Select Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage díospóireacht

Planning and Development Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)

SECTION 41

Question again proposed: “That section 41, as amended, stand part of the Bill.”

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 42

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

I move amendment No. 334:

In page 101, line 13, after “facilitate” to insert “regeneration and”.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 335 to 338, inclusive, not moved.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 339:

In page 101, line 28, to delete “rural”.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

I move amendment No. 340:

In page 101, line 28, after “rural” to insert “and urban”.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 341:

In page 101, line 28, after “area” to insert “safeguarding the use of Irish and viability of a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.

Tá

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

Níl

Dillon, Alan.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 342:

In page 101, line 30, after “environment” to insert “, including climate,”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Dillon, Alan.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 343:

In page 101, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

“(e) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, the regulation of development, including the setting of appropriate development management policies and standards, for the purposes of protecting the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities;”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Dillon, Alan.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 344:

In page 101, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

“(e) the provision, or facilitation of the provision, of accessible cultural infrastructure within communities, including arts spaces for creating, performing, learning and enjoying a diverse range of art forms, Irish language facilities and night venues;”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Dillon, Alan.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 42 agreed to.

SECTION 43

Amendment No. 345 not moved.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 346:

In page 102, line 5, after “centres” to insert “, including in terms of culture and nightlife”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Dillon, Alan.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 347:

In page 102, line 8, after “areas,” to insert “designation under the Gaeltacht Act 2012,”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Dillon, Alan.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 348 not moved.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 349:

In page 102, line 9, to delete “and cultural” and substitute “, cultural, Irish language, and nightlife”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Dillon, Alan.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 350 not moved.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 351:

In page 102, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“(f) (i) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, such matters identified in paragraphs (a) to (e) specifically for the purposes of protecting the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities, including the promotion of Irish as the community language,

(ii) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, such matters identified in paragraphs (a) to (e) specifically for the purposes of protecting the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities, including the promotion of Irish as the community language;”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Dillon, Alan.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 352:

In page 102, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“(f) such matters identified in paragraphs (a) to (e) specifically for the purposes of protecting the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities, including the promotion of Irish as the community language, in the case of any Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network within the functional area of the development plan;”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Dillon, Alan.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 43 agreed to.

SECTION 44

An Cathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 353, 359, 363 to 365, inclusive, 367, 370, 372, 379, 381 and 484 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 353:

In page 102, line 14, after “area,” to insert the following:

“based on demographic projections, including average household size,”

This is an amendment to the section 44(1) obligation to prepare a housing development strategy. Section 44 states:

(1) A planning authority... shall prepare a strategy for its functional area which—

(a) distributes planned population and housing growth within the area,

My amendment would there insert, "based on demographic projections, including average household size,". I think we are all aware that household sizes have changed significantly over the years. Household sizes are getting smaller all the time, so with regard to housing strategies and the housing development strategy, it is very important that it takes into account smaller household sizes and does not just look on planned population and housing growth. Compared with the number of homes that were needed for the population 20 or 30 years ago, it is considerably more when you have got smaller household sizes. The size and variety of households needs to be taken into account in these strategies as well. That is what the amendment seeks to do.

I will listen to the Minister of State's response but I think the key question for us on this amendment is that if he does not believe the amendment is needed, where does he think that is properly captured in section 44? I assume the Minister of State will concede the point that household size and demographic projections need to be a key part of this. Ignoring household size or changes in household size is not going to work, so the Minister of State might address that point in particular.

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

We have one of the lowest, as far as I am aware, housing occupancy levels in Europe. To add this would assist in the types of units that are being built and the strategy for it. I would like to hear the response so I can comment on it.

Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (Deputy Kieran O'Donnell)

There are quite a number of amendments in this grouping. Will I deal with all of the amendments together or does the Chair want me to deal with that one on its own?

An Cathaoirleach

We will deal with amendment No. 353. I have not read everybody else's amendments-----

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

We can take amendment No. 353 by itself.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes. We will take amendment No. 353 by itself and then maybe we will go to amendment No. 364. I might take my grouping together then because I will have to vacate the Chair for that.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I will try to accommodate the committee. I will deal with amendment No. 353 on its own first. The amendment seeks to amend section 44(1), which requires that the housing strategy must distribute planned population and housing growth within the area. The amendment seeks to clarify that this distribution should be based on demographic projections, including average household size.

While the sections relating to the content of a development plan set out a series of strategies, they do not stand alone but instead form part of an interlocking series that consist of the core of the development plan, the essential function of which is to set out an integrated overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of an area. Section 42 requires that a strategy for sustainable development and regeneration be prepared. This includes measures to facilitate compact urban growth. On the basis of that, we believe that what the Deputies are looking for is already catered for in the Bill, and we are not disposed to accept the amendment.

