Select Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage díospóireacht

Planning and Development Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)

An Cathaoirleach

Welcome to the Select Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, where we will resume Committee Stage of the Planning and Development Bill 2023. I welcome the Minister, Darragh O’Brien, and his officials.

We will start where we finished yesterday, which was on amendment No. 169 in the name of the Minister. It is grouped with another five or six amendments, which are all in the Minister’s name. Government amendments Nos. 169, 295, 300, 518, 571 and 579 are related and may be discussed together.

Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage (Deputy Darragh O'Brien)

I move amendment No. 169:

In page 63, line 8, after “subject to” to insert the following:

“a screening assessment and if necessary a strategic environmental assessment or an appropriate assessment, or both, as the case may be, in accordance with”.

I will move amendments Nos. 169, 295, 300, 518, 524, 571 and 579. These amendments relate to strategic environmental assessment, SEA, and appropriate assessments, AA, in the plan-making process.

Amendment No.169 expands the language in section 21(3) in relation to the requirements for conducting an SEA or AA of the national planning framework. Instead of just saying that the NPF is subject to the SEA directive and habitats directive, it clarifies that the national planning framework shall be subject to a screening assessment and, if necessary, a strategic environmental assessment or an appropriate assessment, or both, as the case may be, and such shall be carried out. The amendment does not alter the requirement that the NPF is subject to the SEA directive and habitats directive but clarifies that as part of these directives, the first step is to conduct a screening assessment and then, if required, the SEA or AA is undertaken.

Amendments Nos. 295, 300, 518, 524, 571 and 579 insert a regulation making provision in each of these sections relating to draft directions and directions of plans to provide that the Minister may prescribe a period or periods that shall be disregarded for the purpose of reckoning any period referenced in those sections. The purpose of this regulation-making power would be to allow the Minister to prescribe that, in cases where a draft direction or direction for a plan requires either SEA or AA, the period for carrying out those assessments would be disregarded in determining compliance with time periods set out for issuing such directions. Not all directions will require an SEA or AA, however, and the time taken to carry out an SEA or AA for the ones that do could vary greatly. Therefore, instead of building an extended period into the direction procedures to allow for possible assessments, it is better and more efficient to disregard these periods from time period calculations.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Tá

O'Callaghan, Cian.
Ó Broin, Eoin.

Níl

Dillon, Alan.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Haughey, Seán.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Brien, Darragh.

Amendment declared lost.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 172, 186, 187, 268, 475, 499, 552 and 558 are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 172:

In page 63, to delete lines 24 to 27 and substitute the following:

“(8) A failure to comply with subsections (2), (3) and (4) of section 20 and subsection (6) within the time period specified therein shall not of itself invalidate the National Planning Framework.”.

These amendments relate to Part 3 of the Bill and the provisions relating to the validity of the following documents: the national planning framework, national planning statements, regional spatial and economic strategies, development plans, variations of development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans and co-ordinated area plans. These provisions all currently have wording to the effect that a person shall not question the validity of such policy documents by reason only that the procedures for preparing them were not completed within the time required under the relevant section.

While this wording reflects the wording in the Planning and Development Act 2000, on further review it was considered that the use of the term “by reason only” could lead to varying interpretations of these provisions. It is a tightening up of the phraseology and it brings a provision from the existing Planning and Development Act into the new Bill.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I am surprised that amendment No. 187 is in this grouping rather than a later one. I will not question the Bills Office but this amendment is on a separate matter. It relates to section 23, which is on national planning statements, on which we will have a discussion later.

One of the key issues that arose during pre-legislative scrutiny was that national planning statements are very important. I am absolutely not against the idea of them in principle. I believe Government should have the right to set national planning policy. I made the case in pre-legislative scrutiny and again in a discussion on a related amendment with the Minister of State, Deputy Kieran O'Donnell that there needed to be clarity in the law on what is the responsibility of central government and the subsidiarity principles to apply to the regional and local authorities.

For two reasons, and this directly relates to this amendment, I believe there needs to be a better process for the approval of the national planning policy statements, as they are called. As the Minister will know, for example with exempted development regulations, there is a standard procedure, which is that a motion goes to the Dáil and exempted development proposals are referred to this committee. There is usually very constructive and healthy discussion on the content of those. Sometimes amendments are suggested and these are taken on board by the Government, most recently with regard to some exempted development amendments introduced by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell. Then, when the committee has dispensed with its scrutiny, a motion goes back to the Dáil and the regulation proceeds.

Given that these national planning statements are effectively a form of law, they have a statutory impact, and given that they are to replace the section 28 ministerial guidelines, which have been subject to significant legal challenge and in most, if not all, cases, have been found to be on the wrong side of those legal challenges, there appears to be value in having some formulation of the amendment that I have proposed. There would be a real value, both from a public awareness point of view and a practical point of view, to have some formal Oireachtas scrutiny and some formal mechanism for the Oireachtas to go through these policy statements and guidelines in a more thorough way than is provided for in the legislation. Ultimately, these policy statements should be approved by the Oireachtas because they should have the force and democratic legitimacy of the Oireachtas. That would make them better and they would enjoy greater public confidence.

It would also mean that they would be much more robust to any future challenges. The Minister can see what I am trying to do here in pursuance of a national planning policy statement. I am proposing that the Minister should bring a motion before the Houses of the Oireachtas and that it should be referred to the relevant committees, that officials and, if necessary, other relevant persons should come before those committee, that it should be possible to make amendments the national planning policy and that the statements should be referred back to the Houses for approval.

I will make one practical suggestion. Whatever about our disagreements in the past, an area that the Minister and I agree on now is that of co-living. As he knows, co-living was brought in by means of a section 28 ministerial guideline, which was the predecessor of what we are discussing. When they were being developed, those guidelines were very technical in nature. The public submissions were generally from architects, planners and people involved in the development process at various stages. There was no real public or Oireachtas scrutiny of them until after they had been published and, effectively, had the force of law. The Minister spoke out about them and I did too. Ultimately, the Minister changed the regulations and co-living is no longer permissible within our planning code. If we had had a process something like what is outlined here back when the Minister and I were both on this side of the House, I wonder if we could have avoided many of the problems in the planning system with apartment developments, as well as with public confidence in that system, if that section 28 ministerial guideline on apartment design standards had been the subject of a process like this. What we are doing represents a genuine attempt to try to make the process of agreeing national planning policy statements more robust from a policy, public confidence and, ultimately, legal perspective.

I am firmly of the view that anything which effectively has the force of statute should have the imprimatur of the Houses of the Oireachtas, subject to scrutiny by a committee. It is not giving them the full status of legislation and having a full legislative process, but something much more efficient with respect to how this matter is dealt with. I do not imagine that this would take much longer than, for example, the current process relating to proposed changes to exempted developments in the sense that, typically, this takes a couple of weeks to move through both Houses of the Oireachtas. What is being done here might take a little longer, but it would be nowhere near as long proceeding by means of legislation.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I support the amendment, which is very good. As set out in the legislation, national planning statements are going to be significant. They will have huge influence in our planning system and be far-reaching. To have Oireachtas involvement, scrutiny and democratic input is very important. It is also important to get democratic buy-in. We are seeing in what is happening in planning now quite profound changes with respect to density. There is not always agreement or buy-in with that in local communities. There has not been sufficient discussion around the merits of densification and the challenges that come with it.

On Saturday morning, I was talking to constituents in an area where there is higher density development. They raised a ranged of issues, such as a lack of community facilities and spaces coming in along with that development. They referred to the lack of youth facilities and services, transport connections, etc. If we want to get buy-in regarding higher density development, there needs to be Oireachtas input. We need to be able to raise some of the challenges arising and get political responses. I am just using density as an example, because there are deficits in the delivery of what is needed to go with higher density development. Not having Oireachtas input means we can continue to have significant, profound changes above the heads of local communities such that they are simply watching what is happening, experiencing some of the challenges that go with it and not being able to get some of the issues that arise addressed by their public representatives.

Higher density development works very well when there are proper services, amenities and infrastructure. When these are lacking, there can be many challenges. I use that as an example because it is one of the areas that specific planning policy requirement, SPPRs, and national planning statements are presumably going to be used to address. There are also issues with how best to do increased density with respect to affordability, what sort of typologies we go for and how it can be achieved in some areas without necessarily having high-rise development and so forth. All that would benefit from Oireachtas input by the relevant committee. I do not see what is to be lost by doing that. I can only see what can be gained.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I will respond briefly. I am conscious that this was discussed at length in the context of the position with national planning statements and the view of some that they should go before the Dáil. The view of Government is that they should not, but I want to respond. This has been very clearly debated and articulated. The fundamental point is that these are policy statements and that policy is a matter for Government, not the Oireachtas. That would come from a committee, as such. It has been agreed we would look at the wording of section 23(6) with regard to engagement with the Oireachtas joint committee post publication. The detail Deputy O'Callaghan has gone into is nearly at development plan level. Do not forget we are also altering the development plans to a ten-year period to ensure that there the approach will be much more plan led. The Deputy can look at what we have done on sustainable residential development and compact settlement guidelines, which have been published for public consultation as well. There are draft publications and those type of things. One of the reasons for this is that guidelines have been interpreted, and there have been different interpretations across different planning authorities. The system needs to be more streamlined and very clear in the context of what is happening.

