Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 26 Sep 2023

Review of National Planning Framework and Climate Targets: Discussion

We are today discussing the ongoing review of the national planning framework in the context of the climate targets for the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. We organised this meeting on foot of the Climate Change Advisory Council having written to the Minister. To the extent that getting our national planning right impacts on how we achieve our climate targets, we felt it would be right to bring these two meetings together.

From the Climate Change Advisory Council, we are joined by Mr. George Hussey, secretariat manager, and Ms Gina Kelly, scientific officer; from the Office of the Planning Regulator, by Ms Anne Marie O'Connor, deputy planning regulator, and Ms Caren Gallagher, director of research, training and public awareness; from the National Transport Authority, by Ms Anne Graham, CEO, and Mr. Hugh Creegan, deputy CEO; and from the Irish Planning Institute, by Mr. Gavin Lawlor, vice president, and Dr. Seán O'Leary, senior planner. I thank them for their opening statements, which were circulated to members in advance of the meeting.

I will now read a note on privilege before we start. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the place where Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, to participate in public meetings. Both members and witnesses are expected not to abuse the privilege they enjoy and it is my duty as Chair to ensure this privilege is not abused. If, therefore, their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction. Members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. The opening statements will be made available on the committee’s website after the meeting.

I invite Mr. Hussey to make his opening statement.

Mr. George Hussey

I apologise on behalf of the council’s chairperson, Ms Marie Donnelly, who is unable to attend today. We thank the committee for the opportunity to speak on the importance of climate targets as part of the current review of the national planning framework, NPF. I am the secretariat manager of the council. The council is an independent advisory body tasked with assessing and advising on how Ireland can achieve the transition to a climate-resilient, biodiversity-rich, environmentally sustainable and climate-neutral economy.

We welcome this opportunity to have a conversation on the current review of the NPF. The council noted in its 2023 annual review that planning reform will be required to remove barriers to policy implementation in a number of sectors, with a need for the new NPF in particular to better reflect our climate ambitions. The council welcomes the roadmap published on the revision to the NPF, as provided for in the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, and the focus on the climate transition, demographics and digitisation as part of the review. The council also welcomes the planning advisory forum established to input to the evolving policy and legal agenda and will provide any relevant advice on the aspects of the revision relevant to meeting our national climate objective over the coming months, as requested.

The council wrote to the heads of the Government in May 2023 in respect of a number of elements of the planning system that will be crucial to address to meet our climate ambition on the topics of renewable electricity, spatial development and resourcing of the planning system. In summary, the council noted in its letter that the review of the NPF offers an opportunity to rethink how Ireland approaches compact growth, increasing both its ambition and specificity in terms of how it is measured; that, in respect of the decarbonisation of our electricity system, the renewable electricity spatial policy framework will be crucial, with a need for a plan-led approach to renewable development consistent with national targets; and that it will be challenging to address the many interdependencies between climate action and planning without addressing the historical underfunding of the planning process and ensuring sufficient resources are in place.

The council also outlined a number of recommendations in respect of planning policy and decarbonisation in its 2023 annual review, some of which I will now present to the committee. First, the compact growth target in the current NPF is insufficiently ambitious in its effort to facilitate the low-carbon transition in the transport sector. The review of the NPF needs to reassess how Ireland approaches compact growth and how it is measured from a spatial perspective. The council has also noted that more effort is required to ensure the compact growth target is met in all counties, especially in the catchment area of cities. As noted by the expert group for the first revision of the NPF, even if current objectives can be met, they still allow between 50% and 70% of all new homes to be built at greenfield locations. The expert group has noted that particular attention should be paid to reporting and monitoring progress on this issue, which the council strongly supports.

Second, poor economic incentives for urban brownfield and infill development need to be addressed to limit further urban sprawl, along with the development of improved incentives for urban living and the revitalisation of vacant urban buildings. This should be closely linked to principles for transport-oriented development and the regeneration of our towns and cities.

Third, in regard to electricity, the council noted that spatial planning guidance will be required to support the scaled-up deployment of renewable electricity throughout the country. Local authority climate action plans and development plans will need to be updated in early 2024 to provide for a plan-led approach to renewable development consistent with national targets. In addition, the council noted that the new revised onshore wind energy development guidelines should be well articulated to provide clarity for developments and need to be published as soon as possible to support the delivery of onshore wind energy targets.

Fourth, in regard to transport, the council noted that Ireland’s transport system needs to make accessible and sustainable transport modes more attractive, with a shift away from car dependency through consideration of the proximity between people and places in land use and housing planning. Long-term transport emission reductions through the avoid-shift-improve framework and congestion alleviation are closely linked to spatial planning, and measures in this sector should include consideration of settlement patterns to shift travel behaviours. Sustainable residential development can reduce transport demand and can also reduce the cost of the provision of low-carbon services such as public transport and district heating, along with having co-benefits for air, noise and safety.

The council notes there is a need to ensure there is an alignment between the framework and all other related policy documents. Once the NPF review process has concluded, a number of parties in the broader system will be critical to ensure its implementation aligns with our climate goals. This will, for example, include the further development of regional spatial and economic strategies by the regional assemblies, the development of local authority climate action plans, city and county development plans, metropolitan area strategic plans and local planning decisions. The Office of the Planning Regulator will also play a critical role in the assessment of local authority and regional assembly statutory plans to ensure alignment with the objectives of the revised NPF and to ensure plans provide for planning and sustainable development.

Further to the review, it will be important to develop an evidence base to support planning authorities at all levels to quantify the impact of spatial planning policies on greenhouse gas emissions in a consistent way, such as to assess the impact of decisions on transport demand and the impact of time-limited planning consents for wind farms and timelines for repowering on the potential loss of onshore wind capacity. The decarbonisation of our electricity system will require an additional 12 GW of onshore renewable wind and solar generation by 2030, which will be essential to reduce costs for consumers by avoiding imports of expensive fossil fuels and in the decarbonisation of our homes and businesses through the electrification of heat and transport.

The council also notes the importance of the review of urban boundaries and built-up areas carried out as part of the census 2022 process, which uses a land use, land cover-based definition for the definition of boundaries and is a critical input to evidence-based decision-making in this area, and monitoring urban development into the future.

Strong political support at all levels will be required in terms of both ambition setting and implementation to ensure the planning system as a whole is aligned with climate goals and there is strong oversight and implementation of the principles of the NPF. Community engagement will also be essential for critical infrastructure projects as it promotes transparency, trust and collaboration.

We are now in year three of the first carbon budget. Increased ambition and accelerated action are needed if we are to stay within our carbon budget and meet our 2050 targets. The national planning framework will play a critical role in this regard and the council strongly recommends that the draft NPF revision and consultation process between quarter 4 2023 and quarter 1 2024 further consider our national climate objective as a critical area of focus in its proposed changes, along with alignment with Ireland’s carbon budgets.

The council is happy to assist the committee in its deliberations and with the overall NPF review process. I look forward to our discussions.

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

I thank the Chairman and members for the invitation to speak. I extend apologies from Mr. Niall Cussen who was unable to attend this meeting. For the committee's information, the annual report of the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, was noted at Cabinet last week and is being laid before the Oireachtas. It will be available on our website shortly.

Given the time constraints, I will make a few short introductory remarks and will be happy to take any questions from the committee. It was heartwarming to hear that there were a lot of similarities between our presentation and that of the National Transport Authority, NTA. It is great to have the agencies and public bodies singing from the same hymn sheet when it comes to meeting climate targets.

The OPR strongly welcomes the review of the NPF and the opportunity to build on its many successes, built on our learnings from the practical implementation of the framework. Since the publication of the NPF, the interaction between planning and climate policy considerations has deepened. This extends far beyond renewables, district heating, public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure and flood avoidance. Crucially, it extends to the need for a compact pattern of growth that reduces land take, car dependency and the need for energy-intensive infrastructure. Without getting all of these things right, we will not be able to meet our climate targets.

The OPR has specific statutory functions under the Planning and Development Act to oversee the implementation of the NPF by local authorities in their statutory plan-making functions, with a particular emphasis on the climate aspects. This has not been without its challenges and we welcome the greater clarity provided in the draft Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill regarding our ability to ensure that local and regional plans are consistent with the NPF.

Since its establishment, the OPR has made 16 recommendations to the Minister to issue a direction, all of which in whole or in part related to climate action, including renewable energy, compact growth, flooding and sustainable transport and mobility. These issues are often contentious, most obviously in relation to wind energy, but we have also seen litigation by landowners in regard to limitations on the zoning of land at risk of flooding and in locations which do not support compact growth or more sustainable transport options.

The importance of clear policy frameworks to deliver on sustainable development objectives and a move towards rule-based systems are evident. While the updated census data are timely to ensure that housing and population targets are appropriate, we consider that the overall strategy in the NPF for more balanced regional growth targeting our main cities and towns is well aligned with our climate targets. The emphasis on renewing and consolidating existing settlements rather than continual urban sprawl into the countryside is also crucial.

There are, however, areas that the NPF review should focus on to better deliver on climate targets. First, the framework relating to compact growth and land use change needs significant refinement and development to address the definition of compact growth, which is currently too expansive; review targets so that they are better aligned with achieving the 2030 targets for greenhouse gas emissions; and include separate targets for land reuse and intensification such as brownfield development. As difficult as it is, the review of the NPF must also address the current reality that more than a fifth of all new homes are made up of individual houses in areas dependent on the private car. This makes achieving our transport targets very challenging.

Looking more broadly at the targets for transport, there have been significant policy developments arising from the climate action plans. It is important that the NPF review provides a strong and renewed policy framework consistent with these developments, with particular emphasis on increased walking and cycle networks in strategic locations. Fundamentally, compact growth is also crucial to meeting transport targets – the further homes are from schools, shops, facilities and amenities, the less chance people will walk or cycle. The framework for the spatial location of employment lands should also be strengthened in terms of alignment with the climate action plan transport targets. Proximity to high-quality public transport is fundamental in this respect.

As regards renewable energy, a clear plan-led and co-ordinated approach is needed as to how local authorities are expected to contribute to meeting the climate action plan target of 80% renewable electricity at a local level. The renewable electricity spatial policy framework currently being prepared by the Department with responsibility for energy should, in particular, be supported in the NPF. Similarly, while the NPF acknowledges the role of district heating, a clearer policy framework would be beneficial. District heating can only happen at scale if it is planned for in development plans.

Making policy is just the first step. It is in the implementation where real progress will be made. In this respect, the review of the NPF should deliver clear identification of the key national planning objectives, NPOs, aligned to climate targets; NPOs that facilitate clear, consistent implementation in certain key areas, providing a clearer set of “rules” for the OPR as “referee” in a more evidence-based, plan-led planning process; better structures and ICT systems for spatial data-gathering to monitor implementation of those NPOs; and a clear governance structure to reflect the fact that NPF implementation requires a broad coalition of actors working together in relation to NPOs relevant to climate targets.

In summary, having a national planning framework that delivers a plan-led and climate-centred approach is crucial if we are to step away from the business-as-usual approach of following developer- and market-led pressures that will exacerbate sprawl, deepen congestion and environmental issues, and lock in high-energy needs and carbon intensity. With some careful revisions, the NPF will be a strong agent for meeting our climate targets. I thank the committee.

Ms Anne Graham

I thank the Chairperson and members of the committee for the invitation to attend. I understand the committee wishes to focus on the review of the national planning framework and climate targets. To assist me in dealing with subsequent questions, I am joined by Mr. Hugh Creegan, deputy chief executive of the National Transport Authority.

The NTA recognises and acknowledges the importance of the national planning framework in providing the strategic planning policy to properly guide the overall development of the State and ensure optimal outcomes for its citizens. Recent years have seen very significant population growth, global events altering economic trajectories and an increased focus on environmental challenges, making a review of the national planning framework both opportune and timely.

While the NTA’s focus is on transport matters, that focus is very much driven and impacted by spatial planning. Spatial planning dictates transport requirements. The level of necessary transport provision and the types of transport mode comprising that provision effectively derive from land use planning decisions. Compact, consolidated development enables more cycling and walking activity as well as the potential for higher capacity public transport modes. Alternatively, dispersed, sprawling environments militate against sustainable transport forms and promote a car-dependent culture which drives up transport carbon emissions.