As regards the obligation to prepare a housing strategy and plan population and housing growth in an area, as the Deputies are probably aware, the ESRI is doing a body of work for us at the moment on looking at the latest census and various aspects of it. That will certainly be something that will feed back into the local authorities. On foot of that, they may look at their development plans. We believe that it is already catered for in both sections 44 and 42. Deputy O'Callaghan asked where we believe it is already catered for. We believe that it is already catered for in that the housing growth would also include housing size.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I will speak to the first half of the amendment on demographic projections because this is key. The most recent round of development plans, when they were done, were obviously based in part on the housing need and demand assessment. There was the ESRI study of 2019 and then the Department's HNDA exercise with its local authority targets set below that. What individual planning authorities then attempted to do, inasmuch as the HNDA allowed them to do it, was to try to apply as much of the granular detail as they could in the development of their own housing strategies. The problem, however, is that the 2019 ESRI report is only very high-level and does not provide any framework or data on a local authority, LEA or sub-LEA level, but also that there are key things it does not address. Pent-up demand is one, changing life-cycle demand is another and tenure is the other. Then there is the ability of a local authority when developing a housing strategy. They have been asked to do so without the necessary level of empirical data to give them a clear sense of, for example, what demographic projections really mean. Demographic projections do not just mean at a very macro level the overall population growth and new head count emerging in the existing population. It also deals with issues of typology, such as one-beds, two-beds, three-beds or four-beds. It deals with issues of accessibility as the population gets older, needing ground-floor rather than two-storey or upper-storey accommodation. It also needs to deal with tenure. As a consequence, those housing strategies are not worth an awful lot and we can see that work its way through in decisions that are made on planning applications.

I will give the Minister of State a real-life case because it is a good example. In my constituency, there is a site on the right-hand side of the N4 as you pass Palmerstown that is known locally as the Vincent Byrne site. It is a really good site, in my opinion, for mid-rise, high-density residential development. What it currently has, on foot of a planning application and development, is mid-rise and high-density. There is no issue with the overall shape of the development but the problem is that when that planning application was submitted and being decided on, it was to be decided against a housing strategy and plan that was completely blind to the typology, tenure and life-cycle requirements of that area. What you have is a development that has a disproportionate number of one-beds and studios and is exclusively high-end, high-cost and build-to-rent. From a proper planning point of view, the planning authority did not really have a set of tools or an ability to intervene in that planning decision, not in terms of the overall size and density but the content. It is this tension that we constantly have with these developments. There is a viability issue for the developer, who is obviously trying to work out what the maximum utility of the site is in terms of viability and profitability. That is the way they look at the world. However, the planning authority obviously has to have due regard to proper planning. In the end, what we have ended up with is a sub-optimal development, and that is in part because none of the requirements of really good and proper planning are available to the local authorities.

Some local authorities have attempted to use the housing needs demand assessment to give them a more local electoral area, or sub-local electoral area, sense of what is required.

The ESRI study the Minister of State mentioned - correct me if I am wrong - will not look at pent-up demand. Crucially, it will not look at tenure, which is very important, or life cycle housing need. Deputy Duffy made a good point on over-occupancy. One of the problems with over-occupancy is we have an ageing population living in predominantly three- and four-bedroom detached and semidetached homes. The opportunities for those homeowners to rightsize within their existing communities are virtually non-existent. Some local authorities, including South Dublin County Council, as Deputy Duffy knows, are beginning to do some rightsizing, but the numbers are small. If we look at the Vincent Byrne site, it would have been much better if an explicitly available rightsizing component had been built into the private sector housing there.

That concerns a lot more than demographic projections, but the sponsors of the amendment are trying to say to the Minister of State that the tools with which local authorities currently develop their housing development strategies are not adequate, and do not allow for a robust outline of what is required at the point of the strategy being published and the years it covers. Nothing the Minister of State said, either in reference to other sections of the Bill or the upcoming ESRI report, deals with that. While he will not accept the amendment, there is a very important point here, namely, how we properly equip and empower our local authorities to have really good housing development strategies in their development plans that will allow them to make much more nuanced planning consents, which produce what is actually needed rather than what is most optimal from the developer's point of view. I am not saying we have to ignore the developer's requirements, but they should not be what trumps it.

Another case in point, for example, is Clonliffe Road, which I will come back to, depending on the Minister of State's responses. We are tying one hand of our planning authorities behind their backs in making decisions. Planners are telling us this. They are telling us they need much more sophisticated tools to make much more sophisticated decisions. That is not covered in this section of the Bill. In fairness to the proposers of the amendment, it is at least moving in the direction of trying to address that.

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

I would like to see us have much more high-density developments, particularly in our urban cores. I live in an urban village. All of the recent grants of planning permission for residential units have been for high density. I welcome that. There was some consternation locally, because it is generally a two and three-storey village. If everything is four storeys plus, you are trebling or quadrupling the density and in most cases, it is being done in an appropriate manner. However, when you start to move to other areas, you get into these conflicts around not only the number of units but the topology, the tenure and the life cycle. I am only emphasising that point because this Bill was an opportunity to address that. I do not think it has and there will be nothing in the ESRI report that will assist us in doing that.

I would much prefer section 219(5) and the various sub-categories in section 44 and to have a much more explicit requirement for the development plan to set that out, not only at a high-level local authority which is what would currently be the case but at sub-level. I use the example of where I am. If you take Palmerstown, for example, as an urban centre or if you take Clondalkin village and surrounds as an urban centre, I would like to see the development plan make specific reference to how in those core urban centres sections 219(5)(a) through to (l) are stipulated explicitly in the development. Currently, that is not required. I am not saying it cannot be done, but it is not required. In my own development plan, it is not done.