Moving to Deputy Ó Broin's points, co-living is a good example. This committee did a reasonable job on it. I was against it in opposition and I banned it in government. I ended co-living and think that was the right thing to do. The joint committee may have a role in inputting post the publication of the national planning statements.

It was mentioned last week that I will look at section 23(6) prior to Report Stage. I refer also to section 24(2), which states, "Before issuing a National Planning Statement, the Minister may consult ..." followed by four paragraphs, namely, (a) to (d). We can take Deputy O'Callaghan's example of density and better densification. In the context of a matter like that, one would expect the Minister to enter into a public consultation process, and that is provided for. However, the adoption of national planning statements, once completed and agreed, is a matter for the Government. That has been discussed at length. There would also be issues for Members of the Oireachtas as well, and I am conscious Deputies went into this further. Some of these could be very technical. Some of the national planning statements would be procedural around development plans, local area plans, LAPs, development management and SEAs. Is the Oireachtas to get involved in every one of these or choose which? There are also the potential implications that could have for TDs and Senators in the context of their interaction with the planning process as elected Members within their constituencies. I am precluded because I am responsible for national policy. If Members make themselves responsible for national policy by way of a vote within the Dáil, does that also preclude them under the previous section 30 of having any interaction or making any representations, for argument's sake, in planning matters and live planning applications? I am sure it would not suit the three Deputies opposite were that the case.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I have a few points and questions in response. This amendment is much more substantive than just dealing with the issue of Oireachtas approval.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I should have said something else on the amendment. I am sorry for interrupting.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

That is okay.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

On the amendment, I understand what it involves. I just wonder why it is in this grouping.

I should have mentioned that because I would have questioned that as well. It is because the Deputy's amendment would amend the same line in the Government's amendment No. 186 to provide that national planning statement, NPS, so that is the reason it is in this grouping. I should have clarified that at the start.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I learned a long time ago never to question the logic of the Bills Office as it always has some reason. This amendment is not just about Oireachtas approval. The Minister is absolutely right. We had a lengthy and detailed discussion on that specific point. Therefore, that is not really the point I want to focus on because the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, made the Government's policy clear. I will say, however, that national planning policy statements are different to policy in that they have a statutory impact that is different to almost any other kind of policy, in that they have the effect of law. The fact they have to be approved by the Government as is set out here demonstrates that. In an interesting way, and I am not against this idea, they sit somewhere between legislation and policy in that they have the look, feel and detail of policy but they have the impact of law. That means they are of a different order. That is my first point.

With respect to whether Deputies on this side of the House would be in any way impacted by becoming partial decision-makers on this, I do not believe we would be in the sense that, for example, that is not the case with the exempted development regulation changes where we are at least involved in that process. I accept it is a weaker process than what I propose here. If the Minister is asking me whether I would prefer to have an input into the setting of a policy that has statutory effect and to be excluded from being involved in individual planning matters, absolutely, I would much prefer as a legislator to have that level of involvement.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I will remind the Deputy of that.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

It is worth considering. Obviously, others would have a different view.

The Minister mentioned the sustainable development density guidelines. I think they are a good section 28 guideline. Tll refer to the key point here. There was a lot of discussion with the Department, with architects from the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland and developers, etc. This committee played no role in that whatsoever. The Oireachtas played no formal role. While we absolutely could have made a submission to a public consultation - some of us may have done so and some others may not have - that said, that is a different matter. That is a really good example of how those statutory guidelines could really have been enhanced by involvement through this process. It would have allowed for greater public awareness and scrutiny. For example, I have had emails from party colleagues around the country who, because they are very suspicious of everything the Government does, are wondering what the problem is with these guidelines. I have been quite happy to tell them that broadly speaking, these are a good set of guidelines that will help in a variety of ways. Given their technical nature, I would have benefited had there been an Oireachtas process not unlike how we benefit from some of these processes, because officials would have come in and talked us through them. Doing that after their publication misses the point.

Finally, the rural planning guidelines are an interesting case. The Minister made reference to the implications for bringing the Oireachtas in on these processes. It can be seen that the rural planning guidelines could be very controversial when they are eventually published after having gathered dust for some many years on whichever Minister of State's desk. Clearly, there will be a lively debate in the Oireachtas about their merits. That would be a good thing and would give greater scrutiny. I say respectfully that my worry is that part of the reason for this procedure is to enable the Government to introduce planning guidelines such as rural guidelines - I may be supportive of what the Government is doing in that regard depending on what it is saying - to avoid any involvement of backbench TDs in Oireachtas scrutiny for fear it might make it difficult for them to pass. We know there significant challenges with the passing of the NPF in the first instance, which is why there ultimately was no vote but that is a debate we have had and I do not want to return to it.

The Minister has stated his position clearly and I do not ask him to come back with respect to the provision proposed in amendment No. 187 at subsection (7)(b)(iv). Notwithstanding that, however, does the Minister not believe that beyond section 24(2), which is very weak because it just says the Minister "may consult" and even if the Oireachtas joint committees were put in there it would still be a "may" and not a "shall", there would be a benefit in having some more robust Oireachtas committee scrutiny procedure? Even if we were not given the right to make amendments could we at least suggest amendments or feed into it? I want to tease the Minister out more on that part of the amendment because it has not been discussed previously and I am genuinely interested in the Minister's thoughts.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

In response to the points I made, the Minister stated they were matters for the development plan. I do not agree. While these issues could of course be covered in a development plan, they are also issues that are covered in the guidelines issued around apartment sizes, heights, densities and design. I have not heard anything from the Minister to suggest the national planning statements and policy statements are not going to cover these issues as well. Yes, development plans speak to these issues but the issue I raise is there is a huge concern about people living in newer developments with increased density as a result of these guidelines where they are getting the increased density but they are not getting the amenities and infrastructure needed to go with that to make the communities work successfully. It is fine to have the national planning statements and national guidelines and policies on this but there is an accountability deficit where these are not working on the ground.

Getting Oireachtas and Oireachtas joint committee involvement in order that we can specifically discuss the gap between the national policy and what is actually happening on the ground in terms of a lack of delivery of much-needed community infrastructure, such as youth facilities, transport infrastructure, open spaces and everything else needed to make these newer developments work really well and thrive as communities, is missing from the process.

Public consultation can be part of this and that is all fine but where is the accountability on this for the gap between the national policy and guidelines and how they are translating into people's lived reality? I would be much happier as a public representative if we were able to get that right and to get the legislation around this right. Then I would not need to put in any submissions in my constituency about the lack of community spaces or childcare facilities being changed and not being delivered in line with the development plan standards by developers and so forth. If these issues were done correctly through national legislation, I would not need to put in any submissions. I rarely do but when I do, they are on those sorts of issues. I would like not to be able to do that as a public representative, if the national legislation and policy on this issue was right.

We have had issues with guidance already, about interpretation across the different planning authorities. The Deputy mentioned height guidelines as well. Look what has happened with that because of different local authorities' interpretation on that. Some would argue where in areas we should go higher that that has not happened and the guidance that has been issued has not been strong enough. The Government and any future Government has the right and is elected to make those decisions with regard to putting forward and deciding on policy.

I understand what Deputy Ó Broin is saying. The Deputy is adding another step to that, which effectively would take the policy decision away from Government and go in front of the Oireachtas on every national planning statement. First, that is not desirable because it would add inefficiencies. Second, it would elongate the process greatly. It could also lead to potential delays in the issuing of national planning statements. That is the element that has already been discussed at length last week.

I have said that I will look at the wording of section 23(6) about engaging with the Oireachtas joint committee. That is valuable. In fairness, we had good public consultation on the sustainable residential development guidelines. Deputy Ó Broin has made the point that those did not come in front of the Oireachtas joint committee. A submission could have been made and the Deputy rightly points that out too. We will look at section 23(6) with regard to the interaction with the Oireachtas joint committee post-publication but I put it to the Deputy that in the case of any future national planning statement that was decided upon by the Government, were one to include this provision, the Oireachtas would be dealing with them all the time. It could lead to indeterminable delays right the way through, further amendments to it that are contrary to Government policy and going back in to both House and back up to the Government for further changes. One could be tying the planning system, potentially, from a policy perspective, creating further delays. The Oireachtas joint committee interaction piece is something I am serious about looking at.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I will make a final point. It is relevant to the Minister's reply.

The section 28 guidelines on building heights is a good case in point. As the Minister will be aware, what happened there is there was a desire by the Government centrally, and the Government is entitled to do this, to essentially remove building heights from development plans and section 28 mandatory ministerial guidelines were introduced. Where that came up against strongest opposition was with respect to Dublin City Council and the docklands strategic development zone. That ended up in a protracted legal dispute between Dublin City Council and An Bord Pleanála with respect to the Salesforce Tower. The courts eventually decided on the side of Dublin City Council. There was a parallel exceptionally long delay with An Bord Pleanála with Dublin City Council's own attempts to amend its own building heights to more reasonable levels. Ultimately, the delay was caused by the conflict between the section 28 guidelines and the SDZ.