From the perspective of the NTA, some of the key messages we advocate being emphasised in any update to the national planning framework include the following. The first is development consolidation. As I mentioned, this is the key determinant of transport outcomes. Higher density urban forms enable more efficient public transport operation and reduce our level of car dependency, which all work to reduce transport carbon emissions. The second is more residential development in urban centres. Many of our urban centres have overall low levels of residential occupation, with many streets having ground-floor activity only, centred on retail or commercial activities. Greater residential usage in these streets would enable and support more sustainable transport provision as well as assisting in enhancing the safety environment associated with such transport. Again, such residential development adjacent to services promotes a reduction in travel journey time, thereby reducing carbon emissions.

The third is the importance of plan-led development. Historically, transport has frequently been an afterthought when developments were being planned and delivered. Impermeable estates and large cul-de-sac developments are legacies that frequently make efficient public transport either challenging or impossible to provide.

Plan-led development, where transport has been appropriately considered, is fundamental to ensuring proper integration between land use and transport planning.

Fourth, the need to align large-scale development with the implementation of the necessary transport infrastructure and services is well recognised. It is necessary, however, that such recognition be appropriately supported by funded investment plans as well as funded operational service plans, and this should be a consideration of the review.

While there are many other areas of significance in the review process, what I outlined represents some of the key items from a transport perspective. I trust I can answer any queries that arise.

I thank Ms Graham. I now invite Mr. Lawlor to make his opening statement.

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

I thank the Chairman and committee members for offering us the opportunity to meet them today on the national planning framework and climate targets. I am vice president of the IPI and I am accompanied by Dr. Seán O’Leary, senior planner with the institute.

The planning process provides an established means through which to implement and integrate climate change mitigation and adaptation objectives and our members have extensive experience in relevant climate action implementation matters at policy, strategy and project level. Climate action, sustainable development, the achievement of the sustainable development goals, SDGs, and the centrality of the planning system in achieving them should be more explicit throughout the national planning framework and also future climate action plans. The institute welcomes the review of the national planning framework but this cannot delay essential progress in delivering both compact growth and renewable energy priorities. Both the NPF and Climate Action Plan 2024 would benefit from strengthening the commitment to balanced regional economic development, which is central to national and regional policy. This must be underpinned by the required level of infrastructure investment and project delivery, especially enhanced inter-regional connectivity across multimodal transport, digital connectivity, energy grid and skills development.

We agree with the expert group for the first revision of the national planning framework that the revised framework should seek to name the principles for identifying priority locations for the deployment of infrastructure, including that necessary for decarbonisation, at a strategic scale throughout the country. The absence of mapping, including of potentially overlapping or competing policies, designations and objectives, was identified as a weakness in the national planning framework at draft stage by the institute, and we would support addressing this. The national planning framework also requires a strategy for delivering infrastructure, such as port and harbour infrastructure capacity, to develop, service and maintain offshore renewable capacity and supply-chain economic activities. A plan-led coherent approach must extend to corridors for infrastructure for connections to the grid for both onshore and offshore renewables to prevent a piecemeal approach to the application, consenting and delivery of individual connections to the grid. For all renewables, onshore and offshore, it is critical that policy provide a clear pathway for industry and communities and that it retain and provide confidence and certainty to all stakeholders in the current system.

The revised wind energy guidelines are urgently needed. Planning policy needs to be specific about noise standards for wind turbines to ensure that both the communities that might be affected and the developers of wind energy infrastructure know the criteria expected, while recognising the need for appropriate flexibility within defined parameters. After demonstrating good design, an application still needs to be assessed for context-specific impacts. In general, planning legislation and policy also need to consider the rapid pace of technological innovation. The overdue national landscape character assessment is also essential to addressing some potential conflicts and inconsistencies in dealing with renewable considerations. The need for a national wind energy strategy that has been subject to strategic environmental assessment and is mapped to a sufficient scale is essential.

REPowerEU discusses the possibility of having ready-to-go areas for renewable energy, meaning areas that could avail of a streamlined process. In an offshore context, this requires that designated marine protected areas to be prioritised and resourced to ensure certainty, that is, what is and is not protected, with data available. There should also be consideration of introducing a presumption in favour of renewable energy production in development plan zoning objectives and climate action measures in development management.

More consideration should be given to locating renewable development on brownfield sites such as industrial areas that have capacity to absorb it. The revised national planning framework also needs to engage with the strategic national approach to a range of decarbonisation technologies such as biogas, hydrogen and anaerobic digestion.

Turning to the issue of compact growth and transport-orientated development, the institute is currently preparing a submission on the draft sustainable and compact settlement guidelines, which are out for public consultation. Transport-oriented development is key, and the IPI believes there should be a greater focus on retrofitting the existing urban environment to enhance connectivity and permeability. Investment in a specific mode of transport is of benefit only where it can be demonstrated its usage will also increase. All new developments should provide for optimal levels of connectivity and permeability, especially for pedestrians and cyclists, through smart design.

While addressing mitigation priorities, however, compact growth should also recognise climate impacts, not least those associated with increased impermeable surfaces and building design in respect of indoor solar gain, as well as microclimate impacts and the use of green infrastructure, to address flood risks and overheating. If the sunlight and daylight guidance were applied literally, to require 100% compliance in apartment guidelines, that would, as we understand it, militate against passive housing. Complex aspects within the policy documents need to be ironed out.

The planning system is central to dealing with both the legacy of unsustainable, carbon-intensive development and delivering the strategically critical infrastructure required to meet our climate targets, all at a time of significant population growth and housing demand, but there will be significant challenges to meeting our carbon budgets without an appropriately resourced planning system that is equipped to implement reformed legislation.

The alignment of public policy is a key issue. The ambition of the new national climate objective and the implications of carbon budgets have not yet been fully mapped into planning policy and practice, and the hierarchy of planning policies needs to be better aligned to meet mitigation and adaptation goals. The implications of carbon pricing for the planning system, and the role of planning authorities in quantifying the impact of decisions on greenhouse gas emissions in a consistent manner, require engagement with practitioners. It is also unclear how the 2022 permitting regulations were reflected in national guidance, and the planning system must also be prepared for the amended renewable energy directive, which reflects the ambition of this regulation and REPowerEU.

The planning policy hierarchy requires different levels of the planning process to address climate change. The implications, however, of the forthcoming local authority climate action plans on recently adopted development plans remain unclear. The forthcoming renewable electricity strategy, regional renewable electricity strategies, local authority renewable energy strategies and the accompanying methodology will create a complex framework that will be challenging to integrate into existing plans and policies, particularly given current resource constraints.

Our members are well aware of the national, European and international obligations Ireland now has to address the climate and biodiversity crisis, including the impending adoption of the fourth national biodiversity action plan, and want to ensure policy and decision-makers reflect these. However, this requires the support of others to tackle misinformation and create a stronger sense of the common good among communities. Elected representatives have a key role to play in this.

The plan-making process provides excellent vehicles for community engagement and education for climate action and sustainable development. Constructive engagement with communities, who may have legitimate concerns regarding decarbonisation interventions and projects, is required at a much deeper level than heretofore.

We will be happy to address any questions the committee may have should members wish to engage further with the institute on any aspect of our submission.

I thank Mr. Lawlor.

I apologise for being late; I was in the Chamber. I thank all the witnesses for their submissions on this important discussion. There is a remarkable degree of consensus on the high-level policy objectives that are required. One of the frustrating aspects for the witnesses' organisations, as much as for us committee members, is that if we cast our minds back to when the consultation for the national planning framework was under way, many of them were saying the exact same things at that point. Here we are a number of years later and, notwithstanding some of the good parts of the NPF, it is in the implementation that we are finding difficulties at present.

Any review of the NPF, not least from the point of view of housing and residential development, has three main challenges. The first, which I do not think any of the witnesses mentioned, although it is relevant to the debate, especially in the context of meeting our emissions reduction targets in the built environment, is that the population growth target, and, therefore, the new residential development target underpinning the NPF, is wrong.

Most of us knew it was wrong at the time. It did not take into account pent-up or existing demand within our housing system and was based on poor readings, even then, of existing census data and, of course, factors that nobody could have anticipated, for example, the war in Ukraine. When the Housing Commission finally reports later this year, if The Irish Times leaks are to be believed, we are looking at a new residential development need of approximately 50,000 units a year. In the context of meeting our emissions reductions targets, that has to be named. If we thought it was a challenge when people were talking about 30,000 new homes a year, at 50,000 it is an even bigger challenge.

I absolutely support the points that have been made. We are building houses in the wrong place. I live in Clondalkin and I represent Clondalkin and Lucan. Far more homes are being built outside the M50 west and in counties Kildare and Meath than in our urban core in Dublin. If one visits Cork or Waterford city, virtually nothing new is getting built, and likewise, in the towns and villages. Notwithstanding the fact that the NPF prioritises compact growth, that is not what has happened in the intervening period. I am sure all the witnesses have seen the Chartered Institute of Building's mapping exercise where it looks where those homes are being built. That is a real problem. Something the committee has spent a lot of time on but that many us are frustrated with the lack of action in the Department on is that those new homes are being built with the wrong materials. Either perfectly good structures are being demolished and new homes rebuilt or we are still stuck with traditional build or so-called "modern methods of construction", MMC. There is nothing modern about them. They have been around for 100 years.

If we are to build or provide those additional homes but we use the same settlement patterns as we have until now, using the same building methodologies and the same planning, we are not even not going to meet our 2030 targets. We will be on the wrong side of that in terms of very significant increases in embodied carbon in the built environment even if we get good progress on renewable energy and household energy consumption. The question I would like to ask each of the organisations is if there is consensus on the high-level objectives, the real issue is, if the revised NPF and the revised housing needs demand assessment moves us up that gear towards those 50,000 homes a year to meet existing and future housing demand, what needs to change in implementation? If the Minister, the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste were here and they could name a number of priority actions around the implementation of those broad principles that they outlined they would like to see in the review, what would be top of their list? These discussions in the committee are only of use if we can go back to the Minister and make some proposals. I am interested to hear from their different perspectives what needs to change to ensure, if all of the things they outlined are worked into the revised NPF, this time around they actually happen or at least some of them do.

Can I add to Deputy Ó Broin's point that the Minister will be here with us next week as a follow-up to this meeting so that they will know that? To whom is the first question directed?

It is to the four organisations. From their different perspectives, they have interesting points to add. Who is brave enough to go first?

There is approximately three minutes. I see Mr. Lawlor making a move to the microphone.

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

I am always happy to go first.

Where does the Deputy want us to start? One of the first ports of call - we ourselves are almost sick of saying this - is resource.

I do not disagree with any of the things he said. That is the whole purpose of a review of a national planning framework. Time moves on. If targets move on, they move on. If 50,000 is the correct number of houses following a review that we need to be building, so be it.

On the idea or the concept that we failed, the whole concept of where to build houses and how to build houses is like an oil tanker - one does not change it overnight. In one cycle of a national planning framework, it is highly ambitious to expect that one would and. therefore, what we have to do is look at some of the metrics. We need to reflect and look at what has been successful and what has not been successful and be very honest with ourselves as to both of those answers in terms of what was the policy, what worked and what did not work.

It has to be remembered that the NPF is a policy. That does not necessarily affect what actually happens on the ground and if it has not affected what is on the ground, what are the tangible things that have? We talk a lot about things like the value sharing and the taxation of unused lands, etc., as a way to try and drive development but we need to start to look at incentives. If the stick is not working, an appropriate carrot needs to be used to try and encourage development in what we term would be the "right" location. The answer is a proper objective set of metrics where we properly reflect on what has happened, why it has happened and how certain changes can be made to make a difference, what the expected change would be, and then one carries out the changes and one reflect on it. That is the way to do it.

There are other bigger issues than housing. I refer to energy and transport. It is not one size fits all. To make sure we have sustainable housing, we have to get everything else right, as the OPR said. Everything else has to work. It works like a jigsaw. It is not just a case of saying it did not work.