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

Deputy Ó Cathasaigh had an amendment on population effects. I can accept section 219(5)(h), if that wording is added. If I am a planner reading this, I am obliged. I "shall be materially consistent". It is on the planners to make sure they do their job properly.

An Cathaoirleach

Following Deputy Boyd Barrett and the Minister of State, I will move on because we have had a discussion on it.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Apologies, I need the A, B, C, Ladybird guide here.

The Bill, as drafted, sets out the requirements for a housing development strategy that includes the identification of existing capacity and planned investment in, amongst other things, community facilities and other necessary public infrastructural facilities and services. It is considered that education is covered by this section and it would be appropriate to single out one facility over another. Furthermore, it is a requirement that in preparing a development plan, the planning authority is required to consult with providers of education.

I am not minded to accept amendments Nos. 359 and 363 on the basis that we believe they are already provided for under the section.

An Cathaoirleach

I am precluded from speaking on my own amendments or moving them from the Chair. However, I will ask the Minister for State for clarification on where the requirement of education services, by which I mean schools, both primary and secondary, third level and further education, is included and in which strategy, which might be more suitable if I were to withdraw and reintroduce the amendments on Report Stage.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

The Cathaoirleach is asking about sporting and-----

An Cathaoirleach

Not necessarily sports and recreation, because I accept the point that some of that can be private and may not be public, and one always zones land for community and educational use. I am wondering where within any of these strategies is a requirement on the provision of educational services. We seem to cater for many services and community facilities, but I do not see education. It may be in a different strategy. Where is it catered for?

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

Section 46 states that the strategy shall include objectives for the provision, or the facilitation of the provision, improvement, extension and preservation of amenities, facilities and services to meet the social, community, recreational and cultural requirements of the functional area, including the needs of children, the elderly and persons with disabilities.

I suggest that we discuss amendments Nos. 370 and 381 together. Deputy Boyd Barrett, this relates to the deletion of a subsection of two sections.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

We have combined amendments Nos. 370 and 381.

An Cathaoirleach

I think that makes sense. Deputy Boyd Barrett, do you wish to speak to these?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Yes, please. In terms of putting together the housing development strategy, currently the Bill states "The housing development strategy may ... indicate in respect of any particular area referred to in paragraph (a) that there is no requirement for housing referred to in subsection (6) of section 219 in respect of that area, or that a lower percentage than that specified in the housing strategy may instead be required in order to counteract undue segregation in housing between persons of different social backgrounds." Section 219(6) is the section of the more detailed housing strategy, as we just discussed, which deals with the provision of social housing. What the Bill is saying is that the housing development strategy, which is supposed to be materially consistent - as the Minister of State has just informed us - with the more detailed housing strategy, can actually vary it in a very specific way by reducing the amount of social housing provided in a particular area. This is in order to combat "undue segregation". I made the point previously that the idea of "undue segregation" is problematic. I think it should be deleted but that is probably a matter for a separate amendment. What does "undue" mean in the phrase? Does it mean that there some kind of legitimate segregation? No, there is not. Segregation is wrong, full stop. There should not be any segregation. It is not about "undue segregation"; we should not have segregation at all. Setting that point aside, the substantial point here is that the no development should be allowed go below the target of 20% for social and affordable housing, solely on the basis of a rather vague notion of "undue segregation". I will address this in further amendments later, but if anything, we should be going significantly up from the 20% total target for social and affordable housing. The idea that the target can be brought down is completely wrong.

I also find it ironic that the Government would suggest that it can be reduced. One of the features I find annoying about the current Part V is that if there is a private development in, for example, a very expensive area of Foxrock, we all know what happens. The council does not take the 10% or the 20% there. It says that it is too expensive and perhaps we should not have social housing in Foxrock. Of course we should, but the housing is given somewhere else. That is what actually happens and it is completely wrong. It is also becoming very apparent with tenant in situ purchases that local authorities are very reluctant to make these purchases in particular areas because there seems to be an attitude that certain areas are a bit too posh to have social housing. Local authorities then do not pay the money to prevent people being evicted in that area, whereas they might do so in other areas. There is an attitude here that needs to be smashed. We need to demand that any development has the minimum requirement for 10% social and 10% affordable housing. As I will go on to argue later, I think the target should be ramped up to about 50%.

This is not for this Bill, but if the Government is worried about so-called undue segregation, there is a very easy way to fix it by raising the social housing income thresholds, rather than keeping them at the very low level that obtains now. This is the real reason why we end up with increasing segregation, because of the failure to raise the thresholds. Almost every year, social housing becomes something that is only available to households on ever-lower incomes. This issue should be addressed. For the purposes of this amendment, this section should be deleted. There should be no option in the development strategy to go lower than the 20% in the housing strategy.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett for spotting such an important issue that I simply had not spotted in these two sections. I will give a bit of background because this issue has become a bit of a hobby-horse of mine. There is a widespread view in political and media circles that monotenure housing - having large numbers of working-class people living in the same place - is not good housing policy. At its worst end, we hear people talk about monotenure housing as inevitably producing ghettos and social problems. It is interesting that there is no empirical evidence in this jurisdiction, or in the OECD, that supports this proposition. In fact, it is one of the most frustrating areas of housing policy discussion whereby a world view has become so dominant, based on so little evidence.