Notwithstanding the fact that, for example, in this Chapter of the Bill as elsewhere, where planning policy statements are approved by the Government, there are expedited mechanisms to try to retrospectively amend various other kinds of plans, there is real potential here - I want to put this on record so that the Minister cannot say he was not alerted or warned to this - that a local authority, either on advice of the managers, which was the case with the docklands and Dublin City Council, or because of the majority view of the members, rejects and refuses to approve the expedite measure and you would get into a protracted legal battle between a local authority and the OPR and the Minister, or the Department, over some of this issue, whereas if there was a mechanism for trying to screen through some of that and negotiate it and navigate it through an Oireachtas committee procedure, it would save you time. The fundamental flaw here is, rather than learn the lessons of a poorly designed section 28 ministerial guideline process, the Minister is trying to fix those by strengthening the centralisation of decision-making but he has not in any way removed the potential for conflict or litigation. If we had had a form of committee scrutiny on the former Minister, Eoghan Murphy's building height guidelines, if we had had, for example, the Dublin City Council planning department in to discuss, it would have alerted us to the problems that subsequently spent a year and a half or two years in the courts and delayed all sorts of residential development. The Minister will not change his position but I want to put on record that I think he is making a mistake. This will lead to greater delays, not fewer.

My final question is, how many section 28 guidelines are there currently on the books? We asked that previously.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I will find out.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

We may have been given an answer, but do we know?

An Cathaoirleach

I think we were sent a response on that.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I will check it out. That was raised previously.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Do the officials know the answer?

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

It is 30-something but we will get the Deputy the exact number.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

As the section 28 ministerial guidelines legislation was introduced in January 2016, 30-something is not a huge number.

Were the Minister to make the case that it would be too onerous, and maybe he is right,I would be open to having a position, not unlike EU scrutiny, where when a section 28 guideline in draft is published, the committee could be asked whether this was something it wanted to scrutinise. It could be that the committee would state it was fine with that because it has only been a small number of those section 28 ministerial guidelines that have caused us significant problems. I am recommending a softer version of this to deal with the Minister's issue but he does not seem to be willing to have any formal process at all.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

What I have said is I will look at the Oireachtas joint committee elements. Deputy Ó Broin's amendment goes a lot further than that and he has acknowledged that. It would require a motion before the Dáil for referral to the Oireachtas committee. The Oireachtas committee then would make its considerations, propose amendments and then that would come back, as amended, to the Houses of the Oireachtas for approval. That is a significant further step. That is very different from the point that Deputy Ó Broin put across there in relation to how we would interact with the Oireachtas joint committee. I have said I will look at section 23(6) in that regard as well.

Because there may have only been approximately 30 in a period of time does not mean that there will be only 30 in the next five years.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Sure.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

We have discussed it appropriately.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 21, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

You jumped forward to section 219.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I did, but it was to be helpful. National policy objective No. 36 under the national planning framework states:

New statutory guidelines, supported by wider methodologies and data sources, will be put in place under Section 28 of the Planning and Development Act to improve the evidence base, effectiveness and consistency of the planning process for housing provision at regional, metropolitan and local authority levels. This will be supported by the provision of standardised requirements by regulation for the recording of planning and housing data by the local authorities in order to provide a consistent and robust evidence base for housing policy formulation.

That is there. That is done in every housing authority and every planning authority. It is published and detailed and it will continue to be. I imagine we will have quite a detailed further discussion on this when we reach Part 7. The reason I referred to it is because this Bill interacts with the Affordable Housing Act.

Part 7 clearly sets out future housing strategy, supply, types of housing and what all of this will have regard to. It is not just social housing; the position relating to affordable and cost rental housing is also detailed in it.

An Cathaoirleach

We have had it backwards and forwards now. Deputy Boyd Barrett can table an amendment on Report Stage if he does not feel it is covered. Deputy Ó Broin can make a brief point before I put the question.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

There is a huge difference between having something in the NPF, which is a legally binding, statutory plan, and having something in section 219. The Minister knows, as we do, some local authorities have good housing action plans while others are patchy. If he wants to ensure consistency, standardisation and compliance, the best way to do it is put it in the NPF. Sections 19 to 22, inclusive, and 219 do not have the same force. That is why I support my colleagues.

Question put: "That section 21, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 2.

Tá

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Haughey, Seán.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Brien, Darragh.

Níl

O'Callaghan, Cian.
Ó Broin, Eoin.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 22

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 173:

In page 63, to delete all words from and including “(1)” in line 29 down to and including line 30 and substitute the following:

“(1) In carrying out a review under section 20, the Government shall have regard to such plans or documents as it considers appropriate, and to assist the identification and determination of appropriate and current information, the Government shall also consult with the Joint Oireachtas Committees who have remits in the areas including in respect of: Housing, Waste, Water, Environment, Climate Change, Energy, Transport, Natural Heritage, Health, Children, Disability, Youth, Equality, Travellers, Migrant Populations, Refugees, Trade, Employment, Defence, The Gaeltacht, Rural Affairs, Agriculture, Marine, Fisheries, Gender, All Island Affairs and the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. The Government shall include a statement within any draft revision or new National Planning Framework of why the information was considered appropriate for the purposes of the review.”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 3.

Tá

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Haughey, Seán.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Brien, Darragh.

Níl

Gould, Thomas.
O'Callaghan, Cian.
Ó Broin, Eoin.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 174:

In page 63, line 33, after “prescribed.” to insert the following:

“Such prescribed documents shall include at least information on the following:

(a) current information on current and projected population and demographics, including on net-migration and inward migration, coastal and flood related retreats, and climate refugees;

(b) the state of the environment report and indicators on greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, status of protected sites, air quality, water quality, soil quality, and

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 175:

In page 64, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

“(g) language planning.”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.

Tá

Gould, Thomas.
O'Callaghan, Cian.
Ó Broin, Eoin.

Níl

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Haughey, Seán.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Brien, Darragh.

Amendment declared lost.

Question put: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill"

The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 3.

Tá

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Haughey, Seán.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Brien, Darragh.

Níl

Gould, Thomas.
O'Callaghan, Cian.
Ó Broin, Eoin.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 23

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 176:

In page 64, line 8, to delete “of the Government” and substitute “of the Oireachtas”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.

Tá

Gould, Thomas.
O'Callaghan, Cian.
Ó Broin, Eoin.

Níl

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Haughey, Seán.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Brien, Darragh.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 177:

In page 64, line 9, to delete “ “National Planning Statement” ” and substitute “ “Ráiteas Pleanála Náisiunta” ”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 178:

In page 64, lines 12 and 13, to delete “ “National Planning Policies and Measures” ” and substitute “ “Beartais Pleanála Náisiúnta” ”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 179:

In page 64, line 15, to delete “ “National Planning Policy Guidance” ” and substitute “ “Treoraíocht Polasaí Pleanála Náisiúnta” ”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 180:

In page 64, line 16, to delete “of the Government” and substitute “of the Oireachtas”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Sitting suspended at 10.59 a.m. until 12.02 p.m.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 181 is in the names of Deputies O'Callaghan, Ó Broin and others. Amendments Nos. 181 to 183, inclusive, 183, 191, 195, 200, 202, 203, 205, 206 and 210 to 227, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 181:

In page 64, to delete lines 18 to 29 and substitute the following:

“(3) When the Minister proposes to issue, amend or revoke a National Planning Statement, the Minister shall consult with the relevant Joint Oireachtas Committee on the draft National Planning Statement and give due consideration to any recommendations it makes in respect of the draft.

(4) When the Minister proposes to issue, amend or revoke a National Planning Statement, the Minister shall lay before each House of the Oireachtas—

(a) a draft of the new, amended or revoked National Planning Statement, and

(b) any screening decisions or assessments required under either the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive or the Habitats Directive, or under both Directives as may be required,

and such draft Statement shall not be made or a Statement revoked, as the case may be, until a resolution approving the draft of the new or amended Statement or the revocation of a Statement is passed by each such House, following a debate of no less than 2 hours.

(5) The Minister shall publish on a website maintained by or on behalf of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage—

(a) a National Planning Statement,

(b) notice of an amendment of a National Planning Statement and a copy of the National Planning Statement as amended, and

(6) The Minister shall cause to be made a communication strategy and give effect to that communication strategy in order to ensure effective and widespread notice of the new, amended or revoked National Planning Statement is achieved with the public, and to highlight its potential implications, and the processes which it will drive at national, regional and county level.

(7) A National Planning Statement, amendment or revocation published under subsection (3) shall take effect on the date of its publication, or on such date as may be specified therein where that is later than the publication date.”.