The last, but not least, piece here is there is a certain legacy. We have zoned certain lands. We are responsible for zoning those lands. Some of those lands are developed. Some of those lands are not developed. Policy does not determine which land gets developed first and that type of market intervention, if that is what one attempts to do, has certain ramifications. It is a little more complex than the ambition to build 50,000 houses. We would say it is really important. Data is the key piece and let us have more resources to get more data.

I thank Mr. Lawlor. Unfortunately, that time slot has run out.

I will come back to the other organisations in the second round.

Absolutely. The Fine Gael slot is next. I call Deputy Higgins.

I thank the Chair and all of the witnesses. As Mr. Lawlor said, the review is a real opportunity for us to revisit our climate targets, to revisit the plan in its entirety and to refocus ourselves on this increasingly important topic and the steps that we need to take to achieve our climate action plan and its goals.

I will make a couple of comments on the submissions. The IPI spoke about how important it is for the revised wind energy guidelines to be published as soon as possible. That is a message for us here in the committee to relay to the Minister and I hear the institute loud and clear on that.

The OPR is talking about spatial data and precise linking of targets, and how important that is to be able to measure the impact this is having. That is something we need to take on board.

The Climate Action Advisory Council, CAAC, the climate action group, spoke, in particular, about the importance of looking at brownfield sites. I suppose city edge in Dublin is an example of where we are looking at a brownfield site and bringing it to fruition in terms of new development. We need to do more of that. It is about identifying those viable sites to do it.

The National Transport Authority obviously plays a crucial and strategic role when it comes to servicing new planning developments, the forward planning, whether that is for new strategic development zones, SDZs, or strategic housing developments, SHDs, but also in encouraging in the here and now people out of their cars, onto public transport and bikes or out walking. In this regard, we have seen the success that BusConnects has brought, the success of the 24-hour bus routes and the massive success of the fare reductions on public transport in achieving that. I have stated at the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications previously, but let me reiterate, that in my constituency of Dublin Mid-West, we have embraced public transport and our problem is we do not have enough of it. By the time buses on the C1 and C2 routes hit The Pennyhill in Lucan at peak times, they are already full. The C3 and C4 are full when they hit Lucan Village. From a rail perspective, more capacity is needed on our train lines. In particular, I see it at Adamstown train station. The car park is packed in the mornings. It is fantastic. We need more capacity. We so badly need a link between Ireland's largest industrial estate, Greenogue industrial estate, and Hazelhatch train station, which is approximately a seven-minute drive away. The orbital route was supposed to serve it. I can see Mr. Creegan going through it in his mind. We have that in a plan but the problem is that plan is sitting on a shelf at this stage. It is not possible because of the impediment of the approach to the humpback bridge in Hazelhatch. These are foreseeable challenges. We are investing hugely in this area. What do we need to do to invest to make these things happen to increase capacity on our bus routes and train lines and to get the commuter link between Newcastle Village and Greenogue to Hazelhatch completed?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

I will take the question about Hazelhatch. We developed a solution to the constraint there and it went to a consultation under section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1994, as amended. I have not been in contact with South Dublin County Council for a couple of weeks and am not sure what the outcome is of that consultation. The Deputy may know the outcome. The solution seemed doable, involving a bit of extra delay for some car traffic in order to be able to push through the bus service. I will follow up on the matter and send a note to the Deputy. I am fairly sure, unless there is a local objection we are not aware of, that it is a solution with which we can proceed.

That is super. It is all about making it happen as quickly as possible. We have seen how Kishoge rail station was built 14 years ago and is still not open. It is about opening up these facilities and getting them up and running to provide people with more accessible public transport.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

Kishoge station will open next year.

I was told the same last year and every year before that. This is the problem. People are tired of hearing that. We need to see these kinds of key infrastructure enabled and people being able to use them.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

A contract is about to be signed. There was an issue to be sorted out between South Dublin County Council and the developer, which is now resolved. The contract is ready to sign and the work will take approximately six months. The station should be open early next year.

It is great to hear that.

Ms Anne Graham

On the capacity of public transport, it is our ambition to build the capacity in all our public transport systems. However, we are now coming up against constraints, which are not funding constraints but to do with our situation of full employment in the State. We are having difficulties in getting enough drivers to be able to build the BusConnects network we want to deliver as quickly as possible. That is a constraint of full employment and a full economy. It is something we will have to consider as we move forward, looking at what type of investment we put into our public transport infrastructure to meet employment constraints. Perhaps we will have to look at higher-capacity infrastructure, which comes at a cost. This is something that is reviewed as we look forward.

I am interested in hearing from any of the other witnesses who would like to come in on the review in general or the wind energy guidelines, spatial data, brownfield sites and the City Edge project. Do they think that will be something that becomes an example of a success, whereby we develop a brownfield site and, we hope, have a brand-new city? Mr. Hussey might like to comment on that.

Mr. George Hussey

I do not have a lot to say specifically about the cases the Deputy mentioned other than to reiterate that the CCAC certainly sees the issue of brownfield infill development needing to be addressed much more broadly than just having example areas or test cases. It needs to be rolled out much more widely. There is an urgent need to fix the misaligned incentive whereby it makes more sense to invest in housing in areas where we know there will be knock-on societal problems in terms of the costs of all the other services. My colleague, Ms Kelly, may wish to add to that.

Ms Gina Kelly

We commissioned a report from the OECD, published last year, on redesigning our transport system. One of the areas it looked at was incentives for urban and brownfield infill development. A few of the recommendations it made in that regard go back to the issue of data quality and availability, namely, the need to quantify the costs. Not all sites are the same. In fact, they are very different in different areas. It is a question of what it would take to rebalance the incentives as between development on a greenfield area and a brownfield area. There is a need to address those incentives from the stick perspective, as Mr. Lawlor mentioned, in terms of the land value sharing aspect, as one example, but also in terms of the incentives and supports, or carrots, that might be offered to develop in those areas. There is a bit more detail on some of the report's recommendations in our annual review this year.

My first question to the witnesses is for the OPR. Is the current NPF working? Has enough analysis and auditing been done to show whether it is working?

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

Our experience of the NPF is that it takes time. The framework is there but, coming out of that, we also had to have the regional, spatial and economic strategies and then, on foot of those strategies, every county and city development plan in the country had to be reviewed. We have almost completed that cycle. We hope to be looking at a very different set of development plans, which are implementing the NPF locally, compared with what was there in the five or six years since 2017. We need to give the framework an opportunity to work. There are different parts to it. The overall strategy of regional rebalancing is very positive and very strong on certain issues like flood management. We have been able to be very effective in that space.

Will Ms O'Connor narrow it down to the compact growth requirement?

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

On compact growth, we have to think back to 2017. As a planner, at that time, I do not think I had even heard of compact growth. It was a new concept even at that time. If we consider the definition of compact growth, we must consider that the targets we have for compact growth are for only 40% of houses to be constructed within the built-up areas. That is an extremely low level of ambition.

I understand that was also noted by the CCAC.

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

Even within that, the definition of compact growth is as per the Central Statistics Office, CSO boundary, which is quite large. We are getting bigger and bigger and it is very hard to see. I would say the NPF probably has been less effective in that area. Certainly, when looking at the implementation of it, the regional assemblies, in their regional development monitor, produce a very interesting graphic on work on compact growth. Looking at that, one would say we are the most successful country in Europe on compact growth, but we know the situation is very different. Separating out the specific objectives for brownfield and infill is important. Compact growth is not just an amorphous concept. It has to be defined and sub-defined into a much more targeted way of looking at the process.

To me, compact growth is about densification, but not just that; it is also about having access to transport and services and there being walkability, permeability and good public places, which encompasses the 15-minute city and ten-minute town concepts. Is there enough guidance out there for planners, architects, designers, urban planners, etc. to be able to create good compact growth, or is it too dispersed, with a separation between transport, green spaces, which are done through the urban regeneration and development fund, and the development done by the planners? Is there enough linkage between these aspects?

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

I think there is enough linkage and there is more than enough guidance. Exactly as Ms O'Connor said, our understanding of what constitutes good design and good compact growth has evolved rapidly over the past five years. That is good and positive. We just need to continue to stretch that ambition forward. Taking the City Edge project, for example, that has come about in the past five years. It is a concept that has developed on foot of the 15-minute city concept. The challenge with all of these things is in delivery and making that delivery real. There are tonnes of examples of really good, high-quality urban design in many parts of the city, where the 15-minute concept works, is there and is demonstrable. There are other examples of design that is not so good, where the 15-minute concept has not been done or has not worked. Regarding the City Edge project, two things we tend to forget about when we want to encourage brownfield redevelopment are, first, it takes time and, second, it means the displacement of existing land uses. The City Edge project is about redevelopment of underutilised industrial zoned land around what are, in effect, high-quality future transport links. That industry has to go somewhere else and the question is where that will be. That is the piece of the jigsaw puzzle that has not yet been quite figured out. The classic approach of letting the market determine is not a good idea.

We have come a long way in the past five years. Has the national planning framework been a success? At some levels, it has been successful in terms of educating us and setting ambitions. In other ways, it has not been successful in that we are now looking at it, reflecting and saying it has not been ambitious enough and we need it to be more ambitious. That is because our understanding of climate change and the import of it, as a community, by which I mean the global Irish community, has improved. We have become much more educated and involved. We understand climate change because we can see its ramifications in a practical sense.

To go further with my questioning, I know the witnesses understand what compact growth is and what it should look like in a well-designed city. I am sure the NTA knows transport-orientated development inside out. The CCAC knows exactly what we need to do. The OPR tries to regulate our local authorities to ensure they deliver that in their plans. We all know what needs to be done. However, where we may be letting down the whole process is in the aspect of engagement with the public.

Any time we try to do something to mitigate in regard to climate, whether it is active transport plans or reorganisation of bus routes or rail to give a better service, and it impacts on some people but offers the greater good return, we get major opposition to it. The Irish Planning Institute said that elected representatives have a responsibility and the Climate Change Advisory Council said that strong political support is required. I think there is a real weakness in our political system because we have people who go out there and they will beat the drum of opposition in order to make political gain. Do the witnesses ever feel frustrated with public representatives when they see what we try to do and then see the opposition and campaigns to frustrate the whole climate action agenda?

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

In a word, yes, but I do not think it is limited just to public representatives. It is endemic in Irish society. It is called all sorts of names, whether NIMBYism or something else. We need to be grown-up about this and we need to understand that if we are going to do things the right way, there are going to be losers and people who, unfortunately, are disadvantaged in those situations.

I would suggest it is change rather than losing, so it is just a different way of doing things and not necessarily a loss.

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

No, there are situations where people lose their front garden because a bus corridor has to go through or lose their back garden because a rail line has to go through. The key thing is to make sure they are properly informed and properly educated. We need to stop trying to pretend that we can be all things to all people all the time. In the political system, people have to win votes. How do they win votes? They have to please their voters and, therefore, they tell them what they want to hear. If they have bad news, they do not give it or they at least try to be the person who is not giving it. The point is that this is just human nature. The common good is not necessarily always commonly understood and it is up to us, as professionals, and up to politicians to communicate what the common good is and to advocate for it.

A classic example is the wind farm guidelines. The wind farm guidelines that are still in place are from the early 2000s. Here we are, in the mid-2020s, and we were promised the guidelines this summer but they have been delayed until after Christmas. That is just not right.

I am out of time. We will engage with the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, on that because they fall to him. I call Senator Boyhan.

I thank the National Transport Authority, the Climate Change Advisory Council, the Irish Planning Institute, particularly Mr. Lawlor, who is full of things to say and full of wisdom, and the Office of the Planning Regulator. I want to stay focused on the submissions that the organisations sent to us because it is important to tease them out. I do not think anyone is in doubt about the commitment. The commonality of the issues that have been raised is very evident in the submissions that we have received and have had time to read. I thank the organisations for submitting them early as it gives us an advantage to look at them, tease them out, validate some of the issues around them and seek other opinions before we come in here. That is very helpful and I acknowledge that they have done that for us.

I will go to the Irish Planning Institute and Mr. Lawlor first. I want to tease out two or three things that were raised in his submission. Point 4 of the submission highlights that “The absence of mapping - including of potentially overlapping or competing policies, designations, objectives etc. - was identified as a weakness in the NPF”, which is the national planning framework. I would share that view but I would like Mr. Lawlor to tease it out a little further.