I will talk the committee through the evidence in support of Deputy Boyd Barrett's amendments. The first piece of housing policy research in this jurisdiction that raised the issue of monotenure and mixed tenure housing was the National Economic and Social Council report of 1998. What was interesting about the report is that it challenged 100% private housing and private developments. It argued that this was a very bad thing. It was not actually making the case against large-scale public housing projects because up until that period, large-scale public housing projects had an income mix. The Minister of State will know that himself from the local authority estates he would have known growing up in Limerick. These estates had a wide range of income categories and professions. These estates provided housing for working-class people, the majority of whom worked in good, stable jobs, some in more poorly-paid jobs and some more precariously.

In 1990, Government policy changed and moved away from the large-scale provision of mixed-income working-class housing estates to the model we have today, which is called residualised public housing provision. This involves small amounts of public housing for the very poor, the unemployed or the unemployable. As a consequence, some new housing projects started to develop challenges that were not widespread in more traditional social housing. In fact, the only major piece of empirical research in this jurisdiction on whether monotenure is good or bad is that conducted by Professor Tony Fahey who was professor of social policy in UCD at the time. Michelle Norris and Cathal O'Donnell were the research assistants. They are now both eminent professors of social policy, Professor O'Donnell in Cork and Professor Norris in UCD. The Minister of State should know about this because Moyross was included in the study, which focused on seven housing estates around Ireland. Two rounds of research were carried out, the first in 1997 and the second ten years later in 2007.

The strong conclusions of the report are that the overwhelming majority of monotenure states are really good places to live. Do they have challenges in respect of investment, economic opportunity, community safety, etc.? They do. However, in the view of the people who live there and who want to live there, they are really good places. The research of Dr. Tony Fahey, Ms Michelle Norris, Mr. Cathal O'Connell and others has consistently shown that only a minority of public housing estates, for a variety of very specific reasons, become very challenging. I do not need to tell the Minister of State the history of Moyross, which was one of the most sought-after estates when it was first built because there were good quality homes there. For a variety of reasons, it ended up in the situation it is currently in. The majority of council estates, however, did not end up like Moyross. We know the name of Moyross because it is quite an exception when compared with other estates in other jurisdictions. There is enormous good work happening in Moyross and there have been incredible achievements and advances, driven by the local community, community organisations and school principals. I have been there with my colleague, Deputy Quinlivan, and I want to ensure the impression is not given that Moyross is a bad place to live when the opposite is the case. People are improving that community day by day, as is the case in Ballymun and other areas that are often pointed to as examples of why monotenure housing does not work.

There are two things that are very interesting and to which I want to refer in support of these amendments, because the text the amendments are seeking to remove is dangerous. An increasing body of empirical research from other jurisdictions, including Britain, New Zealand, Australia, etc., is beginning to demonstrate that so-called mixed-tenure approaches to housing, such as Part V, for example, increase social exclusion and segregation within the housing estates. We all know of examples in our own communities where 10% social housing has not produced integration or inclusion but has exacerbated the divisions. I can think of one housing estate in my own constituency in which the local authority tenants are not entitled to sit on the management company because they are not owner-occupiers and, therefore, have no role in any of the discussions or decision-making. There is simply no research. I challenge the Minister of State and his officials to point us towards or provide us with empirical research in Ireland or Britain that suggests tenure has anything to do with the quality of the estate. I know monotenure estates that are great places to live and that are challenging places to live. I know mixed-tenure estates that are great places to live and that are challenging places to live. What really matters is income mix, the quality of housing stock and the integration of housing with services, etc.

This section relates, for example, to Ballymun. As we know, in Dublin City Council's development plan, there is a restriction on new social housing development in Ballymun because of a belief that there has been an over-concentration of social housing. The consequence of that is that the young, working-class people growing up in that community who want to remain there do not have the option to do so. Not only do they have the disadvantage, as do people on social housing waiting lists everywhere, of having to wait for ten to 14 years for an allocation but they will not get an allocation in that area because no new social housing is being provided. If the Government wants to increase the income mix in communities, that clearly cannot be done by restricting new social housing. It must be done by increasing the provision of affordable purchase and affordable rental or, as Deputy O'Donoghue has suggested, by widening the income bands, which has been partially done already. There is simply no justification for the continued use of mixed tenure as an argument for counteracting segregation.