Although the amendments are grouped, they are distinct. I do not wish to repeat the conversation we just had regarding the process. The amendment relates to section 23 and, in particular, the ability of the Minister, with the approval of the Government, to revoke national planning policy statements. The amendment sets out a mechanism for doing that. We have kind of dealt with that. It is not dissimilar from our previous discussion regarding their approval. I will raise a few concerns, however, in respect of the mechanism through which revocation currently is proposed. Let us imagine a scenario where the Minister makes a series of progressive changes to planning, this legislation passes, the Government runs its full terms and a series of national planning policy statements are created or former section 28 ministerial guidelines are transposed into national planning policy statements. Let us suppose there is then a change of Government, the Minister is replaced by a bad Minister and a bad Government replaces the current one, God forbid, and decides to undo all the Minister's good work. The Oireachtas would have no role whatsoever in that scenario. The revocation is simply a function of the Minister seeking the approval of the Cabinet. I know there are general provisions with regard to taking on board the views of others, but where are the safeguards to ensure that good planning policy introduced by a good Government that is in the public interest and meets the principles of good planning and good climate action cannot be literally overturned by a decision of another Government? Surely there should be a mechanism to give the Oireachtas some oversight or an opportunity to raise concerns with such revocation, particularly given the significance of the planning policy statements, as we have discussed previously.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

The proposed new subsection (6) in amendment No. 181 relates to a communications strategy. This is a really good proposal. These kinds of changes take place and people just do not know about them. One of the frustrations relating to changes in planning rules or around public consultation is that people do not know about what is happening. I ask the Minister to address that point. The proposal contained in subsection (6) is a good one. If he does not consider it necessary, I ask him to explain the legislative provisions relating to communications regarding the amendment or revocation of a national planning statement.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

That is a disappointing response because the inclusion of the word "historic" is important. Section 24(1)(i) relates to the protection of landscapes and features of natural, archaeological, architectural and cultural heritage. However, there could be things that are historically important that do not fit in those other four terms. What we are trying to do is to slightly broaden it not narrow it, and make sure landscapes and features of landscapes that have historic importance but might not be archaeologically, architecturally or of cultural heritage value are included. I just do not understand how the Minister would argue that it would restrict what is proposed. I am of the view that it would broaden it in a positive way and make sure that nothing of historic significance would be missed.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I did not say it would restrict the consideration. The definitions are broad, and they are supposed to be. If we continue to drill down into other definitions and add additional language we are then potentially restricting and crossing over into other areas and other pieces of legislation. This is well covered as it stands and as it is written within the draft legislation. As the Deputies can see in section 24(1), it is not limited to what is specified. The section states that is relates to "planning matters to support proper planning and sustainable development, including, but not limited to, the following".

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

That is helpful. If we take the half-sentence that the Deputies are looking to delete, we might say that is okay in isolation, but we have to read what comes before it, particularly in regard to “appropriate architectural urban design and quality standards into development plans”. It is correct that a certain consistency and standards are needed, and it provides for that assessment to happen. Basically, it is the “how” it is being done as opposed to the “what”, for example, how they are integrated into the assessment process. That is the reason for this being there.

I wanted to get a better understanding of where the Deputy is coming from on this, and I have, but this effectively relates to the operation and how it is done under the primary legislation. As I have mentioned, paragraph (n) refers to how it is done in practice on the ground and allows for that assessment to be taken. It would be problematic if we were to remove that provision within it.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I am pretty sure I disagree with the Minister.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

That is understood.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

No.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

If that is not the case, I want to hear from the Minister on it. When we had a discussion on planning in Gaeltacht communities, the Minister strongly made the point that he did not want to accept our amendments because he felt they would result in a national framework for making more housing available for Irish-language speakers and Gaeltacht communities. He stated each area was unique and needed to be treated in a unique way. I am concerned that the wording under discussion curtails the ability of planners to treat areas as unique and assess applications as they see fit in the context of national policy and national planning statements that have been issued.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

The reason for my sponsoring this amendment is that, whatever the intention of the Bill, a plain reading of it suggests the Minister will be prompted to formulate national planning statements. The relevant provision is section 24(1)(n). In making a decision, the Minister will produce a national planning statement. The issuing of policy guidance will be prompted by certain considerations. It is absolutely fine that a Minister should have regard to the integration of appropriate architectural and urban design and quality standards into development plans. A good reason for a Minister to issue a national planning statement would be to ensure this. It would also be good to ensure it in respect of urban area plans, priority area plans and co-ordinated area plans.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

A national planning statement could have a positive impact on any development plan that is out there. It will guide the decisions that are made by the planners, not just on the development plan itself, the written statement and the objectives within it. It is a living thing. It is not just that there is a national planning statement and it takes effect from next year. A national planning statement could be on a range of matters, as we discussed. It could be on building height or some other area. I will not dwell on the point but this is a procedural piece around a checklist of what a planner should have regard to when he or she is making an assessment. It is not unlike the Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlements Guidelines for Planning Authorities, where there is a design checklist outlining what the planner should go through. Obviously decisions need to be appropriate in the context of the national planning statements and what the State wants to do in areas like densification, for example. Have we made sure that there is proper and effective utilisation of the land we have with better compact growth design?

Are the Deputies saying that a planner should make a decision but would do not have regard to or assess these? Effectively, that is the counterpoint to what the Deputies are putting forward. I doubt that is what the planning institute is saying. It is effectively ensuring that what is relevant in respect of national statements, which guidelines like these will become, would be assessed in making a decision. I cannot understand why anyone would want to delete that.

It does not get into discretion or anything about specific design and what might be appropriate to a certain town or village, what is in the typography of a site or whatever. If we take this as an example that has been well received, we need to ensure that when the Government makes decisions based on broad consultation with stakeholders once this is in force, those decisions are consistent with the national planning statements. It makes sense. It does not make any sense to say that there should be no regard had to them.

On one hand, the Deputy was arguing earlier that this seeks to restrict a planner's discretion to make a decision. It does not do that at all. On the other hand, we are asking is it so broad that it will create a conflict. National planning statements will come forward, as will the compact growth guidelines that I have used as an example, at any time during a development plan cycle. What we are basically saying is that we would look at this in the context of section 59(1), because these are all related. The heading relating to section 59 is "Consequences of new or amended National Planning Statement for development plans". Section 59(1) states:

Where the Minister issues or amends a National Planning Statement, each planning authority shall, within 2 months of the publication of National Planning Statement, submit a report ... setting out its view as to whether the development plan in force for its functional area is materially consistent ...

On the important point of material consistency, section 40(8) contains the phrase, "In reviewing a development plan in accordance with sections 51 and 52 ...". Section 40(8)(b) states:

I will not curtail the Deputy. He may speak to amendment No. 205 as well.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I am happy to speak to the group of the amendments and then come back on their finer details. I would like to spend a little bit more time on amendment No. 205. There are several issues, including that the relevant section of the Bill lists 15 areas on which a national planning policy statement can be issued. I know the Minister will remind me, and I am surprised he has not done so already, that with regard to the list, the preamble in section 24(1) states "including, but not limited to". This means new things can be added and I accept this. However, it begs the question that even though the list is potentially unlimited, and anything can be added by any Minister in any Government at any point in time, there is clearly a reason the 15 listed from paragraphs (a) to (o) have been chosen. Somebody decided these were worth listing and others were not worth listing. It does not mean they could not be considered by somebody at some point in the future but they were not important enough to make it into the top 15. This is what it reads like.

To be helpful, I will speak to all of the amendments in the group. What we are proposing relates to what in many instances does not get adequately addressed in the existing national planning framework, development plans or development management. The promotion of human health and well-being is an example and Deputy O'Callaghan made the case quite well. Often there is not adequate consideration of the promotion of human health and well-being in terms of how we plan our built environment. This includes active travel and transport-oriented development. It also includes exactly the issues we were discussing previously on national standards and so on.

We often see in the newspapers stories about people who live in certain parts of the urban environment and, for example, whose son in a wheelchair in getting from home to the bus must navigate steep staircases that were built without any due regard for people with disabilities. This is with regard to amendment No. 203. We also see all of the time in our planning system growing advocacy for wheelchair users, people with restricted mobility and impaired vision. They make the case that, if you will excuse the pun, the planning system is completely blind to the needs of people who have a very specific condition.

It is precisely because of issues of human health and well-being that the "promotion of patterns and layouts of development to better facilitate those with disabilities, to address gender considerations and to address challenges of those experiencing financial, learning, or other challenges" should be baked in to the Bill. Amendment No. 203 proposes that disability should be included among the categories listed. This is with regard to people who constantly remind us, and rightly so, how the built environment is not consequent to their needs and, therefore, not only do they often experience social or economic discrimination or disadvantage but physical disadvantage in the built environment.

With respect to amendment No. 205, there is legislation and there are Government housing plans. We can debate the merits of these on another day as it is not for today, despite the fact we would all like to have this argument once again but we will do it somewhere else. I would have thought one of the most compelling cases for a national planning policy statement is exactly as amendment No. 205 outlines, which proposes including the "provision of a sufficient amount of affordable housing available to buy and rent", with all of the very detailed guidance and notes that the Minister has.

With regard to amendment No. 206 perhaps it is not important to the Minister or the framers of the Bill but in Dublin we have seen an 84% drop in cultural venues, according to the Give Us The Night campaign, with a significant impact on the built environment, the night-time economy and the quality of life and impact on residents and visitors. We are trying to ensure there is adequate recognition in the statements that will then influence development plans and other plans on cultural space.