Before I give him that opportunity, I live at a port, Dún Laoghaire, and I am conscious that the NPF requires a strategy for delivering infrastructure at the ports and harbours, given the need to have the capability and capacity to develop services, maintain offshore renewable capacity and supply the economic activities that are essential in all of that. Again, the Irish Planning Institute raises that as an issue. It is an important point and I heard at a conference on renewables in Galway recently that this issue is continuously raised. Will Mr. Lawlor address those issues further and drill down into those concerns?

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

I will take the renewables piece first and I will ask my colleague to deal with the other question. Renewables are something I am quite passionate about and understand very well. We do not have a national implementation strategy for renewables and we have not properly designated in an objective way where certain renewables should go in the country. We are still struggling with the concept of biogas or anaerobic digestion and it is still not properly understood by certain local authorities, which are still preparing policies on it. We only produce about 2 MW of energy from biogas currently. It is a huge resource that we could tap into. The committee heard that we need 12 GW of renewable energy, which is a monstrous amount. On the flipside of that, it would appear that we do not have the physical infrastructure to properly move that energy around the wirescape, so to speak. If we think about the difficulty and the challenges for EirGrid in just trying to achieve the North-South interconnector - I will not talk about the good or bad of that but just the challenges in trying to achieve it - they are very significant.

While I am not advocating for strategic developments, we believe something like that, where there is a fast-track process for renewable energy and energy infrastructure, is needed to try to deliver upon the ambitions. If we do not do that, the current planning system will not allow us to achieve any of our ambitions in terms of renewables. To be blunt about it, we cannot even write a policy document and it takes us well over ten years to get to that point.

In summary, what is the ask in regard to this infrastructure piece that the Irish Planning Institute raised in its submission?

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

Very specifically, what we say is that there should be designated areas for fast-tracking renewables.

That is a good takeaway and is helpful for us. The first part of the question, which Dr. O'Leary is going to address, is the absence of mapping. The submission refers to overlapping and competing policies, designations and objectives. Again, the Irish Planning Institute has identified the concern and it is echoed twice in the submission. Mr. O'Leary might take us through that and give us one or two examples. Again, what is the ask? What is the Irish Planning Institute asking?

Dr. Seán O'Leary

Obviously, there are things like environmental designations under the birds and habitats directives, policies on one-off housing in the open countryside and a range of other policies, objectives in development plans and different landscape designations, which can vary from local authority to local authority, even if it might be a similar landscape. There are already some commitments which we have called out in the opening statement, like the absence of a national landscape character assessment which would try to bring some consistency to that and which is three, if not four, years overdue.

In terms of the capacity for mapping, there are opportunities, as we understand it, coming from the regional approach that is being taken, and that is possibly something that the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications and others could contribute to in order to try to bring that to one place, so every local authority is not trying to do its own mapping. However, as Mr. Lawlor said, there are more of these designations, policies and objectives coming down, so it is getting more complicated, not less.

In my last question, I turn to the Office of the Planning Regulator. Its submission refers to the national planning objectives and calls for “better structures (& ICT systems) for spatial data gathering to monitor implementation of those NPOs”. That is important and I agree with it. We constantly talk about ICT systems in planning and development. Ms O'Connor might elaborate on the weaknesses and where she sees potential for collaboration to address this shortcoming.

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

Mr. O'Leary has identified a number of those in his contribution. From our experience, we would have come across a large number of inconsistencies across county boundaries. For example, on one side of a boundary, there would be an area that is open for consideration for renewable energy and, on the other side, in the same landscape, that is not permissible. There is also the visibility around that. It is very hard when we are trying to patch things together. What we need is a common blank canvas, so to speak, so we can appropriately layer and compare things. The data and GIS information around all of these matters are going to be key.

That is also why the regional perspective is important. It should not just be a matter for the individual local authority. The regional approach, particularly with regard to renewables, will be critical in delivery. The problem with it is that it requires more time and we do not necessarily have more time. That is something. The immediacy of this issue needs to be underlined. It is also about trying to get things up and running as best we can at the moment rather than just waiting for the perfect situation to arise, which is one of the things that has delayed the delivery of the wind energy guidelines. We just need to get on and do it.

I thank Ms O'Connor.

I thank everybody for coming in. All four presentations were very interesting and challenging. The presentation from the IPI in particular was excellent. One of the things that has come across in all four is the definition of "compact growth". Does the Climate Change Advisory Council have a suggested tighter definition of "compact growth", a concept referred to in its presentation? Does the IPI have one? I will refer to density guidelines in particular. I always find density guidelines really difficult to find. There is no consistency in the densities people are suggesting. You will often see groups saying that a given building is on par with Paris and Amsterdam in terms of density but, when you dig into it, that is not necessarily true in the case of that one development. I am interested in that. Can the witnesses suggest any particularly strong planning documents on density guidelines that would give a layperson an idea of them?

The Office of the Planning Regulator has also referred to compact growth but I was quite disappointed with the review of development plans. For example, the Office of the Planning Regulator told Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council it had zoned too much land. Why did the office state that a county in which there is access to high-quality public transport, that already contains a great deal of urban sprawl and which has some of the highest house prices in the country had reached its housing targets in the middle of a housing crisis? That astounded me. I want to know the rationale behind that. Is it that the office believes we will not meet climate targets if we build more housing for people?

Infrastructure following development is one of the challenges we all face. The Chair has referred to it. We are talking about 15-minute cities. When individual planning applications come in, you will often see a list of infrastructure that needs to be in place. I am talking about transport-oriented development but also things like schools, doctors, GP surgeries and so on. What changes to the planning process would the witnesses suggest to ensure the infrastructure that needs to be there to support development is incorporated, with particular regard to renewable energy, water, biodiversity, parks and so on? I think that is enough for four minutes.

Mr. George Hussey

If the Senator has a quick look at the appendix to our submission, she will see a table that comes from the Regional Development Monitor, RDM, and that almost every county in Ireland is exceeding the national target of 40%. Even those counties that are not exceeding it are certainly exceeding the 30% target for rural counties. We are beholden to the data that are available to us in this regard. The Central Statistics Office has done a very good job in making that settlement data available to the RDM and various others. Essentially, there are two issues. One is tightening the physical boundaries within which we count a new dwelling as being within the compact growth guidelines, or not as the case may be, in order that they all relate to physical spaces that make sense from an urban point of view. The second is really about the level of ambition and ratcheting it up so that we are not in a situation where 50% of urban dwellings and 70% of rural dwellings can still be outside of the settlement. There are two elements to it. I am sorry that does not directly answer the Senator's question but we do not have a specific definition as such.

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

On the issue the Senator raised regarding Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, what we were trying to achieve was more about prioritising the development of lands. Even though we acknowledge there are an awful lot of lands that are very well located and accessible by public transport and by walking and cycling infrastructure, there were also lands that were not as immediately accessible. What we wanted to see in the development plan was a very clear plan for the prioritisation of those better located lands and an acknowledgement that certain other lands would take longer to release because of a need for infrastructure capacity. It is not the case that we were saying we should not build any additional housing in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown but rather that there needed to be a plan-led approach to the phasing and implementation of the housing targets for the county.

I am just looking at it now and that is not how it reads but I accept that point.

I believe there was a question to the IPI on infrastructure following development. Am I right in that?

I would actually like the IPI to answer the question on best practice in density guidelines because that is something that has never really been teased out. People talk about density but nobody teases out how many units per hectare that means, what that involves and what supporting infrastructure needs to go along with it.

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

We are getting into the nitty-gritty of design but, in our submission on the new guidelines that have come out, we will welcome the fact that a range of densities are provided for. One of the challenges is always one size fitting all. That cannot be the case. Different villages and towns will have different demands and needs in other areas and you also have to look to the future as well as to the present in determining the appropriate density for an area. You have to look at the character of the area and a multiplicity of other issues that determine density from a design perspective. Sustainable development and compact urban growth involves providing infrastructure that will support the level of density you choose to put in a place. For example, if you specify a density of 200 units per hectare, which is a very high density involving apartment developments of six storeys or more, you need the infrastructure to support it. It is exactly as we have said: a sense of place, a sense of space, a place to walk your dog and a place to have active and passive recreation. All of those building blocks need to be put in place. There are some very good examples of attempts at that. The planning scheme at Poolbeg has won awards for the balance it tries to create. However, there is also the challenge of the provision of appropriate public transport. Classically, it has been a case of build it and we will come rather than putting in the infrastructure first. The only real exception to that is the Luas in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown.

Just to follow up on that point, last night, I was at a community meeting in a newer part of my constituency where there are higher densities. The whole area was planned on the idea that the quid pro quo for higher densities would be better facilities. Despite this, 15 or 20 years since the communities were originally built, the area still does not have proper community facilities. The residents were having a row with the city council last night and asking whether it would not open the public toilets that had been built and provided for in the public park. The city council was saying no because they might get vandalised. The position of the local authority was that it is better to have pristine public toilets that no one can access than to open them up, leaving them at risk of vandalism. This is typical of many areas that have been developed, in that huge amounts of development levies were paid for infrastructure. Some infrastructure has been delivered but there are very significant deficits, which ultimately leads to pressures in the community. We have a large number of younger people who are all growing up and becoming teenagers at the same time and we have all of the issues associated with not having proper youth facilities in the area. That leads to the phenomenon we have seen over the years, a certain amount of flight. Those families who can afford to move out of the higher-density housing and buy housing in a lower-density traditional suburban estate do so and those who cannot, do not.

We can see that happening very clearly. What needs to be done if we are going to achieve the compact growth that everyone is talking about? What must be done to make that work? Everything I can see, and I talk to colleagues who agree, suggests a two-tier situation involving compact growth for some people in certain areas but continued sprawl and car dependency in other areas. People who are able to afford to buy into that do so and those who cannot, do not. I ask the Irish Planning Institute representatives to respond to that question first. What are we missing now that needs to be done?

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

We need to be careful here. There are significant failures in our legacy of urban planning in Ireland but a lot has been learned. In newer developments now we do see a lot stronger commitment towards improved amenities, community facilities, and the funding of that by developers through special development contributions. On the question of what needs to be done, community facilities and what is required to make a sustainable community is well understood, if one sits down, looks at it and talks to people. The problem is with delivering that. Classically, with regard to financial contributions for local authorities, there has not been, from what we can see, a significant degree of accountability whereby councils have earmarked a certain amount of money that has been generated in a certain area to be spent in that area. It goes into a centralised budget which they then spend on other priorities that might exist elsewhere in the county. Funding community facilities and ensuring that they are adequately described is essential. We classically lean on developers as being responsible for that but they are not the only ones with a responsibility here. The local authorities are responsible for it as well. As part of the development plans there should be - and there are in many cases - social infrastructure audits, where local authorities look at what is required for an urban area, what is missing, what investment is needed, what are the priorities and so on. Obviously, existing communities where there are deficits should be at the top of the list rather than new communities because-----

On that, are we not at a huge disadvantage compared to somewhere like the Netherlands, for example, where there is active land management by the local or municipal authority? Dutch authorities assemble land banks, put in some of the infrastructure up front, and then use the sale of the land back to builders for housing to fund that. The way we do it effectively means there is no active land management. There is only the hope of putting in infrastructure, including community facilities, afterwards. Is that not a key problem here? We can have great plans and aspirations but the delivery, because we are not doing active land management, is where it falls down. Is that correct?

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

Active land management really works and it works well in the Netherlands but it takes many years to gain the requisite expertise to deliver it in a meaningful way. Moving from where we are now to that sort of system, to one that is as well developed as the Dutch one, would be a significant challenge for us. I am not saying that the ambition should not be there but it would be a very significant challenge. In the first instance, we have to look at what we can achieve. We can actively manage land in different ways. Development goals can only be based on the four basics of infrastructure. If we do not have access and public transport and have not decided what that looks like, if we do not have foul water, potable water or surface water, then we are not going to be building there. All of those things sit within the gift of local authorities. Active land management can be done even at the most basic level, in the first instance, to prioritise the delivery of land.