My final point is important from a policy point of view. If one was to talk to Focus Ireland about the individuals with which it works who have made the transition from long-term homelessness into Part V social housing in mixed-tenure estates, its representatives would say that the experience of many of its clients now in secure tenancies is that they are completely isolated and segregated within the estate. The research of Dr. Fahey, Ms Norris and Mr. O'Connell showed clearly that one of the great values of monotenure is that it creates a cohesion underpinning the relationships between all of the different residents and, in the instance of local authority housing, the local authority. Mixed income can be achieved within local authority estates by allowing tenant purchase, etc., and some of our best and most settled social housing estates are those that have a significant portion of tenant purchase, where the tenants have remained and we have intergenerational security of tenure. I am sure the Minister of State could name estates in his own constituency that are like that. This is an opportunity for us to say that the dogma of mixed tenure has no basis in fact and to take it out of legislation and policy and allow the decisions around the volume of social and affordable housing be based on one thing and one thing only, that is, need. Let us put the focus on making sure we meet that need through mixed income public housing estates rather than continuing the failed policy of residualisation and narrowing the possibility for the scope of housing in areas where it is needed. Ballymun needs more social housing. It also needs far more affordable homes to rent and purchase, and this provision, for an area such as Ballymun and others, will continue to perpetuate problems that discriminate against and disadvantage people in those areas who are waiting for social housing allocations.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Some very good points have been made. I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett for bringing forward these important amendments. There is a monotenure estate, which I will not name, in Coolock in my constituency. The residents there will tell you there are high achievers there. The estate is 40 or 50 years old, and many of the kids who grew up there, who are now 30 years old, went on to fulfil high achieving roles across different sectors of Irish society. The estate is quite small. The residents there put that down to the monotenure housing, which they say made it a very cohesive to grow up and a very cohesive community because people were coming from similar income backgrounds. I am not making a case for or against monotenure development but my experience as a representative is that the key issue that determines whether a community is successful is not whether it is a monotenure or mixed-tenure development, or the income in the community, but is all about how the area is planned and designed and what amenities or facilities there are. That is critical. The communities I represent that struggle the most are in areas where there have been failures in respect of those factors. That includes some communities where there are some quite high incomes, incidentally, but if community infrastructure is not put in, the community will face a considerable number of challenges. There is no question about that. There are also a number of low-income communities in my constituency but the ones that are well designed, have good facilities and good community infrastructure, perform far better than the ones where there has been poor design and planning and a lack of facilities and amenities. That has been documented by various studies.

When we were discussing the legislation relating to a directly elected mayor for Limerick, the Minister of State said he could not accept an amendment because it was not in line with the programme for Government. The programme talks about the Vienna model of housing. In Vienna, social and public housing is spread across the city and there is a good geographical and spatial spread. A section such as this, which states that it might be decided there is not a need in certain areas or whatever, would not arise in Vienna because there is that good geographical spread.

Section 219 allows for social housing, cost rental and affordable purchase. Surely within that, there is significant flexibility in any event to meet deficits. I cannot see how any area has an oversupply of any of those. It does not seem to arise. There are deficits in different communities all across the country in respect of housing that people can afford. In all communities, there is social housing need. One of the big difficulties is that there is very little social housing provision in certain areas but there is still a big need in those areas. There is enormous need in communities where there has been a lot of social housing provision over the years. That need does not suddenly stop. Multigenerational needs emerge. I would definitely like to hear from the Minister of State on this issue and I am supportive of these amendments.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I will read the note with which I have been provided and I will come back to the specific points that have been raised.

I turn now to amendments Nos. 370 and 381, tabled jointly by Deputies Boyd Barrett, Bríd Smith and Gino Kenny. Sections 44(4)(b) and 45(4)(b) provide that both city and non-city housing strategies may indicate in respect of areas zoned for residential or mixed use either that there is no requirement for social, affordable or cost-rental housing in that area, or that a lower percentage than that specified in the housing strategy may instead be required to counteract undue segregation in housing between persons of different social backgrounds. Amendments Nos. 370 and 381 seek to delete paragraph (b) in these sections in their entirety and remove this discretion in respect of both non-city and city housing strategies.

The housing strategy is carefully balanced to take account of the various inputs into considering housing policy and its spatial implications within a functional area. On that basis I am not minded to accept the amendments. I will come back on a number of points that are germane to this. I am a strong believer in Part V. I come from a city where we have large demands on social housing. I welcomed it when the Part V requirement could not be bought out. I have seen where it has worked very well where a development goes ahead and there should be 10% to 20% social housing in the estate. In my experience, I have not seen where Part V social housing has not worked. I want to see more affordable housing coming through the Part V requirement as well. I come from a city that has gone through regeneration. Deputy Ó Broin spoke about Moyross. Moyross is very vibrant. It has a great school with a great principal.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I agree.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

It has great clubs and great people. It is very close knit. We learned a lot through the regeneration process.

In relation to development plans, we have basically reiterated section 95(1)(d) of the 2000 Act in section 44(4)(b) so that there would be discretion. Obviously, in any community you need that mixture. You need young, old, social, affordable, private and cost rental. It is all about that balance. If there is an overconcentration of one category, then the question is whether that is good for society. I do not believe it is. Is it easy to attain that mixture? No, it is not. That is what housing strategies are about. I have been a public representative in Limerick for a long time. It is something we have been grappling with the whole time. I disagree about Part V. Part V works. I always felt Part V was a good, organic model to bring people into communities and to have it geographically spread. That is why we need this flexibility in the legislation that was in the old Act. It provides that flexibility. Ultimately, the housing strategy will be the reserved function of the councillors, again.