My argument to the Minister is not that these will not be included, as the Minister might decide to include them even though they are not on this list. My argument is that if they are not on the list they are not being prioritised by the legislation and they are less likely to happen. If they were on the list Opposition Members could rightly say to the Minister that it is in the legislation in paragraph (o) or (n) and ask why it was not being done. Having it in the list strengthens the case to ensure a Minister, whoever it is, takes regard of these. Given that these are the areas most commonly ignored, excluded or underserved in our planning policy and in the development of our built environment, it is a compelling case to put them in, notwithstanding the fact that section 24(1) states the list is "including, but not limited to". They should be added to the text of the Bill.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

The amendments we have tabled, and the amendment from Deputy O'Callaghan, are trying to do similar things. The Minister will probably say they could be done anyway and that the Bill as drafted will allow for all of this. Our point is it will also allow for the Minister not to do it. In the areas we are specifying, we do not believe it is an option not to do it.

Yes.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I appreciate that, and there is a mention of that further on in the Bill but that kind of misses the point. What I am saying is that in planning in general, in addition to social housing and particularly affordable purchase and cost-rental schemes, the key aim of the planning system should be to make sure that housing is affordable for people. If you go back to the first principles of planning and when it was introduced, it was never the intention of the planning system to make housing less affordable for people but that has actually been an unintended consequence. What the planning system does is it restricts development, and for very good, rational reasons because there are real costs if you just have housing development everywhere. I do not need to rehearse the issues around that. I think we all understand the need for compact growth and to align housing with proximity to employment, education, sustainable transport and all these different things. You cannot have a free-for-all. There are huge costs or consequence if you do that. However, when planning was introduced, it was never intended that it would restrict access to housing so much that it would make unaffordable for a huge number of people.

When planning was started, going back to town planning and looking at the garden cities, not only was the first one, namely, Letchworth Garden City, in the UK, but Marino was based on it. Our original town planning here was based on all this. It was not just about providing good quality housing, good amenities and good open spaces but affordability was a key priority for planning. That somehow has been lost from the overall planning system over the years. It should be absolutely fundamental and written into everything at a high level. In addition to what we are doing with social housing, affordable purchase, cost rental, which I do not think is enough anyway, affordability throughout the entire planning system should be a key consideration.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I will speak briefly to my two amendments, which are both self-explanatory. They are very simple. Amendment No. 210 is about promoting infrastructure and so on.

I wish to respond to the debate though because it is important. The proposal Deputy O’Callaghan spoke about is, in some ways, contradictory. I think back to my days in development plan discussions. With many of the issues planning applications have, there are elements of viability. If planners add additional conditions and so on, that can damage viability. There is an acceptable level of that and so on. The other side of it is I have seen many cases where, for example, the provision of street level shops has been a condition of many planning applications. Unfortunately, what happens is they lie empty for decades. We have some units in our area that were put in as a condition, which has meant those units have never been built. I dealt with an application last week that has shops on ground floor level where there is absolutely no demand. In fact, the existing shops are struggling to remain open. The challenge for what is being proposed by Deputy O’Callaghan – I do not doubt his motivation on it – is, for example, the provision of cultural spaces, which is an important aim, increases the overall cost of the project by adding it to a planning application and, therefore, the affordability that he spoke about can be damaged. In some ways, the two objectives can conflict. I am not saying he is deliberately doing that but they do conflict. We have to be careful about our positive aspirations entering into a planning application that then can either damage viability or provide spaces that are not flexible enough to be occupied. Another argument is that by providing the spaces, a bank of units is created that then becomes available for cultural use, which lowers the overall operating costs of those type of institutions because they have more availability of space to them. I would caution against this. I saw specifically in Ballymun that when we provide conditions to planning that are positive at a high level, when it actually comes down to their implementation and viability and how they impact the viability of the overall project, they can often have a different application.

An Cathaoirleach

I call Deputy O'Callaghan, who will be followed by Deputies Ó Broin and Boyd Barrett before it goes back to the Minister. I do not want have a big policy discussion. I ask Deputies to stick to the amendment.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I was speaking against the amendment for the reason I outlined.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

Did Deputy McAuliffe speak to amendments Nos. 210 and 212?

An Cathaoirleach

It was just amendment No. 210.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I am happy to hear the Minister's response on the amendment.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Deputy McAuliffe raised valid points and I understand them. I wish to respond directly to them. First, does providing cultural spaces, better public lighting and all that sort of stuff come at a cost? Potentially, it comes at a cost. However, if affordability was running through our entire planning system, it would be much more cost-effective to provide housing at affordable rates and provide the amenities and facilities we need with that. I have further amendments that address some of these issues around active land management and affordable housing zoning.

Shared facilities are actually quite a cost-effective way even within our existing planning system to provide more cultural and community spaces. It has been done well, for example, in Fingal County Council. In many of the new developments in those areas, the council has put capital funding into sports halls that go with schools. There is a larger sports hall with community rooms around it and the full school has access until perhaps 3.30 p.m. and the community has access from a different entrance in the evenings and at weekends. It works well and has been happening for years. That should be happening around the country but because we do not have enough emphasis on it, it is not happening in other places, which is a massive missed opportunity. If affordability was running through our planning system like all the other issues listed out in the national planning statements, that would mean we have things like, for example, the programme for Government talks about the Vienna model of affordable housing. In Vienna, there is affordable housing zoning so when, for example, industrial or agricultural lands get rezoned for housing, it is subject to an affordable housing zoning, which limits the price of that land. That means housing can be delivered at more affordable rates, the cultural spaces-----

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

There is an amendment on that later in the Bill.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

It is related to this and the issues that Deputy McAuliffe raised. It means affordable housing delivery, or all housing at more affordable rates, and delivery of cultural and youth spaces is much more viable.

Regarding active land management, the problem with our planning system compared with other countries is our land management is far too passive because we are not pursuing affordability through our entire planning system. If we were doing that, as my amendment suggests, we would be able to deliver more houses and apartments for people to live in and rent at more affordable prices as well as the infrastructures and amenities that we need with it.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I have two small points on the amendments to be clear. Let us look at amendment No. 206. It is not that it would be in any way prescribing individual developments must have X or Y. In some senses, by listing these areas under what I am calling the priority areas for national planning policy statements, people would actually be saying that they need better guidance on this to try to avoid some of the things Deputy McAuliffe rightly said about poor quality planning. It is actually to say that if we want to improve, for example, the proper provision of cultural spaces, a national planning policy statement would be useful.

On affordable housing, I will focus on the planning stuff. The value of this is to have to think about planning. The Minister will be aware that a rush of build-to-rent planning applications were submitted before this Government came into office and just slightly after. Many of those did not use what I would have called inferior build-to-rent design standards; rather they used the better ones. However, very large volumes of those applications were unviable. At the time, they were literally unviable and most of us commenting on them had the suspicion that they were. There was no requirement in the planning process to make an assessment of the following scenario, for example. If Eoin Ó Broin submits an application for development X, is it viable and is it affordable by whatever definitions are in legislation or policy?

I am not saying this to convince the Minister because I know he will oppose the amendment. However, there is a need for him and the Department to think about it. At some point, we need to start making our planning system more sophisticated in a way that gives at least the option of looking at whether there is any point in granting a consent if it is just completely unviable. The only reason I say this is when we used to do strategic development zones, we were told they were tenure-neutral. It was just the number of houses, the type of houses and the layout. However, a number of us made the case that they should not be blind to tenure and that, in fact, they should have the option. We now have two SDZs - one in Poolbeg and one in my own constituency - where the SDZ includes elements of tenure. The planning system has become more sophisticated.

I urge the Minister to think this through after he rejects the amendment because it could be valuable to the toolkit planners have to try to make decisions not just about the right size, shape, density, layout and public space but whether it will ever get built and whether it is viable.

The Minister is playing into the objectives of some people. I want to stick to the amendment and move along with the legislation.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I apologise, Chair. We dealt with the human health and well-being piece in some detail. I refer back to a commitment I gave under amendment No. 154. We will do that; we will look at that and revert. In that instance, without in any way dismissing the import of the issue or the manner in which it was put down and presented, we will look at that and I will come back on it.

I will get to all of the amendments but the most relevant one I want to deal with is affordability with regard to affordable housing. We had a decent discussion on this in the first session as well. I refer Deputies again to Part 7 of the Bill, housing strategy, which clearly and rightly points to the Land Development Agency Act 2021. The Land Development Agency will develop 100% social and affordable housing on State-owned land in Cork and Dublin. The utilisation of State lands is happening, and that is a good thing. That is reflected here and the LDA's output is increasing year on year.

Part 7 also points to the Affordable Housing Act 2021. Underpinned in principle right the way through this is to deliver affordable homes. Cost-rental dwellings are also mentioned in Part 3 of the Affordable Housing Act 2021. Social housing is also mentioned under the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009. Coupled with that, we have a process that the housing need and demand assessments, HNDAs, are published and put together. These are for all tenures of houses within housing authority areas. Social and affordable encompasses both affordable purchase and cost-rental homes and private homes that we need.