I have a question for the Office of the Planning Regulator. In her opening statement, Ms O'Connor spoke about district heating systems and said they can only happen at scale if they are planned for in development plans. I ask her to expand on that, explain why that is the case and why it is necessary to do it via the development plans.

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

It is largely because the policy objective needs to be included at the development plan stage. For something like a district heating system to work, it has to be hard wired in at an early stage in the development because such systems are notoriously difficult to retrofit. We have to be able to see what types of developments are going into an area, what type of land use is involved, where the synergies are there and then put in a place strong policy objective for the provision of district heating in those areas. There are some interesting projects on district heating but they are very much at the pilot stage now and some of them, even still, are just at the stage of inception. It is probably one of the areas, along with the biogas area, where we are really at a very early stage in terms of developing our understanding and thinking as to how this can work. It is very difficult to retrofit district heating.

In terms of active land management and why things are not necessarily happening on the ground, there can be a frustration and I completely acknowledge that. A key point about active land management is that it is extremely resource intensive. It needs people for whom it is their full-time job to deliver, with a clear focus on delivering and with the skill set to do it. We are at the relatively early stages of developing those skill sets within the local authorities and resourcing dedicated teams and units to pursue active land management. We are seeing those coming on stream, on foot of the Urban Regeneration and Development Fund, URDF, and the Rural Regeneration and Development, RRDF, funding streams, which are providing the resources. Certainly, in terms of resourcing, both financially and in regard to skill sets, we still have a long way to go in that area.

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

Can I come in on the district heating piece? I recently worked on a project where we trying to deliver district heating, where the developer of the waste heat, for want of a better description, had surplus heat available. It became a huge challenge to get rid of it, even for somebody who was willing to put in the infrastructure, because the housing developer had to make quite a significant investment in other infrastructure costing over €500,000. The developer decided not to do it, even though there was freely available heat on the doorstep. There are significant challenges to the delivery of district heating. These challenges are not just regulatory in nature and it is not just a case of installing the pipe work and then letting it get built afterwards. There are also cost implications and the fact that we do not have a developed system here. Our construction industry is not familiar with the technologies and the efficiencies therein to be able to deliver it in a meaningful way. Equally, members of the public are not used to it as a concept. It is very difficult to convince people to buy a house that is heated by way of a water pipe that comes from a factory down the road. There are lots of challenges around that and as Ms O'Connor said, we are at the very infancy of active land management and of district heating. That said, we should set strong ambitions and we should really incentivise both.

I thank the representatives of the four organisations for being with us today. We are on the right track in terms of the National Planning Framework, NPF. Ms O'Connor is right about the cycle and getting to the point we are at. We have the NPF, the regional spatial and economic strategy, RSES, and the county development plans but it has taken quite a number of years to get to the point we are at now, in 2023, with the county development plans now largely completed across the country. The difficulty I have, which feeds into what Senator Moynihan spoke about earlier, is that notwithstanding the requirement to ensure we have compact development, it costs money and we have to incentivise it. That is why the Government introduced the Croí Cónaithe (cities) scheme and the new star system in the cost-rental piece because without that, brown field development is not viable. That is the difficulty and that is why the Government has introduced schemes to try to incentivise compact development.

The housing population targets that have been fed through the funnel from the NPF, through the RSES and the county development plans, are not based on Census 2022. My own county of Waterford has seen 10% population growth, which is more than the national average, and has seen the highest growth rate of any urban centre in the country. Difficulties were cited in Dún Laoghaoire, Wicklow and some other areas whereby what has come through the funnel versus the requirement for zoned land simply do not match.

Does the regulator's office see the requirement for additional zoned land in the context of what has come out now from the 2022 census?

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

I am glad the Senator asked the question. It refers back to the issue Deputy Ó Broin raised earlier and I am glad to have the opportunity to respond. There is definitely this perception that we are not planning for enough housing in the country. Regarding the data and the facts, however, if we calculate the cumulative level of housing targets in all the development plans we have dealt with around the country, the total averages out at just under 47,000 dwellings per annum. We are not, therefore, too far off the 50%.

Yes, but is it accepted that just zoning a piece of land does not necessarily mean it will be built on?

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

No, it does not.

What is the average conversion rate for planning? I ask this notwithstanding that we have put in an instrument, the residential zoned land tax, to try to bring forward many of these lands. In my estimation, though, we are probably looking at a maximum of 25% to 30% conversion, although it will be different in every area. Zoning and delivery are two different things.

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

Yes, and I understand the concerns in this regard. There is much larger capacity in the housing yield of the zoned land. It is much higher than the approximately 46,000. The problem is that we must strike a balance. We do not want there to be an absolute directive that 46,000 homes will be built and that land will be zoned only for those 46,000 homes-----

However, that is what is happening.

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

That is not what has happened. Allowances are made for additional provision. There are also allowances for some of the conversion rates concerning some of the densities being used. These have been lower than they will likely have to be when it comes to the planning application stage. Another provision has been made to have more strategic land banks as well. There are, therefore, quite a lot of checks and balances in the system in that regard.

If we were to zone multiples of the area of land we need, when we are talking about compact growth then the problem is that we would not be able to plan in an efficient or an energy-efficient way to service all those lands. How can the NTA know where it is going to run its bus services if the land is zoned all over the place?

No, I get the point. So, in short-----

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

There needs to be a plan to it.

-----Ms O'Connor's answer is "No".

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

My answer is that a balance needs to be struck between zoning a sufficient supply of land and a supply of land we know can be serviced. The other issue that is important is that our definition of "servicing" now does not include accessibility to public transport.

I think that is a valid point concerning the servicing of land. We do have much land that is zoned but not serviced. This is a problem for the local authorities. If land is not serviced, or readily serviced-----

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

The answer is that there should not be.

I know; that is correct. What about the difficulty now for some people in the context of the residential zoned land tax? If we were to take a farmer looking to offload a parcel of land, because he or she does not want to be caught by the tax, there is an issue in servicing that land or with the cost of servicing that land and that does not bring that land bank into use for development purposes.

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

There is a system there for determining that. Those lands were put on the maps because the local authority considered that they were serviced.

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

When we are looking at development plans, we apply a very-----

Is it serviced or serviceable?

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

For the residential zoned land tax, it is zoned serviced land. In terms of zoning, when we are looking at it, we are looking at land that is both serviced and serviceable within the plan period so that it can be built on. What we need to move to is very much a focus on the delivery of housing rather than just assuming that if we zone an inordinate amount of land then at least some of it will be developed, possibly in the wrong places.

I am not suggesting zoning an inordinate amount of land, but I am putting a point to Ms O'Connor regarding the data that emerged from the 2022 census, notwithstanding the requirement to have compact growth. We are seeing a prime example of such a context on the north quays in Waterford city, where the NTA has been involved in the context of the public transport network. This is an appropriate site for high-density development of in excess of 200 units. On the outskirts of Waterford city, however, apartments are, essentially, being demanded for that location, whereas there are no buyers on the other side for apartment units on the ring road in Waterford city. This is where the challenge lies regarding the balance between what we require versus what the market is willing to purchase. Yes, we can do creative things in terms of social housing, cost-rental and all the rest of it to bring these units into activation, but there is a competing question here concerning how we strike this balance in the right locations. This to me is where the challenge lies for the plan.

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

I would not disagree with the Senator. This is the challenge. Getting the balance right is absolutely the challenge. The old approach was to zone a very large amount of land and to have no limitations, or very few, on the amount of land we zoned, but we know where that approach ended up. We know we ended up with urban sprawl and land developed in the wrong locations. We need to change this around. Critical to doing this is to have a strong, plan-led approach. This requires striking a balance between zoning sufficient land to allow delivery to meet the housing targets in the development plan and doing this in the right places.

We will now have the second Sinn Féin slot, followed by the second Fine Gael slot, and then we will go to the third round of questions.

I am sorry-----

I call Deputy Ó Broin.

I will come back to the other three organisations with my original question. I will remind the witnesses what that was because we have had a fair discussion since then. I wish to make some brief comments first.

I agree with Ms O'Connor. My point was not about the zoning because one of the peculiarities is the huge gap between the new-build housing targets underpinning the Government's housing plan and the zoning. It is important, though, as she said, to acknowledge that part of the reason for this headroom in the zoning is the assumption that a portion of the land concerned will be less likely to get developed over the development plan cycle. My view, though, is that we will not necessarily need to zone much extra land. It is just a recognition that the volume of housing required is far greater within the land we have zoned, and these are two distinct points.

To not depress the committee, it is also important to highlight when we do get stuff right. This is to pick up on the Cathaoirleach's point concerning political and community opposition. The development at Poolbeg West is a good example of the political system and the community actually doing something right. It is the highest density SDZ housing planning scheme that the State has ever had. It had unanimous support from all the politicians on the local authority, which is quite unusual, and very strong local community engagement to ensure the plan reflected a variety of different needs. We do, therefore, sometimes get it right in our endeavours.

Deputy Higgins and I share the same constituency, but I will not ask the constituency questions here. The overwhelming public and political connection with the BusConnects scheme has been positive. Let us not mention the war about the bus corridors for the moment. Generally speaking, however, because of the way in which the consultation was designed and rolled out and the amendments then made to the plan, there is significant public support. The teething problems on implementation are more about the issues that were raised such as the number of bus drivers that can be employed and the rolling stock required, but these aspects stem not from the plan but from its implementation. I refer to the Clonburris and City Edge projects as well, which are in my constituency. We did not get unanimous support for Clonburris but it is a much improved SDZ compared to Adamstown, for example, notwithstanding the plans for that area. It is also important, therefore, to ask why we get these projects right in certain circumstances. Is it something about the design of the process? Is it something about the way in which we engage with political representatives and communities? I pose these questions because if we promote the good decision-making that happens, we might get a little bit less of the negative decision-making.

Having said that, there is a long list of guidelines. The wind energy guidelines have been mentioned. Turning to the rural planning guidelines, my understanding is that these have been done for more than two years and have sat there since. Political controversy has prevented them from being published.

I am not saying it is perfect but I wanted to give that as balance. The issue for the three other organisations - and maybe I will put it in a slightly more practical sense - whether it is Poolbeg, City Edge, or Clonburris, is if we are to do the kinds of things they said in their opening statements we need to do, we need to be able to accelerate those types of plan-led approaches integrating the infrastructure, public transport and housing etc. I am interested, from their experiences - and they have different levels of experience - what the key drivers are of accelerating those kinds of plan-led approaches. I accept it cannot all happen overnight. I am a little frustrated that some of the things that could have happened more quickly did not happen as quickly as they could have. I invite the three organisations to advise the committee as to what it can raise with the Minister in terms of moving these different things forward. I ask more about the implementation because the high-level objectives they all set out are broadly similar.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

As we said in our opening statement, we are recipients of land use. It is really important to us that development occurs in the right places. Transport will never be successful if development occurs in the wrong places. A version of the question the Deputy asked is what we would like to see. The aspiration of compact development will require more State control in some shape or form, and that is loaded with problems. It is very easy for us to say it. Certainly, we need prioritisation of where that development will occur. Why should there be a choice to build 300 houses 20 miles down the road or 300 houses closer to the city centre when we pick up a consequential cost for the further out developments that is not reflected in any aspect of the system? Loaded and problematic as it is, if we are to achieve compact development it requires some tighter controls about where development is to occur. In an ideal world, we would look for some prioritisation of that development roll-out and we know that is problematic. However, if that was done it would certainly make it easier for us to plan and deliver supporting infrastructure. In terms of the transport, that allowed development to happen and it is hoped it will continue to happen successfully afterwards. Would anyone like to add to that?

Mr. George Hussey

I will go back to the Deputy's original question because I think it is also relevant. If The Irish Times or whomever turns out to be correct, in that we are in the 50,000 rather than the 30,000 ballpark, from my rudimentary mathematics it appears that by 2050 the housing stock will be approximately 50% greater than it is today. That is very significant growth and leaves room for an awful lot of change to habits and developments, and indeed to forms of heating that we might use. It is anecdotal rather than proper evidence, whether the idea of the decarbonisation zones and the local authority climate action plans might end up having a very positive effect in the sense that will be areas within local authorities almost challenging each other to try to become that zone and to be those winners. I am not really sure to what extent that is evidential but we have anecdotal evidence to that end. Does Ms Kelly wish to add anything?