Section 95(1)(d) of the current Planning and Development Act reads:

In order to counteract undue segregation in housing between persons of different social backgrounds, the planning authority may indicate in respect of any particular area referred to in paragraph (c) that there is no requirement for housing referred to in section 94(4)(a) in respect of that area, or that a lower percentage than that specified in the housing strategy may instead be required.

And Deputy Duffy - apologies - and the Chairman. We will have all had these representations where an approved housing body is going in to turnkey in what was initially meant to be a private development for 20, 50 or 100 homes. The residents of the neighbouring estate take exception to this – they are entitled to have their views – and write to us to say it will mean 50% of their neighbourhood is social housing and that is against Government policy, even though nowhere in Government policy is it stipulated what the appropriate percentage is before you get overconcentration. Part V is just a mechanism, but there is an idea out there which people have that there comes a tipping point of the percentage of low-income families in an estate which makes it potentially a bad place. That is an appalling way of thinking about housing policy and the people who live in those homes, many of whom the Minister of State and I and other members of this committee represent. I know the Minister of State is not accepting the amendments but this is certainly something we will return to on Report Stage because this is a conversation we have not had properly in this State.

There is a kind of dogma and common sense that has gripped many people that is just not based on fact or reality but rather is based on anecdotal impression and, in some cases – not in the Minister of State’s case, I want to be clear – on prejudice against the idea that low-income families should live in communities together and that, instead, they should not be overconcentrated and should be pepper potted – that is the other word we all use. We do not like to put them all on one street. We mix them around as if somehow that is more socially acceptable. It is fundamentally wrong. I will certainly be supporting theses amendments and I urge Deputy Boyd Barrett to press them. I just wanted to make those responses.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I thank Deputies Ó Broin and O'Callaghan for supporting my amendments. The Government should accept the amendments and the rationale behind them. This is not about whether we agree or disagree about Part V. I am absolutely happy with it, and said so in the introduction, and further on, I have amendments that seek to increase the proportion of Part V of social and affordable housing above 20%. The more social and affordable housing we can get, the better. This is saying that the development strategy as part of the development plan should not allow an option to reduce the Part V requirement, as it is now called, to below 20%.

Section 219, which is the more detailed housing strategy, currently states there must be a minimum of 20% of either social, affordable or cost rental. That is what the new section 219, which is the new Part V, states. It must not be less than 20%. However, this then gives a get-out clause on it so that you get less. There is the option to have less than 20% social housing on the basis of so-called undue segregation, which is a term, as Deputy Ó Broin indicated, that is often laced with prejudice. There is the idea that, as has been said, somehow problems are inevitably produced if you have big council estates.

Our problem with Part V is that it has become a substitute for the large-scale provision of social and affordable housing, not that there was a decision to have a requirement of private developments to have a proportion of social and affordable housing. Happy days. That should have been in addition to the continuing construction of large-scale social housing but it has become its substitute. The Government abandoned the direct delivery of those things and effectively outsourced it to Part V. That is what has happened. The consequence is a massive housing crisis.

To be honest, the Government has recognised the need to change from that. It is moving very slowly back towards beginning to build social and affordable housing itself again directly. However, here it is providing a get-out clause. That get-out clause is presumably along the lines that if we already have a lot of social housing in an area, we do not need more. There is a problem with having more of it, so we will allow the developer not to give the 20% social and affordable housing in a particular development. That is not acceptable for many reasons, the most urgent of which is we desperately need more social and affordable housing and there should not be a get-out clause on that.

To repeat, if the Government wants to do something about so-called segregation, it should raise the thresholds. This discrimination along tenure lines is not the way forward.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I take the points made on Part V. I believe Part V is a very good model. All this does is provide flexibility under section 219(10), which is the 20%. Section 219(6) on the housing strategy states it shall include an estimate of the housing for the purposes of social housing, affordable housing and cost rental. It allows the flexibility to change the mix within that 20% if desired.

The point I am trying to make in a roundabout way is that when regeneration happened in Limerick, John Fitzgerald was appointed to head up a review. He put forward that the one issue was the scale of the housing estates was too big. Regeneration has reduced the number of houses in these areas. The question is Part V and traditional sources. We have the highest number of builds in decades. They are not mutually exclusive. The Deputy is looking at Part V as just the housing element. I regard it as housing but I also regard it as a social element. I believe that you should not be able to tell the difference between a private or a local authority house. That is a personal view I hold and I feel very strongly about that. Regarding design, it is very basic. It may seem a very simple method. It is a fundamental view I hold. I should not be able to tell whether houses are public, private or otherwise. I do not like polarisation. This is just a personal view I hold. I am going into a personal space now as distinct from a planning space.

Calls have to be made. We have to allow some degree of flexibility. Deputy Ó Broin spoke earlier about a crude instrument. That is why I felt that over the years when Part V was bought out, which the Deputy spoke about, that was not the way to do it. Everyone knows that, with Part V, if a new housing estate is being built, there will be between 10% and 20% social housing in the estate. It works and it is straightforward.

The Deputy spoke about the pepper pot element. That in itself is healthy because it should not be possible to distinguish. It should be that everyone is in an estate, their kids go to the same schools and they are from the same area. That is an old-fashioned model I have. For that to work, there has to be a degree of balance and a practicality.

