were fighting city hall. It was a reprehensible decision and the people were the poorer for it.
We in the Rural Independents have major issues with the size of this Bill, the inadequacies and gaping holes in it and the fact that lone rangers can object to good and necessary developments that have not got planning permission.
I thank Brian Ó Domhnaill in our office and my team for trying to evaluate the Bill. We only got it mid-week. It is a huge piece of work. I am not condemning the officials because a lot of work has gone into it. Legislation of this type must be meaningful, however. An Bord Pleanála must be fair, transparent and firm and there must be no shadows cast over any of its decisions. The board went down to five members at one stage. That is so small. The question most people ar fud na tíre have is cén fáth a thainig an inspector ann. When the inspector comes down and does a report, whichever way it goes, that is a report from a professional person, but the board then turns around, rubbishes it and turns it upside down. It has done this both ways at different times. That is demoralising and it must be demoralising for the inspectors as well. They are out to do their job. The board has not seen the site or had time to evaluate the different issues relating to the environment, roads and everything else, you name it, yet it tears up the report.
Is there some cosy arrangement with big businesses like telephone companies and others that get this work? It is the same with the wind farms. They seem to be able to ride roughshod over county development plans where areas are zoned. They must know they are going to get permission and they will spend money on planning in this area and many others which have been zoned as unsuitable for planning. They lodge applications, have information meetings and drop notes to every house. That is right. They should do that.
People must feel they have some say. That is democracy at work. Sometimes they do not get a say or feel they have respect where things are seem as a fait accompli and it is stated that something is going to happen so people might as well sign over land, rights and whatever else. It is very unfair.
There have been a lot of issues with planning over the years. I have not even touched on the awful logjam. At a time when there are 13,000 people homeless, I understand more than 22,000 homes have been held up in An Bord Pleanála. That is ridiculous. This should have been sorted out two years ago. People are waiting two years for a decision from An Bord Pleanála. People get a date and then phone only to be told a decision has been put back by another three months, and then another three months. I am not blaming the staff. I heard figures from the Minister regarding how many staff An Bord Pleanála has recruited. It is not all about staff. There is no efficiency. I welcome the staff who are there, but they must be efficient and there must be better methods of dealing with this. We must not put people off.
There was an unwritten rule that people had an expectation of a result from An Bord Pleanála within four or six months. There are statutory dates in the county council. I know there are statutory dates in the Bill, but I hope they will be met. It is vital for investors or private individuals who want to build a house to have some kind of timescale. Families are being held up. People want to get married, settle down and have children, go to schools and keep areas going. They need to have certainty, but they do not have it. Cities are overflowing with people. There are crowds and all kinds of issues.
There is a lot of work to be done. We look forward to putting forward amendments and I hope we get a reasonable debate on them. I hope the Bill will not be guillotined, like most legislation is, because it is too important. Legislation like this is not passed every year and it is a long time since we had any Bill like this. I welcome it, and thank the Minister for it, but we need rural planning guidelines because no matter what legislation we pass if we do not have certainty about rural guidelines in terms of what we can build and how we can keep it alive, this will not work. I am not talking about mad building; I am talking about sensitive building. If we have no guidelines we have nothing to work on. Planners, families and communities want this. We need the Bill.
Deputy, in the course of the your contribution you made reference to an individual outside the House. I know that individual is very well known-----
-----and is one of a number of people who make observations on planning files. For the record, we need to record that the observations that they make are absolutely in accordance with law as it currently stands.
To be fair, I did not say they were not.
I know you did not.
It is a nuisance.
For the record. I did not catch that last bit. Maybe it is just as well.
Debate adjourned.