Ms Gina Kelly

Yes, in terms of going back to our opening statement and the letter the council sent to the Government, it was focused on a number of sectors. When we think about compact growth and its impact on mitigation, particularly in the transport sector and the built environment sector, that provides benefits in terms of reducing car dependency and allowing greater accessibility and lower cost of provision of public services. On the built environment side it allows for the development of differential heating solutions for our built environment such as district heating, which was mentioned by a number of people in today's discussion. That is an area where the council sees a lot of potential.

One of the areas we focused on in our most recent annual review was the question of the interaction of planning for district heating deployment and heat pumps in areas where it is suitable. District heating as a solution is particularly beneficial where we have concentrated sources of heat demands and the ability to create an efficient network aligned with heat sources. Again, going back to the local authority climate action plans - the drafts of many of which are out for consultation at the moment - we are starting to see a lot of district heating projects come along. We visited the Tallaght district heating scheme last week and that is a really good example of where the regulatory and governance framework is still developing. The report of the district heating steering group was recently published and it is a really good example of local authorities and agencies working together to make a project happen.

Lastly, the Deputy mentioned in his first comments the idea around embodied emissions in the sector and the importance of considering that as we progress with a significant increase in housing targets based on changing demographics. That is another area in the next iteration of the climate action plan; for example, the council has asked for more detail on how low-carbon construction materials can be integrated into new housing developments and also reductions in cement, for example, so that developments might be progressed.

I mentioned the schemes we have to try to promote compact development in terms of brownfield sites. Does the panel feel that more needs to be done given the viability challenges in achieving development on those sites? Will Mr. Lawlor answer?

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

In a simple word, yes, but it has to be evidence-based. It goes back to what Ms O'Connor said earlier. The challenge is always to get the resources in place to collect the data; to analyse the data, and in the analysis of the data to understand it. Some of the challenges here - whether the correct housing number is 50,000 or 30,000 - is the point the Senator made in terms of whether we have zoned enough land or not, or the right land in the right location. All of that is evidence-based. In the same way as understanding the challenges with developing brownfields, it we are to put incentives in place to encourage brownfield development we need to understand these challenges.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan spoke about active land management. Let us start there. I do not think it should be transport following planning, but rather being brave enough to invest in transport to encourage planning in certain corridors. The metro is a perfect example. It has been around for 25 years or more and we still have not bitten the bullet, spent the money, and developed it. Had we done that 25 years ago, maybe we would now be talking about an expanded metro system in Dublin where we would encourage connecting places such as Clonburris, Poolbeg, and other settlements and even look for increased densities.

I will ask about transport next. Waterford is where I know best and where I have lived for all of my life. It is obviously an area targeted for significant growth in the national planning framework. It achieved 10% growth in the last census. However to speak to transport, the metropolitan transport strategy underwent consultation and was published in December, I think. A really good document was produced. Unfortunately, as my colleague Deputy Higgins pointed out, the perception nine months on is that it is a document, and where is the progress in some of the fantastic initiatives outlined in it? Yes, we now have a bike scheme in place but where is the investment in BusConnects? The document stated there will be an 84 km cross-city network, 9 km of orbital, 7 km of radial, and 75 new buses. These are all in the documents that were produced but they are not there. Looking at a city such as Waterford, the fifth biggest urban centre in the country, and looking at forward development, there are areas that are developing in terms of the houses being built that are not serviced by any bus network, like Kilbarry Road for example.

How do we square what we are talking about in the context of housing targets, what we are doing and what we are not delivering on the ground?

Ms Anne Graham

By giving us an opportunity to deliver BusConnects. We cannot go at every city all at once. We are an agency of a particular size. We have to phase the work we do. We obviously commenced with the biggest urban centre, which is Dublin. We are in delivery mode there. We are working on Cork at the moment. We have just done the public consultation on the BusConnects networks for Limerick and Galway. Waterford is next. We will get to Waterford this year and commencing the design of the BusConnects Waterford network. In advance of that, the Senator spoke about investment in the sustainable transport bridge. That is a significant investment, which has been made.

Ms Anne Graham

Significant investment has also been made in the walking and cycling infrastructure through the local authorities. A number of years ago, huge improvements were made to the bus services in Waterford. We tendered that service and took the opportunity to increase the service frequency. We have seen a good response from the people of Waterford to that service. It is one of the most reliable services being delivered in Ireland at the moment in terms of punctuality and reliability. We can say we have invested and will continue to invest in improving the infrastructure if the funding is available.

We want to see it built on for all of those reasons. Thankfully, lots of houses are being built in county Waterford, but there are particular pinch points in some communities. The 360 bus from Tramore into the city is being rerouted. That will go via the Kilbarry Road, which will have one service provided. However, there is a business park, 2,000 houses are planned, of which 300 have been built and there are two well established estates with no bus network at all. Notwithstanding the public consultation on BusConnects, and even in the metropolitan strategy that has been outlined, what I am talking about is highlighted in that. There are bus services for which there is an immediate demand in the context of a neighbourhood like that, rather than waiting for something down the line. I am sure that is replicated in other cities in other areas of the country. Where we are seeing development, there needs to be a quicker response to the transport needs of an emerging community.

Ms Anne Graham

We will do that as much as we can within the resources we have but if we are about to undertake a significant, plan-led look at the network of bus services, it would not be appropriate to start putting in bits of services around Waterford. It would be better to wait and undertake a plan-led approach, look towards what is going to be developed over the next while, and put together a network we will deliver over a few years when the funding is in place. If we go at it haphazardly, then all the work our planning team will be doing will be those haphazard interventions, which may not be the most effective.

What I am suggesting is in the NTA document.

Ms Anne Graham

I know. As I said, we are moving to look at that network this year, and we will commence that work. However, we need to get through the work we are doing in the other cities as well and start delivering in those locations.

I have a final question as I will not come back in. Rail services are also in that document. It mentions priority additional services to Plunkett Station in Waterford to improve connectivity. I am trying to understand the NTA's remit in the context of the review under way at the moment, in terms of the Irish Rail consultation currently open for some of the intercity routes. One of their proposals is that there would be an 8.15 a.m. service from Dublin, but it only goes as far as Carlow and returns to Dublin. It does not actually go to Waterford. The last service on Monday to Friday from Dublin is at 6.30 p.m., which is obviously problematic for a lot of people. It therefore necessitates the need for a car when you cannot get back on a later train. If we are trying to develop services and move people towards rail, it seems counterintuitive to put in a service which is going to Carlow and back to Dublin.

Ms Anne Graham

What is planned for this year was planned in conjunction with us, because we approve it. It is the NTA that invests in the services in terms of making funding available. It is planned with us. We review the timetable. We look to see what we can do with existing resources, and the fleet resources that we have to make the most effective use of those. That is not to say that is the ideal solution. It does not meet all of our objectives. It certainly does not meet all of the objectives in the transport strategy. It is about what we can deliver this year with the resources we have. There will obviously be an additional fleet available next year. Again, we can build on that. If the Senator and his constituents have other demands they want to see in there, they should start putting them forward through the consultation.

I have submitted, of course.

Ms Anne Graham

We will certainly then take that into account in planning for next year.

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

I know we have gone over time, but the Senator mentioned brown field regeneration at the start of his question. For the committee's information, we are conducting research at the moment relating to the activation of brown field sites. It will be based on case studies and will have a practical slant on how to do that. We have engaged consultants to do that for us, who are also experienced in looking at the finances and viability piece too because we absolutely recognise that. That will be available in the medium term.

Will that be the end of this year?

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

It will be early next year. It has just kicked off.

I will take the second Green Party slot. This question is to the OPR. Its submission states:

More than a fifth of all new homes are made up of individual houses in areas dependant on the private car. This makes achieving our transport targets very challenging.

Does Ms O'Connor put that down to local policies within county development plans, or where does she see the root cause of that issue?

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

Historically, it is a legacy issue around the amount of development and the policies we have in place that facilitate urban generation. We are not talking about self-sustaining rural populations. We are talking about urban generated housing on individual sites where there is no opportunity to use any other form of transport other than the private car for every trip. If the climate targets are to have approximately 50% of trips being made by walking, cycling and public transport, then a settlement pattern so dependent on that form of housing is going to make that difficult. We are just locking in further dependency on energy intensive single cars. There is that point. The other point is that if such high levels of housing going in to locations like that, then they are not going into the more sustainable locations. They are not going in to support the increase in population needed to support things like BusConnects and stronger public transport initiatives. It is twofold in a way. There is the opportunity cost as well as the impacts of that pattern of development itself.

There is also the social impact. Elderly people living in those areas may not be able to rely on a car anymore and they become stranded. I know people in that position. My second question is on district heating. If a local authority in a local area or county development plan wanted to put in an objective that a site should be served by district heating systems, do they have sufficient guidance? Would they be going above and beyond national policy, as I was taken down for trying to bring in higher energy homes many years ago?

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

It is a difficult one. I would not be comfortable saying that there is a strong enough policy framework there to support that at the moment.

Okay, so one recommendation could be that if a local authority wants to start putting in objectives for district heating systems in certain zones or areas, it will need better national guidance on it.

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

Yes. Better national guidance would certainly be very helpful.

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

If I can be of help, I do not think there is any guidance on district heating.

I was told we do not have district heating. There are examples, but they are communal heating systems and not necessarily district heating systems. There is a very big difference. I attended a meeting of the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action to hear about the Danish example of district heating.

I have a question for the NTA. We have talked before about whether a planning application for a development should have to include a carbon assessment. Should a transport carbon assessment of developments be done as well? There are two parts to this. I am thinking about where we try to retrofit permeability into culs-de-sac and car-focused 1970s, 1980s and 1990s housing estates. When we try to knock a hole in the wall to let people walk through, it is viewed as the end of the world in some cases. If such measures were described in terms of a carbon reduction assessment, would people be more persuaded? The two parts are whether any development, including the building of a new road, should have a carbon assessment for transport done and the matter of retrofitting permeability schemes.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

"I do not know" is probably the fairest answer of the lot. There is a lot of carbon assessment in infrastructure development. It is a key component we evaluate as part of most infrastructure development. I am less sure we need it for residential or commercial development. The reason is we can have a different metric that gives the same view on the transport side. Even in the absence of a pure carbon assessment, the very fact of whether there are services there to serve development, is not a strong indicator of whether it is positive or negative. I would be guided by others as to whether it is a worthwhile addition.

On the second question-----

It is around permeability and trying to increase walkability or cyclability. There might be two housing estates that are back to back and the kids never see each other because they must walk out onto the main road and around, which is dangerous because the road is busy. They are also driven to school, etc.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

There could be a bus service on the far side of the wall, which means everyone has to walk 750 m to get the bus and so they do not do it. The Cathaoirleach is right that it is the end of the world if we try to knock a hole in a wall. There is still a communication exercise to be done for people to understand the benefits of that switch to sustainable transport, even at a personal level. Everyone agrees with it on the community level but at the personal level, it is not always understood. Again, I am dubious about just focusing on the carbon or that saying there is a carbon emission from doing this would be a really persuasive point.

I kind of agree with Mr. Creegan. If we went from door to door saying we are going to cut carbon emissions by doing this, we probably would not get very far, but recent surveys have shown that climate registers quite highly with people. It might be something to do, apart from telling people they can walk, cycle, etc., because there are loads of people who are so wedded to their car that this issue does not bother them. However, those people might feel they can keep driving their car if knocking a hole in a wall reduces emissions. There might be a trade-off in their minds. Is it something we should pursue?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

If we go back to the bigger picture, getting permeability into those places is something we should pursue even harder than we are doing at the moment. It is a real problem for us to see a bus service outside an estate and nobody at the bus stop and that even though people could probably throw a sandwich from their house to the bus stop, they cannot get to it. A version of that is probably a useful tool in trying to persuade people, but we are still dealing with the very localised issue that wherever a hole in the wall is to go in, there is tremendous opposition from the people nearby. It is the usual complaint we all suffer from.

Does the CCAC have a comment to make?