This section deals with practical decisions that must be made. Ultimately, we want to build many more social houses. We want to see them in all areas and in a way that works. I have seen it on the ground over many years in Limerick.

I will go back to my core view. I should not be able to distinguish between a social house and a private house. Equally, there needs to be a level of flexibility. I understand where the Deputy is coming from but I am not minded to accept the amendment.

An Cathaoirleach

We have gone through that in quite some detail. The last thing I ask the Minister of State is in regard to amendment No. 484 in the name of Deputy McAuliffe. Will the Minister of State read the note? We have fulfilled the-----

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I will address amendment No. 484, tabled by Deputy McAuliffe, which concerns section 55. It provides that the chief executive of a planning authority may recommend that the housing development strategy be adjusted and the development plan varied accordingly where he or she considers that there has been a change in the housing market that significantly affects the housing development strategy. Amendment No. 484 seeks to amend this provision to allow for other considerations that significantly affect the housing development strategy in addition to change in the housing market.

I consider that the section is appropriately worded and to include "other considerations" would be open to a wide interpretation that would not be conducive to the effective and reasonable operation of the section. On that basis, I am not minded to accept the amendment.

An Cathaoirleach

How stands amendment No. 353?

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I said we would look at it on Report Stage.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I want to press my amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 354:

In page 102, line 17, after “development” to insert “while mitigating climite impact”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 5.

Tá

O'Callaghan, Cian.
Ó Broin, Eoin.

Níl

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

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 355:

In page 102, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

“(d) ensures the distinct needs of any relevant Gaeltacht community or Irish Language Network within the functional area of the development plan, to preserve and support the use of Irish therein and the viability of Irish as the spoken community language, are respected when distributing, identifying and prioritising under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 6.

Tá

O'Callaghan, Cian.
Ó Broin, Eoin.

Níl

Cahill, Jackie.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 356:

In page 102, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:

“(iv) each Gaeltacht Language Planning Area;”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 6.

Tá

O'Callaghan, Cian.
Ó Broin, Eoin.

Níl

Cahill, Jackie.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 357:

In page 102, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

“(ii) the use of Irish and viability of any relevant Gaeltacht community within the functional area of the development plan, including the distinct housing needs to sustain and grow the number of Irish speakers within that community, and the implementation of any language plan agreed under the Gaeltacht Act 2012,”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Cahill, Jackie.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 358 and 359 not moved.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 360:

In page 102, line 35, after “facilities,” to insert “Irish language facilities,”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Cahill, Jackie.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 361:

In page 102, line 35, after “facilities,” to insert “cultural spaces,”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Cahill, Jackie.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 362:

In page 102, line 35, after “facilities,” to insert “night venues,”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Cahill, Jackie.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 363 not moved.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I move amendment No. 364:

In page 103, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“(c) an analysis of vacant and derelict land or sites within the area and an estimation of the number of housing units that could be activated from the land or sites;

(d) a strategy to activate vacant and derelict land or sites into housing units;”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 365 not moved.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 366:

In page 103, line 9, after “uses” to insert “, and to address whole life carbon emissions”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Cahill, Jackie.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 367 not moved.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 368:

In page 103, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

“(i) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, population and housing objectives for those areas for the purposes of protecting the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities, including the promotion of Irish as the community language;”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Cahill, Jackie.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 369:

In page 103, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

“(i) objectives to protect and promote the use of Irish within a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area or Irish Language Network, including objectives requiring that a specified percentage of new housing provided in the area be reserved for residential use by Irish speaking persons to ensure no negative impact on the viability of Irish as the spoken language of the community;”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Cahill, Jackie.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I move amendment No. 370:

In page 103, to delete lines 34 to 38.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Cahill, Jackie.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

That is nice and clear and I thank the Minister of State very much.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 45

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 371:

In page 104, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

“(d) ensures the distinct needs of any relevant Gaeltacht community or Irish Language Network within the city, to preserve and support its viability as an

Irish speaking community, are respected when distributing, identifying and prioritising under subsections (a), (b) and (c).”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Cahill, Jackie.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I move amendment No. 372:

In page 104, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

“(c) an analysis of vacant and derelict land or sites within the area and an estimation of the number of housing units that could be activated from the land or sites;

(d) a strategy to activate vacant and derelict land or sites into housing units;”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 373:

In page 105, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:

“(V) any Gaeltacht community or Irish Language Network within the city;”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Cahill, Jackie.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendments No. 374 and 375 not moved.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 376:

In page 105, line 12, after “facilities,” to insert “water services”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Cahill, Jackie.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 377:

In page 105, line 12, after “facilities,” to insert “cultural spaces,”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Cahill, Jackie.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 378:

In page 105, line 12, after “facilities,” to insert “night venues,”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Cahill, Jackie.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 379 not moved.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 380:

In page 105, between line 25 and 26, to insert the following:

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Cahill, Jackie.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I move amendment No. 381:

In page 105, to delete lines 35 to 39.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

Cahill, Jackie.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Higgins, Emer.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Donnell, Kieran.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 45, as amended, agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

I will now suspend the meeting until 1 p.m. when we will meet back in this room. We will then meet until 4 p.m. and that will conclude our meetings for this week. I thank the Minister of State Deputy O'Donnell for his attendance here this morning.