On the discussion around viability, viability and design, which are one of the main drivers, are linked. Let us take the example of the difficulty with being able to build apartments to purchase in our cities. We rightly have very good and exacting standards but that has led to significantly increased construction costs. As a result, the Government and I took the decision to bring forward the apartment activation fund and the Croí Cónaithe cities fund, which, in fairness, the Deputies opposite were very critical of, as is their right. We now have some of the biggest apartment schemes for purchase. Deputy Gould may be aware that two apartment schemes have started in Cork, one of which involves 274 apartments for purchase. We are now able to do that. This shows the challenge that is there. Everyone wants affordability to permeate the housing system. The State must step in and is stepping in because there is an affordability challenge in many parts of our country. That is why I have brought forward certain policy initiatives that are working now. That is a policy discussion for another day but Deputies will be aware of it.

The sustainable residential development and compact settlement guidelines were not just about better, own-door design but also to try to deliver affordability. There will be better design and better pepper-potting of open spaces, as well as safer design, to which Deputy O'Callaghan referred.

I will respond when we get further down the line. I know the Deputy has amendments regarding zoning. We are delivering affordable housing. We are actively managing our land bank through the LDA. I could make political points, which I have made in the Dáil - I will leave it for there - in relation to where others stood regarding the LDA and its activation of land and, indeed, the Affordable Housing Act. It legislates for cost rental, which is being delivered, along with affordable purchase through local authorities and the first home scheme and others. I want to see affordability permeate the market. It is referred to very clearly in the Bill and pointed to. If we are to put it to a planner - this was mentioned by Deputy Boyd Barrett earlier - to define "viability" or "affordability", that is when it gets very tricky. Deputy McAuliffe's point was very valid. You can add other considerations; for example, we want cultural spaces and better open spaces.

I put it to the Deputy that the developments we have seen over the past ten or 15 years are much better than they were previously. There are and continue to be excellent developments out there. We have to balance the additionality people want with how that will affect affordability and viability. I will come back to it in the next session, but I am not accepting the amendment.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

On the example of the bulk purchase of houses and duplexes and the regulations that were brought in, if there had been public consultation, which would indeed have been quick, what would have come through would have been a clear wish for apartments to be included. Every week in my constituency, I talk to people who are living in homes that are larger than their needs. They want to be able to move into apartments being built in their local communities. They do not want to go from the situation of owning their homes to paying a high rent and having the insecurity that entails. They are incredibly frustrated that they cannot buy new-build apartments. They are very angry and disappointed about this. There is a mismatch in the housing stock. Smaller homes are being built that people with a smaller housing need in terms of the space want to move into but they want to do that on a homeownership basis. They want to vacate the larger house they own that would be suitable for a larger household, but they are not able to. This is having all sorts of knock-on effects in terms of mismatch in who is in different parts of our housing stock and has knock-on effects on affordability, rents, prices and everything else. In a time we are trying to encourage more compact growth, this really goes against a lot of Government and national policy about trying to encourage sustainable development. In effect, home ownership in more compact-growth, higher-density, new-build apartments has been ruled out for most people. It has been a real shortcoming that the Government did not engage in public consultation on that. If it had done so, the Government would have come out with a different proposal at the end of if. Consultation could have been very short.

Regarding technical and orientation, is the Minister of State saying that it would have to be urgent need and technical?

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

The general intention is that the national planning statements would go out for public consultation, as is the case with section 28 guidelines but that is not on a statutory footing. It is done in practice. It is not in the current Planning and Development Act 2000. It is a positive measure that has been put in section 24(2).

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I accept the Minister of State's intent. It is welcome that the intention is to do public consultation. The legislation would be much better with the inclusion of "shall do the consultation". Regarding emergency, urgent areas, the consultation could be done quickly. There is nothing to be lost by public consultation. It only improves outcomes with the knowledge and experience that comes from it.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

In 2020, there was a section 28 guideline on the approach to planning enforcement during Covid. This was for the hours of operation of retailers. Section 24(2) adds to what is in the Planning and Development Act 2000 where it now provides for public consultation. We believe that we cannot include "shall" because there may be situations - and Deputy Ó Broin may find himself in government - whereby governments have to make a choice at a particular moment and that there is an urgency in that regard. The general intent is to go out to public consultation in all section 28 cases. Under a separate provision, if there is an SEA requiring an AA, there is a statutory process in place.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I will probably speak to them separately, but if the Minister of State wishes to respond to them collectively, it is fine if we deal with them one by one. Amendment No. 222 represents the second part of the Irish Planning Institute’s general concerns raised with the committee and in its subsequent written submission regarding national planning policy statements. We had a detailed debate with the Minister of State earlier about the first of these concerns. The amendment is straightforward. It reads: "Notwithstanding the repeal of section 28 of the Act of 2000 effected by section 6, any guidelines issued under this section that were in force immediately before such repeal shall continue in force on or after such repeal, other than guidelines issues under section 28 IC of the Act of 2000, which shall be deemed to be non mandatory guidelines under section 28 until—"." My concern is that the Government is strengthening the process for turning what were section 28 guidelines into national planning policy statements. This amendment was drafted prior to the publication of the Government’s mechanisms, which we dealt with at the start, for dealing with the transition from section 28 guidelines to new national planning policy statements. What the Irish Planning Institute is trying to do with this amendment, and which I support, is clarify the non-mandatory status of the existing section 28 guidelines post the Bill’s passing. My view is that they should be non-mandatory, as they are just guidelines. I suspect I have a snowball's chance in hell of the Minister of State supporting this amendment, but he cannot blame me for trying.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I will deal with amendments Nos. 222 to 227, inclusive, which relate to a transitional provision - section 25 - which provides for the continuation in force of pre-commencement ministerial guidelines. The purpose of section 25 is to ensure that guidelines issued under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 will continue in force following the repeal of that Act. The Minister of the day will be empowered to revoke guidelines if considered necessary, but as guidelines issued under the current legislation will be replaced by national planning policy guidance under the Bill, any guidelines that continue to have effect following the repeal of the current legislation will only do so up to the time that a national planning statement issues. This transitional provision will ensure a smooth changeover from the current legislation and the corresponding guidelines currently in effect to the new legislation and the corresponding national planning guidance.

Having reviewed the proposed amendments, I am unfortunately not in a position to accept any of them for the following reasons. Amendments No. 222 and 226 refer to specific guidelines issued under section 28(1C) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. No such guidelines exist. All guidelines under section 28 are issued under subsection (1). I assume the Deputy is referring to the SPPRs.

Amendment No. 223 seeks to remove the transitional provision entirely. This would mean that, once the current legislation was repealed, no guidance would exist up until the time a national planning statement was issued.

Amendment No. 224 deletes the text “continue in force” from section 25(1). This text provides for the continuation of the guidelines in question and so cannot be deleted.

Amendment No. 225 removes an important part of the transitional provision that deems the current guidelines will be considered national planning policy guidance for an interim period before a national planning statement is issued.

Finally, amendment No. 227 refers to the concept of “revised implementation guidelines”. These are not a feature of the current legislation or the Bill. The smooth transition from the Planning and Development Act 2000 to the new planning Act is of central importance to the maintenance of the planning system. This transition will happen over a period of time and there needs to be clarity from an administrative, public policy and legislative basis in moving to the new legislative arrangements.

Guidelines, including those with specific planning policy requirements, SPPRs, are an important feature of the current legislative system. The Bill moves from this arrangement to national planning policy statements. There are over 30 section 28 guidelines, although not all with SPPRs. I think the officials have undertaken to provide specific details. The replacement of these guidelines with planning policy statements will take a period of time.

It is not appropriate that current planning policy, which has been carefully considered and forms an element in the consideration of applications and indeed statutory plans, should be arbitrarily removed without a consideration of what will replace it from a practical planning policy point of view. The Bill at present takes a pragmatic, reasonable and practical approach to allow for a clear and smooth transition. In view of this I cannot accept the proposed amendments.

Within many of the section 28 guidelines there are SPPRs on specific issues which have mandatory requirements. There will be a period of transition. If a national planning statement comes into being, it replaces the section 28 guideline and also replaces the SPPR within that section 28 guideline. The SPPR is attached to the section 28 guideline; they are not stand-alone. They deal with a specific element. Effectively, the national planning statement will take over from the section 28 guideline and whatever SPPR is incorporated within that section 28 guideline. Over time, section 28 guidelines will be replaced by the national planning statements. It is important to have a transitional base in place, which is the current status quo with section 28 guidelines having the SPPRs embedded within them. I am not certain if every section 28 guideline has an SPPR in it, but many of them do. They are mandatory and must be followed.

O'Callaghan, Cian.
O'Donoghue, Richard.
Ó Broin, Eoin.

Níl

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 182 not moved.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 183:

In page 64, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

“(e) prescribed bodies,”.

I will withdraw this amendment and reserve the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 184:

In page 65, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

“(g) Roinn na Gaeltachta, Údarás na Gaeltachta agus Foras na Gaeilge.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 185:

In page 65, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

“(g) board members of Údarás na Gaeltachta, Foras na Gaeilge, the Minister responsible for the Gaeltacht, Language Planning Officers and Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga.”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 6.