Mr. George Hussey

I will go back to the Cathaoirleach's first question as I do not particularly have a point to make on permeability. It is sort of a common objective we should all share, but in our submission we referred to developing an evidence base to support planning authorities at all levels to quantify the impact of spatial planning policies on greenhouse gas emissions in a consistent way. It is a fertile area for all manner of different approaches to emerge. It would probably be very useful system-wide if some work were done on trying to help local authorities to find a reasonably consistent methodological approach they could all use to help that. It is not just transport but also the built environment and the electricity emissions, potentially, as well. We could go across the whole energy piece in assessing whether a development in area X is preferable to one in area Y. I am sure there are all sorts of other planning aspects to this as well, but from a greenhouse gas emissions perspective alone, there is something positive to be said for it.

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

It is a good idea but the problem is resources. We are heaping more and more assessments and reviews of assessments on to the planning system and local authorities. Not unlike the NTA has said, we need to get better bang for our buck. We need to be able to look at what it is we are going to prioritise with the resources we have available and what is going to achieve the best results in reducing carbon emissions. That is not to say we should not do that - we definitely should and we should look at carbon budgets - but it is a huge exercise of engagement and education and of developing models that are universal, can be universally and simply applied and can be simply understood by people. It is one thing to put a carbon budget together, calculate it and come up with a number, but if that does not have a tangible meaning for Joe Public it is not going to resonate with people. Not unlike the Cathaoirleach's idea of being able to tell people it is X amount of carbon if they do this and Y amount if they do that, it does help.

I believe in the butterfly effect, whereby if everybody does a little more we will get a much bigger result at the end. We need to be very careful about the resources, however, because they are finite. We are already under strain in most of the local authorities and we need to look at what is going to get us the best result in reducing carbon emissions. There are other ideas out there, for example, solar PV, which is supported already and developed at domestic level. Maybe we should be supporting people who are in more disadvantaged homes and in energy poverty. Put the shagging things in for free and have a more even-handed approach towards energy poverty. That is something we could do that would have an immediate effect on carbon emissions, especially because most of those families are burning coal, wood, oil, etc., as those are the cheapest forms of heating their home or producing energy.

We fund that significantly through the carbon tax and I think half the budget for retrofit is going towards warmer homes schemes and those on lower incomes.

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

Yes, but again there needs to be active consideration of more action. We are talking about policy and things we can do but what is really needed is for the rubber to hit the road if we are to hit any of the targets or ambitions. We should increase those ambitions. We need to have meaningful engagement with delivering stuff. Offshore wind is something we have talked about for five years and we are still struggling to get there. The target we set for ourselves of 5 GW has been halved to 2.6 GW. That should not be acceptable.

The target is 7 GW, not 5 GW.

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

We are only going to achieve 2.6 GW by 2030.

That is only the first round of the auctions. The figure is 3.1 GW.

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

I know, but it is still not-----

Anyway, we will not get into offshore wind.

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

But let us look at why.

Ms O'Connor wanted to come in on that and then I will go to Deputy Ó Broin.

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

I always ask the question "Why?" What is the evidence-based approach? Why are we not hitting our targets? What more can we do in terms of action? We should not be constrained and we should look at the resources we have rather than putting more pressure on them. We should be trying to maximise those resources to try to squeeze more juice out of the lemon. That is what needs to happen.

Ms O'Connor wanted to come in on the carbon assessments.

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

No, I think the Cathaoirleach has heard it all.

On that point, if we look at the budget local authorities have for energy efficiency for council stock, it is not used for PV or solar but only for heat pumps and windows and doors. I am not arguing against heat pumps but there is a strong argument that not only should all our new-build social homes be mandated to have PV installed but that a far larger portion of what should be an increasing retrofit budget for the social housing stock should focus on PV for exactly that reason. It is something I was dealing with recently.

If the witnesses want my advice as a constituency politician for almost 30 years, people will not care about emissions reductions involved in knocking open a cul-de-sac. If it is a cul-de-sac people will die in the ditch over it, as the folks in the NTA know. That is not an argument against the proposal but just a view.

I have a couple of final comments and then a general question. Picking up on the discussion on one-off rural ribbon development and suburban sprawl, there are rational reasons the people who are either building or buying those homes are doing that. Notwithstanding the NPF’s commitment to compact growth, it is actually very difficult or, in many cases, impossible for people to access affordable housing in the areas where we want compact growth. In the NPF review and in our commentary to the Minister after this conversation, there has to be a recognition that if we are saying that we want to reduce one-off ribbon development and we want more sustainable settlements in countryside areas, including clusters and hamlets, how are we to facilitate that in terms of land holding and land ownership.

Likewise, we have had many incentives for compact development in our urban centres, but none of it worked. Somebody mentioned Croí Cónaithe cities earlier but there have only been two contracts signed with 100 and something units, which will not be built for two years. It was meant to deliver 4,500 homes by 2025. If it delivers 1,000 homes by 2025, I will be amazed. We also have to make sure the incentives are the right kinds of incentives. My worry is that too often, incentives that have been put in place either have been poorly designed or have actually pushed the viability-affordability gap even further. It is also about incentives that work as opposed to just incentives that are there.

When anyone mentions fast-track planning, I always have to say the following: be careful what you wish for. Every time there is an attempt to introduce fast-track planning, it has not worked. I think there are two better arguments and I think both were mentioned. First, we have to resource the planning authorities alongside statutory timelines so they make decisions within an appropriate time period but I think it is prioritisation. The utility companies made a compelling to us when we were dealing with the pre-legislative scrutiny of the planning Bill that certain types of infrastructure – it could be renewable wind energy, public transport infrastructure or water infrastructure – should be prioritised in the planning system. That way, one is not fast-tracking a decision in a compressed period of time that could lead to a weaker planning decision but rather making sure that the really important stuff happens first. My fear when we talk about fast-track planning is every time somebody tries it, it ends up being slow, more problematic or more conflictful.

On brownfield, it is important that not all brownfield is problematic. I refer to St. Michael’s Estate. It will be ten years from the date Eoghan Murphy, no harm to him, announced those 500 social and affordable homes in St. Michael’s Estate in Inchicore before anybody moves in. That site is serviced. There will not be crazy external or abnormal costs in the development of the site. I am saying this because I was delighted to hear the research is being done. It would be good to start quantifying the significant additional cost in many brownfield sites but I also think it would be useful to include St. Michael’s Estate in the survey to see it is not just those extra costs; there are other examples of stuff that could or would happen much more quickly.

Much of this has to do with co-ordination. We had an interesting session - the Chair will remember and Senator Cummins was here for most of it as well - where we had Irish Water, ESB Networks and residential developers in on how to better co-ordinate the different bits of getting the stuff. If there were one or two ways in the context of the NPF review to try to improve the co-ordination between the different sectors that the witnesses represent, work for or are expert on, what would they like to see? If we have a long-winded NPF review with lots of stuff, that ship that Mr. Lawlor talked about will be even more slow moving than it has been over the past six or seven years. However, if the review comes up with small numbers of recommendations in terms of high-level objectives, implementation and co-ordination, it could be much more useful. If people have observations on how to better co-ordinate the different players on the field, I would be interested to hear that.

On the record, I resisted raising issues around BusConnects in my constituency, not because the issues are not there but this is not necessarily the right place.

You can go parochial in the fourth round.

I acknowledge Mr. Creegan and his team’s responsiveness to us when we raise those constituency matters. I have emails going his way shortly, but I will deal with that outside of committee.

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

On better co-ordination, that is exactly why we set up the Office of the Planning Regulator – to try to ensure that better co-ordination. It is an improving office. The amount of work that the OPR has got through, in fairness, in the time it has been in existence and the ambition it has to do more should be congratulated. We should be clapping ourselves on the back. It is a job well done so far. Is everything perfect? No. Are there things that can be improved? Absolutely, but that is what reflection is about. How could we do more co-ordination? We need to start listening more to the development community and communities. I mean that in the true sense – listening and hearing what they are telling us about what works and does not work.

They are the two sides of almost the opposite coin. We constantly demonise developers but there are some very good developments out there that are very well done, and there are some poor ones as well. Equally so, we have communities in desperate need of more community infrastructure, better engagement and more education in terms of the land use and planning development space. We need to listen and engage more, whether that is through the OPR, more collectively through the planning forum or through some other mechanism. I do not know what the mechanism is but we definitely need to listen more and better understand what the impediments are to an improved society and a better planning system.

We are not there yet; we are far from it. We keep throwing policies, more legislation and a manual for this and that. Do we need a policy about this? Do we need a policy about that? We need to start listening and collecting evidence. In the IPI, we are huge advocates of evidence-based planning. I do not think we have enough evidence to support some of the decisions we are currently making on the way forward. We need more evidence. That is not to say we should slow down, rather, we should speed up. We need to speed up because we are so far off the targets at this stage that it is scary.

Mr. George Hussey

One of the points we made in our document and one of the points the council made in its annual review was this need for the top-down and the bottom-up. This is not just about the planning, transport and housing area but rather across the board. There will be that deep need for a much deeper level of community engagement across a whole range of areas.

An aspect that has not got much mention today is climate adaptation. Certainly, there is a distinct and specialised role there for community engagement in order to work out what will work in local areas. There will be a huge amount of variation in finding the right nature-based solutions. The issue of community engagement is critical to ultimately lead to more satisfactory outcomes for communities.

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

It is also a point we made in our submission. The community engagement point is very well made as well. As to whoever does it - it may not or should not be us, or maybe it should - it is worth giving consideration to, although bear in mind that the NPF is Government policy. Therefore, one would expect the Department will be the owners in respect of co-ordination of implementation. It is hard to co-ordinate or implement something that is so broad. It comes back to the point made previously on prioritisation. We need to be very clear what the key priorities will be for, say, the next five years and to focus the implementation and co-ordination on those.

The multi-agency approach is extremely important. It is one of the things we in the OPR do best. Regarding research we are conducting or whether we are doing a plan evaluation, we take a broad spectrum and try to bring a multifaceted approach to it and bring all the different State agencies involved. That is key; they have to be around the table. One of the most fruitful things I am involved in is we have a plan evaluation forum that the NTA, Uisce Éireann and the regional assemblies are on in order that we can all bring the different perspectives to achieving the same objective around the implementations of the NPF when we are talking about development plans.

Perhaps we could take this model and expand it at a broader, higher and more strategic level while focusing on key deliverables. This is probably the way I would approach it.

I have a question for the Climate Change Advisory Council. A couple of comments today feed into the question of prioritisation of development. If there is too much zoning, how do we focus where development should take place? I think it was mentioned that, in some cases, settlement boundaries are very big. Is there a case for an inner boundary in a settlement? Instead of having compact growth in a certain percentage, there would be within the settlement boundaries inner compact growth and outer compact growth. Perhaps it is an issue for the OPR. It would be in order to focus the minds.

Mr. George Hussey

In previous jobs, I was involved in some discussions about mapping work. It is very difficult for the CSO, Ordnance Survey Ireland and others that are involved to try to work out what the boundary shapes ought to look like. This is largely because past development activities have left us in the place where we are. On whether we should have inner and outer targets, there may well be something to be said for it but it is not something we have specifically thought about at the council.

Ms Gina Kelly

The boundaries we are speaking about, which are monitored by the Regional Development Monitor, are linked to the CSO's 2016 definition of settlement boundaries. These were updated in 2022 and look more at land cover-based assessment rather than population-based assessment of the boundaries. I understand that it is an area on which the Department is considering an issues paper on how we might define compact growth and various ways to consider it. As Mr Hussey mentioned, it is not something we have considered specifically.

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

Ms Kelly makes some good points, particularly on the updated CSO boundaries. With regard to trying to do this at a national scale, some things are better left to be decided at local level due to local circumstances and should involve local representatives and local communities. There is a very strong case for local communities themselves to have a role and an input in determining what they consider to be the core area of their settlement that should be consolidated and prioritised in future development. I would caution against becoming too prescriptive in a national planning framework. As long as it is very clear what the ambition is and the targets are strong enough, certain things are better decided at local level taking into account local circumstances and environments.

I am thinking about the urban area plans and a zone within a settlement where the highest densities would be concentrated because of transport or services.