Tá

O'Callaghan, Cian.
Ó Broin, Eoin.

Níl

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I move amendment No. 186:

In page 65, to delete lines 2 to 4 and substitute the following:

“(7) A failure to comply with subsections (5) and (6) within the time period specified therein shall not of itself invalidate a National Planning Statement.”.

Amendment agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

As amendment No. 186 has been agreed, amendment No. 187 cannot be moved.

Amendment No. 187 not moved.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I move amendment No. 188:

In page 65, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

“(8) Any guidelines under section 52 of the Act of 2000 in force immediately before the repeal of that section by section 6, shall continue in force until the first issuing of a National Planning Statement after the passing of this Act.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 189 not moved.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 190:

In page 65, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

“(8) National Planning Statements and amendments, including revocations, should be subject to Joint Oireachtas Committee scrutiny.”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

O'Callaghan, Cian.
O'Donoghue, Richard.
Ó Broin, Eoin.
Ó Murchú, Ruairí.

Níl

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Question put: "That section 23, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 4.

Tá

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Níl

O'Callaghan, Cian.
O'Donoghue, Richard.
Ó Broin, Eoin.
Ó Murchú, Ruairí.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 24

Amendment No. 191 not moved.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 192:

In page 65, line 21, after “rural” to insert “and Gaeltacht”

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

O'Callaghan, Cian.
O'Donoghue, Richard.
Ó Broin, Eoin.
Ó Murchú, Ruairí.

Níl

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 193:

In page 65, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“(g) (i) protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans in Limistéir Phleanála Teanga Ghaeltachta and in Bailte Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,

(ii) protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans in Bailte Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside of the Gaeltacht and in Líonraí Gaeilge, pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012;”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

O'Callaghan, Cian.
O'Donoghue, Richard.
Ó Broin, Eoin.
Ó Murchú, Ruairí.

Níl

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 194:

In page 65, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“(g) protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans in Limistéir Phleanála Teanga Ghaeltachta, in Bailte Seirbhíse Gaeltachta and in Líonraí Gaeilge, pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012;”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

O'Callaghan, Cian.
O'Donoghue, Richard.
Ó Broin, Eoin.
Ó Murchú, Ruairí.

Níl

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 195:

In page 65, line 28, after “archaeological” to insert “, historic”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

O'Callaghan, Cian.
O'Donoghue, Richard.
Ó Broin, Eoin.
Ó Murchú, Ruairí.

Níl

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 196 to 199, inclusive, not moved.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 200:

In page 66, lines 6 and 7, to delete “and the assessment of any application for development consent under Part 4”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

O'Callaghan, Cian.
O'Donoghue, Richard.
Ó Broin, Eoin.
Ó Murchú, Ruairí.

Níl

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 201:

In page 66, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“(o) protection, conservation and restoration of biodiversity;”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

O'Callaghan, Cian.
O'Donoghue, Richard.
Ó Broin, Eoin.
Ó Murchú, Ruairí.

Níl

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 202:

In page 66, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“(o) promotion of human health and well-being;”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

O'Callaghan, Cian.
O'Donoghue, Richard.
Ó Broin, Eoin.
Ó Murchú, Ruairí.

Níl

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 203:

In page 66, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“(o) promotion of patterns and layouts of development to better facilitate those with disabilities, to address gender considerations and to address challenges of those experiencing financial, learning, or other challenges;”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

O'Callaghan, Cian.
O'Donoghue, Richard.
Ó Broin, Eoin.
Ó Murchú, Ruairí.

Níl

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendments Nos, 204, 306, 331 and 769 are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 204:

In page 66, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“(o) promotion of patterns and layouts of development to better facilitate the Travelling community;”.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

The amendment is self-explanatory. We had a lengthy discussion in the previous session with the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, about adding other areas which should be included in the list of 15 areas of section 24 for consideration when issuing national planning statements. As I said to the Minister when he was here earlier, I appreciate that the section 24(1) does not preclude the adding of other items by a Minister if he or she so wishes. The point I made, and it is particularly relevant to this amendment, is that unless something is actually listed in the list, the likelihood of it ever being considered as part of a national policy statement is greatly diminished.

As the Minister of State will know, we have a persistent problem in terms of adequate provision of accommodation for Travellers. That is not just a matter of housing policy and funding but also a matter of planning policy. The Minister of State will remember that his predecessor, Deputy Damien English, did very good work. It is very rare that I commend a Fine Gael Minister or Minister of State but I must say the former Minister of State, Deputy English, played a very positive role in putting together the expert group on Traveller accommodation. He worked very closely with his committee on a cross-party basis and the expert group's report is important as it set out what needs to be done, including with respect to planning, to tackle the Dickensian conditions in which members of the Traveller community live. Obviously what we are discussing here is a separate proposition from the recommendations with respect to planning in that report. We dealt with those earlier.

Amendment No. 204 is very straightforward as it seeks to insert, on page 66, a new subsection "(o) promotion of patterns and layouts of development to better facilitate the Travelling community;”. Obviously we have Traveller-specific sites but we also have Travellers living in what is euphemistically called settled housing. The design of that settled housing, from a planning point of view, only catered for the needs of the settled community in terms of driveway space, house layout, house size, etc. As the Minister of State will know, because Travellers traditionally have families of a larger size, there is a lack of adequate provision of four-bedroom and, in some cases, five-bedroom homes, particularly in social housing programmes. This means that when Travellers become homeless they tend to spend a disproportionately long period in emergency accommodation as they cannot gain access to the private rental sector because of discrimination. They also cannot access the social housing sector because the existing and new-build social housing stock is not large enough. While I appreciate some of that is a housing policy matter, it is also a planning matter. Inserting either this or some other reference to the planning requirements to promote better "patterns and layouts of development to better facilitate the Travelling community" would send a very positive signal. It would indicate that the Government is finally serious about tackling the underprovision and poor quality, from both the planning and housing point of view, of accommodation that is culturally appropriate and specific to Travellers. On that basis, I look forward to the response from the Minister of State.

I will deal with amendment No. 331 separately and briefly after we deal with the amendments that concern Travellers.

An Cathaoirleach

Does Deputy O'Callaghan wish to comment? Amendments Nos. 306 and 769 are related to Traveller accommodation in different development plans.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I am happy to speak to amendments Nos. 204, 306 and 769 together.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes. We will deal with amendment No. 331 separately.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Yes, that amendment is on a different theme.

Amendment No. 306 is about the obligations to make and review a development plan. Effectively, it provides that the planning authority should take due account of each local authority's Traveller accommodation plan. This reflects recommendations made about this Bill by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission with regard to Traveller-specific housing. Amendment No. 769 is about local authority development and State authority development.

Travellers are consistently over-represented in homelessness. In some local authority areas they make up 50% of homeless families despite accounting for just 1% of the overall population. There have been instances of Travellers being refused access to emergency accommodation due to the dubious use of local connection rules. We saw with the devastating fire at Carrickmines the huge cost that can arise when there is not proper planning and investment in housing for Traveller accommodation. Pavee Point commissioned a report from the independent researcher, Mr. Brian Harvey, which found that 39% of Traveller households are overcrowded and 29% of Travellers live in severe housing deprivation. A report by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission found that Travellers are 22 times more likely than members of the general population to be discriminated against in the private rental sector. That is relevant because when Travellers are not having their housing needs met through the housing and planning systems they are reliant on getting accommodation in the private rental sector. They are, however, 22 times more likely to be discriminated against than members of the general population in the very difficult private rented sector where supply is very tight and costs are very high, which makes the situation even worse.

A periodic review was recently published by the UN's Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The committee made specific comments and expressed concern over the persistence of homelessness in Ireland, including among marginalised groups, including Travellers. It called on the Government to ensure adequate access to culturally appropriate accommodation for Traveller and Roma communities.

An expert group examined the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act 1998 and made a number of recommendations with regard to planning. It found an inadequate connection between the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act and planning legislation, a lack of adequate planning guidance for planning authorities concerning Traveller accommodation and a lack of monitoring and reviewing of development plans and how they relate to Traveller accommodation. There is a range of issues that needs to be urgently addressed.

The Ombudsman for Children compiled a report entitled, No End in Site: An investigation into the living conditions of children living on a local authority site. The report is about the lived experiences of some of the young people living in those conditions. In it, girl 16 says “it’s hell”; girl 7 says “it’s all mud and all and then you fall and cut ourselves all the time and our friends can’t go and visit us”; girl 12 says “walking up to school you see all the rats ... they would be running up and down the walls of the trailer”; girl 14 says “people ask why I’m dirty, but I’d be ashamed to say. I don’t want to say it was from walking out of the site”; boy 11 says “we’ve no swings or nothing, like nothing to play with”; boy 7 says “we only play in puddles”; and boy 12 says “I’d like to have friends home but I’d be too embarrassed”. The report continues in that vein. It gives a devastating insight into the poor conditions many children in this country are living in because the planning and housing systems, in terms of Traveller accommodation, have failed. They have not only failed the children who live in those conditions but also the adults. Much but not all of this is a planning issue. It is around how we plan housing and Traveller-specific accommodation and how that relates to development plans and the Traveller accommodation plans that have been adopted at local authority level. It is also about how the first amendment in the group relates to planning statements.