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

There should also be guidelines that would help to do this. It would have to be done at the development plan stage because that is when zoning would be done on the basis of the draft Bill. It would be done at that stage and through the planning process. The plan would become much more substantive and something in which communities would have much more stake in getting involved. This is something in which the Cathaoirleach has an interest and previously he has raised the question of how to get communities involved at the plan making stage. If it is substantive and meaningful, and individual planning application decisions are much more aligned to the development plan, it would be the place for this type of decision to be made.

I had in mind that it would be done at local level because this is where the best knowledge is.

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

To back up what Ms O'Connor said, there is a significant danger that we overprescribe these things. It is exactly what the Cathaoirleach is speaking about regarding the concept of an inner development zone that supports higher density. This concept exists in policy documents. Through the much maligned SHD process, developers were encouraged to focus higher density in areas that were well supported by public transport and other social infrastructure. They had to do significant social infrastructure audits to back up what they were saying. We do not need to have inner urban versus outer urban areas. What we need to do is educate people about what constitutes good compact development. We also need to recognise and examine an evidence-based approach on how long it takes to develop a brownfield site. Irrespective of putting in place all the wonderful incentives we could that might work, it takes a lot longer to develop and redevelop a brownfield site than it does to develop a greenfield site. It will be about getting the balance right with regard to putting more focus on brownfield sites and encouraging more development in these areas to capture more value out of brownfield development. These are facts. It does take longer to develop brownfield sites. A classic point on this is the City Edge project. It will be very interesting to see how this project develops, how quickly it emerges and how quickly development occurs in the area.

With regard to making the argument that it is easier and quicker to develop a greenfield site, we know this absolutely. It is a viable product now to build a three-bed semi-detached house on a greenfield site. With higher densities on a brownfield site and compact development, we start to get into price ranges where it-----

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

It is not just about price. It is one of the impediments. It is not just about ease in terms of greenfield sites. There is a way it can be done, which is to get rid of all greenfield zoning and have only brownfield zoning. The problem is that we have a housing crisis where we must deliver 50,000 houses. We have to formulate what the correct balance is. If we are going to look at greenfield development, we have to encourage developers to build not A-plus rated houses but passive housing, looking at low-carbon solutions in those areas, and only developing greenfield sites that have existing transport or have transport tied in with them going forward. There needs to be more engagement in this regard if it is going to be restricted in this way. There is a balance in the deliverability of units. If the target is 50,000 houses, and if Ms O'Connor is correct that the amount of zoned land will provide 46,000, then we are in big trouble.

Ms Anne Marie O'Connor

To clarify the record, I said the housing targets across the development plans average out at 46,000 per annum but there is vastly significantly more land zoned than this. It is difficult to quantify at present because sometimes we are not comparing apples with apples. I do not want to give a figure because it could be misleading. It is certainly well within the range of 160% or 170% of that.

It is important to clarify the difference between housing targets and zoning.

I want to come back on a number of points and I have another question. With regard to the development contribution, do the balance between community gain versus how much is spent on roads need to be addressed? I note that water is out of it at present. Does this need to be considered to improve? If it is left at the same ratio, does it need to be determined that the roads proportion should be spent more on walking and cycling rather than a big new road to service a development?

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

Absolutely. One of the biggest problems is community infrastructure and who pays for it. Is it a levy imposed on a developer, which has traditionally been the way? If I needed a site for school, a developer would give us the land for the school or make it available. Is it in the form of a community centre or a meeting room? What is it? The significant issue for all communities and developers the world over is the transparency in development contributions. Where is the money collected and how is it spent? This is not to say there are not priorities in certain local authorities to spend the money in ways that were unexpected but they should be accountable for how it is spent They should also reflect on it every time the contribution scheme is reviewed and state this is what has been done, this is what the money was spent on, this is what worked and this is what did not work. We advocate for an evidence basis. It is a great idea to spend more money away from roads and their maintenance and spend it on cycling, pedestrian and community infrastructure. We will get a great positive response if people are told we will spend money on a new playground rather than a new link road between two areas.

That is always going to be more positively received. Again, it needs to be evidence based.

Or the cycling and walking infrastructure should be the main priority while the road for the car is the bolt-on rather than the other way around, which is how it normally is.

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

Cycling and pedestrian infrastructure can be the priority. It depends on the administrative area. Lots of local authorities have huge rural costs associated with road maintenance. It is not simply about the urban aspect. It has to be evidence based if you are going to approach that. One size does not fit all, unfortunately, in that regard.

With regard to BusConnects, everybody obviously wants to speed up the delivery. Everybody wants it done. It is the same with DART+ and lines to Kildare, Dundalk, Wicklow, etc. If we were to be able to go to the Minister, what measures would the NTA like to put in place to speed up the delivery of this?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

All of those major projects are currently in the planning system. In fairness, the planning system is progressing them and dealing with them and hopefully we will get planning consent for all of these projects in due course. After that, the challenge is going to be funding. We are playing catch-up on public transport. There were years of underinvestment. Then we had to spend a number of years planning these schemes and getting the appropriate planning consents. Now we are moving into the delivery phase and that is going to require a lot of funding because some of the projects that were mentioned, like BusConnects, MetroLink and DART+, are mega-projects and the challenge is going to be being able to fund them. Then the challenge for us and other agencies is to deliver them. Built into that challenge are things like market resources, labour issues and housing for people - all these things. They will eventually get dealt with and these projects will get built. For us looking at it now, the issue is first to get them through the planning system so they are good to go and second request that the Government fully funds those projects so we can proceed to deliver them as expeditiously as we can, along with all the other challenges we would hope to deal with on the way.

It is a question of resourcing. As Mr. Lawlor said, that is one of the biggest blockages we have even in terms of decision-making or construction. I have a question for the Irish Planning Institute. The housing needs demand assessment is evidence based too. Local authorities determine what the housing need is, what that type of housing should be and then the planning process determines where that housing should be. How do we ensure that the housing needs demand assessment is the tool we lead on rather than what the developers are saying, that is, that they cannot sell or will not build because there is no market for it?

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

I think you need to be careful with that. That sort of sentiment is not listening to the developers. If it is not possible to sell a house, it is not possible to sell a house. What we need to be able to determine is whether that is truthful or not and whether it is gaming, for want of a better description, or trying to overemphasise to influence a decision. We keep talking about things being developer led or plan led. We do not have a developer-led system; we have a plan-led system. That is what we have and we want to make it, by the sounds of things, more plan led or more plan focused. If developers are telling us that something is uneconomic, then we need to look to ways to make it economic if that is what we want. It is the classic thing of carrot and stick - what is the carrot and what is the stick?

The housing needs demand assessment, and we need to be careful with this, tells us what types of houses we need, whether they are three bedrooms, one bedroom, cost rental, social or private. All the developers are likely to achieve in the traditional format is private housing but increasingly we are looking at developers to deliver all the other forms of housing. We keep talking about local authorities delivering those forms of housing but they do not have the resources to do that currently. They do not currently have the expertise to do that in volume so we have to rely on the development community to deliver those types of housing. The types of housing we want that sits within the local authorities' domain, which is the cost rental, local authority housing etc., they control that. They have a budget for that and they go to the market and say they want to buy this or that or they want people to build here, so they have absolute control of that.

That is the tenure piece but the other part of the housing demand needs assessment is the housing piece. How do we make sure we are delivering enough housing? That is again evidence based. I do not think we are properly looking at the translation rate, which was mentioned earlier by Senator Cummins. When we zone a piece of land, why is it not being developed? Is it because somebody cannot sell it, like the suggestion that was given where a farmer cannot sell it because it has an impediment or some sort of issue with it, or is it that they do not want to sell it? We are trying to put all these pressure points in place to push towards the development of zoned land and it is still not quite coming at the rate we want it to. We need to start to reflect and ask why that is. Is there a historical norm in terms of the rate of translation from zoned land or even the time it takes between zoning a piece of land and getting a home built on it, whether that is a local authority house or otherwise?

Houses are not built in a day. We are talking about moving to a ten-year plan but we have a six-year development plan now. If you zone a piece of land at the very beginning of that that was unzoned, a person has to get a planning application in or the local authority has to bring forward a planning application, that application gets considered, goes through An Bord Pleanála, potentially goes through a judicial review, ultimately gets permission and then has to go into its detailed design, get funding and get developed. Six years is not a long time, unfortunately, in terms of the development of housing. We need to look at the evidence-based approach of how long it is taking for sites to get from A to B. If it is taking a long time, we have to ask what the key impediments to that are and if there is a way or if it is possible to speed to that up. If it is not, we need to reflect that in the housing needs assessment piece and in the zoning piece to recognise that there is this lag and this delay. I do not have the answers. I do not know if that is correct or not but it needs to be evidence based. Again, it goes back to the mantra we keep drumming out - what are the facts, what do they show us and what do they say? Then we can start to make meaningful interventions in the delivery of housing.

When Mr. Lawlor refers to making it economic, what kind of measures is he talking about?

Mr. Gavin Lawlor

In the institute, we do not have any specific ideas as to economic or other interventions. What we are saying is that we are listening to what people are saying to us. If the development community is saying that it is uneconomic to develop certain houses, that must be evidence based. They need to produce evidence of that to say what the impediments are. Is it land costs, materials, labour, the planning system, delays or provision? Where are the cost points that are causing the economic viability or otherwise? Is it standards? One of the things we keep forgetting, and I do not see this as a negative but as a positive, is that we have massively improved the quality of housing that is being delivered to people now, whether it is social or otherwise. Things like daylight standards and the amount of energy needed to heat the home are all significant improvements but they all cost money to deliver and that is part of the reason house prices are going up, because we are spending more on the houses we are building. It is not a bad thing but there is an implication from it. I am not advocating that we go back to the good old days but the point is that there is a cost implication. Let us look at that. Let us take an evidence-based approach and ask what is the real true cost of building a house, what is the land value piece and what is the taxation piece in real terms. We should be honest with ourselves and ask where we can make positive interventions to encourage people to develop houses where we want them. If you say to people - I am not advocating for this, just in case the committee thinks I am - that we are not going to charge VAT if they develop, as suggested, within half a kilometre of a city centre, that is going to encourage certain people to develop in certain areas but it might have an unintended consequence. We need to think seriously about what the impediments are and what encouragement we want to do to try to positively direct development if that is what we are going to do. It is another way of active land management through incentives. The incentives might be investment in public transport in advance, investment in infrastructure in advance or investment in community facilities in advance.

That would make an area really desirable to live in and that then encourages developers to try to develop there because they know they are going to sell their units quickly.

I kind of agree with a lot of what Mr. Lawlor has said. If we spend public money to invest and to encourage people to build compactly within these areas served by transport to meet these climate challenges, that is not just an investment in housing to try it make it more affordable, it is an investment in climate action. I firmly believe that. We give people very good grants to put private solar panels on a private roof for free energy and private return for excess, but that is also climate action by spending public money. I feel the same principle applies to trying to get housing built in areas so we can achieve this compact growth.

The Climate Change Advisory Council wrote to the Minister outlining its concerns. Did it get a response? We have the Minister coming in next week so my next question is whether it could furnish the committee with that response.

Mr. George Hussey

We may have got a holding response. The Cathaoirleach has caught me on the hop a little. We can certainly check into that when we get back to the office tomorrow and we will send on whatever response we received.

I think the Climate Change Advisory Council wrote to the Minister back in May.

Mr. George Hussey

It was in April or May.

The biggest crises we face are climate and housing. This is where housing meets planning meets climate meets transport. All of these things need to be brought together and the Climate Change Advisory Council has not got a response yet from the Department. That perhaps shows us where the priorities lie in terms of dealing with climate and wondering why we are in the position that we are in.

Mr. George Hussey

Let us confirm that tomorrow. I am sorry, we should have come prepared for that.

Thank you. I have another 40 questions but I do not think it is fair to keep going. I thank the witnesses for their time. If anything occurs to them after this meeting and if they wish to furnish the committee with any thoughts or further expansion on any questions that we have asked, please do so. We will have the Minister before us next week and possibly the Environmental Protection Agency as well to give us those definitive answers on where emissions are coming from and what we need to do to address them.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.43 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 3 October 2023.
Barr
Roinn