If the Minister of State is not going to accept these amendments, I ask him to tell us what he is going to do to at least deal with the spirit of them on Report Stage.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I will address amendments Nos. 204, 306, 331 and 769. This list of amendments relates to section 24 of the Bill and the consideration the Minister of the day must have regard to in advance of issuing or amending a national planning statement by incorporating an additional matter concerning the Traveller community. I believe the matters currently set out in the Bill are appropriate for the scope and level of consideration required for national planning statements. The current list is both balanced and broad. The matters proposed would overextend the scope of a national planning statement by merging this statement with other policy matters. This means that, unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 769 provides that a resolution made under section 153(3) "shall not operate to prevent the provision of Traveller-specific accommodation which has already been specified ... in

a given ... development plan".

Amendment No. 306 proposes to amend section 40 related to the obligation to make and review a development plan. The amendment proposes to add a subparagraph to section 40(8) providing that a planning authority shall, when making or reviewing a development plan, ensure the plan is materially consistent with each local authority's Traveller accommodation programme. Sections 44(3) and 45(3) provide that the housing development strategy should include objectives regarding the provision of accommodation for members of the Traveller community and the use of particular areas for that purpose. The Bill as drafted recognises the need for Traveller accommodation in section 45(3)(g) of the Bill. It states that the housing development strategy shall include "objectives regarding the provision of accommodation for members of the traveller community and the use of particular areas for that purpose". This is the obligation to prepare a housing development strategy when a planning authority's functional area consists of the elements concerned in this case.

I will go further than Deputy O'Callaghan on the spending because this is something I have been tracking very carefully for quite a number of years. During Covid-19, for the first time, the capital allocation was spent in full. Initially, this was on Covid measures. In many cases, then, it was spent on-site improvements. Again, these are very welcome but the number of new Traveller-specific accommodation units or developments that have come on stream in recent years is paltry and nowhere near the level required to meet demand. I also take issue with the Minister of State's contention that the increase in capital is significant. I accept it has been increased every year, but it is very low and way off the €40 million annually it used to be back in 2008.

The real problem is that the Minister of State's response to our amendments refers to section 45(3)(g). This provision is failing. Not only is it failing with respect to the obligation to prepare housing developments, but the Traveller accommodation programmes are themselves failing. I am in a local authority area that has a relatively decent track record in terms of the provision and maintenance of its Traveller-specific sites. Mr. Hogan knows that because he was there for many years. In terms of the provision of new accommodation, the Traveller accommodation programme is desperately stalled, bar one development we are hoping will go on site later this year. Equally, this matter is not just about the Traveller-specific accommodation. There are also Travellers who wish to live in what we often call mainstream housing estates. They would still like aspects of the planning of those estates to meet their specific cultural needs as Travellers. Not all Travellers necessarily want to live in Traveller sites exclusively. Of course, if there were to be a greater choice, that would be even better.

A more fundamental problem also exists here. When we talk about the national planning policy statements, the Government says there is not a consistency of approach across local authorities. It states it must be ensured that local authorities are abiding by central government policy and, therefore, there are going to have to be national planning policy statements and we are given a list of what they are. I refer to an area that is probably the greatest example of a lack of consistency and a lack of willingness on the part of many of our local authorities to provide good quality and culturally appropriate accommodation for Travellers with appropriate planning built in. It would not be possible to find a better example of our local government system not following what the central government says its policy, and associated funding, is supposed to. What better area to have a national planning policy statement in than this one? In fact, more than any other issue we have discussed, bar disability, this is the area where there should be such a provision. I say this because unless we start to take more determined action from a central government level to ensure local authorities meet the needs of that section of our community, along with people with disabilities, whose housing needs are most often egregiously unmet, I think we will continue to have a problem.

It may be that our suggested wording may not be the best possible. I am quite willing to concede this point to the Minister of State, particularly after six hours of debating these sections of the Bill. What I do not think he could dispute, though, is that if there is a desire to achieve consistency, especially in planning and using the planning system to meet the needs of Travellers, a national planning policy statement is the way to go. All three amendments are broadly speaking to the same issue. Until the Government, through the planning system, either via these amendments and-or the recommendations of the expert group on Traveller accommodation with respect to planning, starts to implement these measures, we will be back in conversions year after year about the fact that the accommodation and urban planning of our housing system for Travellers is still operating in the 19th century. This is where it is, and this is a shame on all of us and this is an opportunity to do something about it.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

On amendment No. 204, one of the most horrific reminders of the need to get the issue of providing culturally appropriate and decent accommodation for Travellers and its link to planning is the tragedy in Carrickmines, which is in my area, where ten Travellers lost their lives in 2015.

One reason that fire happened was the Carrickmines site was exempt from fire and planning regulations as it was an emergency temporary site. There is a direct link, in what was a horrific tragedy, to a failure of the planning system to take into account and see as imperative the need to provide decent accommodation for the Traveller community. That it was supposed to be temporary emergency accommodation but had actually been there for eight years, exempt from normal regulations, and that ten people lost their lives as a result, including a young mother who was pregnant, tells its own story. It was absolutely horrific. The reason that sort of situation can persist, of course, is basically prejudice. We all know it. Traveller accommodation targets and so on are often not met because of opposition or a political lack of will to deliver on it, which is linked to prejudice. Travellers, therefore, get left in these appalling conditions where a tragedy like that can happen. We have to do something about that to prevent Travellers being left in accommodation where the normal rules do not apply and to ensure there is proper regulation, safety and all the rest. That is why it is imperative. We owe it to the Traveller community who we have let down to specifically put an imperative in our planning and development system that we will provide the accommodation they need and not leave them in those kinds of squalid and dangerous conditions, and, indeed subject to the prejudice that most usually manifests itself on the question of the provision of Traveller accommodation in particular locations. Of course, opposition which is driven by prejudice is often masked in planning terms - the “We are not racist, but” type of thing. It is very important if for nothing else as a signal to the Traveller community that we are serious about this stuff and that we recognise how we have failed them to date, how that has been linked to failure of local authorities in developing plans for their areas to ensure decent and culturally appropriate accommodation. That is the reason we are putting these amendments forward. The Government should accept it.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

On the points raised by Deputy O’Callaghan, it is about providing accommodation and the range of accommodation. He spoke about new and existing accommodation. We have a loan scheme in place for Travellers to give them the choice if they wish to go with caravans. I got that scheme extended this year. I hope to put it on a permanent footing next year. I am fully aware of the work of the expert review group, and more particularly by Niall Crowley who is being appointed to head up the national Traveller accommodation committee. He has a great track record in the area. I appointed him in the last year and he is someone I very much respect. Sections 44 and 45 specifically deal with the provision of Traveller accommodation in local authorities, both city and county.

Deputy Ó Broin referred to the national planning statements. Section 24(1) states that the Minister will have regard to “the performance by regional assemblies, planning authorities and the Commission of any of their functions under this Act”. It is something that can be looked at. Good planning is good planning regardless of who it is for. We have a planning system. We believe it to be robust. We are looking at private accommodation even in the Bill itself. It is to get that balance. When I came into the role, I wanted to get the funding increased. I appointed Niall Crowley as chair of the national Traveller accommodation committee. I want to get the caravan loan scheme on a permanent footing. It is being extended by a year this year and we are looking to make it permanent thereafter. I want to ensure every local authority, and I visit them, draws down the capital. That was not the case in previous years. I am trying to do practical measures. I am very familiar with the Traveller community. I went to school with many Travellers. I know them and I know exactly the difficulties they experience. The Deputy is correct. Many Travellers are living in what we deem to be settled areas. Some live on halting sites and there may be that combination. We are always trying for practical measures. We believe it is catered for in the legislation. The national planning statements raised by Deputy Ó Broin can happen under section 24(1)(o). There will be a lot more discussion on it but that is my contribution.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

I have grown up with many people from different Traveller accommodation. I can remember long back to when Travellers were coming to different areas and the culture. In some places, where people are living in Traveller accommodation, it is very poor. Some people are in residential areas and others have bought their own houses. However, does the regulation cover where there is an influx of 2,000 or 3,000 people coming home for a period to certain places such as Rathkeale? We in Limerick have it every year where there might be between 2,000 and 3,000 people coming home and there is an influx into an area. That means caravans pulling in everywhere. There are gas bottles at the sides of caravans. Is there anything in the regulation that protects not only the people who live in the area, in the Travelling communities that are there, but also those who are coming over for holidays from the perspective of accommodation? It is seen every year. It happens annually. Is any accommodation allowed for that allows for people to come back in a safe environment that they do not put themselves in danger or those around them?

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The select committee adjourned at 5.10 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 19 March 2024.

Select Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage díospóireacht - Thursday, 7 Mar 2024

Planning and Development Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Select Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage díospóireacht -
Thursday, 7 Mar 2024