Sitting suspended at 12.01 p.m. and resumed at 1.05 p.m.

SECTION 46

An Cathaoirleach

I welcome everybody back to our consideration of Committee Stage of the Planning and Development Bill 2023. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell. We will resume where we finished before lunch. We are on section 46 and amendment No. 382 in the name of Deputy Ó Broin, which has already been discussed.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 382:

In page 106, line 19, after "provision" to insert ", full accessibility".

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.

Tá

Gould, Thomas.
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 Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 383:

In page 106, line 21, to delete “and cultural” and substitute “cultural, Irish language, and nightlife”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

Gould, Thomas.
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.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 384:

In page 106, line 22, after “of” to insert “creators, performers, artists and audience, with particular regard for the full inclusion of”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

Gould, Thomas.
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.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 385:

In page 106, to delete lines 23 to 25 and substitute the following:

“(b) (i) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities, including the promotion of Irish as the community language,

(ii) where the functional area to which the development plan relates includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities, including the promotion of Irish as the community language;”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

Gould, Thomas.
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.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 386:

In page 106, line 23, after “protection” to insert “and promotion”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

Gould, Thomas.
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.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 387:

In page 106, line 24, after “areas” to insert “and Irish Language Networks”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

Gould, Thomas.
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.

An Cathaoirleach

We have to let Deputy O'Donoghue leave the room. I move now to amendment No. 388.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 388:

In page 106, line 24, to delete “in the” and substitute “in particular, but also throughout the entire”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

Gould, Thomas.
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.

An Cathaoirleach

Following the very positive response of the Minister of State on amendment No. 389, which is in my name, I will not move the amendment.

Amendment No. 389 not moved.

Section 46 agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 390:

In page 106, after line 39, to insert the following:

“Obligation to prepare Gaeltacht housing and population development strategy where planning authority’s functional area includes one or more than one Limistéar Pleanála Teanga or Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta in the Gaeltacht

47. (1) A planning authority whose functional area includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht shall in consultation with Údarás na Gaeltachta prepare a housing and population development strategy for each of the Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta in their functional area which—

(a) assesses population and housing current and future needs of each Limistéar Pleanála Teanga to grow sustainably in to the future,

(b) identifies the spatial capacity of the areas of the Limistéar Pleanála Teanga to accommodate planned population,

(c) prioritises infrastructural investment necessary for housing development including traditional Gaeltacht settlement patterns, and

(d) adheres to goals in the language plan of the Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta and Bailte Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht to increase daily speakers of the Irish language in percentage as well as absolute terms.

(2) A housing development strategy prepared under subsection (1) shall be materially consistent with the housing strategy prepared under section 219.

(3) The housing development strategy shall include:

(a) population and housing growth targets for the Limistéar Pleanála Teanga for the period to which the development plan relates;

(b) the number of housing units permitted under existing permissions but not yet built and the expected timeframe within which those units will be completed;

(c) the number of derelict and abandoned houses that could be brought back in to use and included in targets of the strategy;

(d) targets for single unit houses on the land of persons from the Limistéar Pleanála Teanga;

(e) targets for the voluntary acquisition of holiday houses for reallocation as residential homes for Irish speakers;

(f) a statement, with accompanying tables and maps seeking to preserve traditional Gaeltacht settlement patterns—

(i) which estimates the land required to be zoned for residential use or a mix of residential and other uses to ensure that sufficient and suitable land is zoned,

and

(ii) which identifies land that is suitable for significant development for residential use or a mixture of residential and other uses over the period of

the development plan, including in particular an estimate of the capacity of each of the following to accommodate development for residential use or a mixture of residential and other uses during the period to which the development plan relates and targets as to the amount of housing to be provided within each of the following during that period:

(I) any long-term strategic development sites;

(II) any compact development sites identified as suitable for development for residential use or a mixture of residential and other uses;

(III) any greenfield site identified as suitable for development for residential use or a mixture of residential and other uses;

(g) identification of existing capacity, and planned investment in capacity, in transport (including, in particular, transport infrastructure), community facilities, water services, utility infrastructure and any other necessary public infrastructural facilities and services;

(h) objectives to secure the implementation of the housing strategy, in particular, any of the matters referred to in subsection (5) of section 219, including objectives requiring that a specified percentage of land zoned solely for residential use, or for a mixture of residential and other uses, be made available for the provision of housing of the types referred to in paragraph (f) of subsection (5) and subsection (6) of section 219 while also ensuring the strategy followed protects and adheres to the language plan of the area in particular to increase the number of daily speakers of Irish in absolute and percentage terms;

(i) objectives relating to the monitoring of the implementation of the strategy;

(j) objectives relating to such other matters as may be prescribed.

(4) The housing development strategy may—

(a) include specific objectives as referred to in paragraph (g) of subsection (3) in respect of each area zoned for residential use, or for a mixture of residential and other uses, and, where required by local circumstances relating to the amount of housing required as estimated in the housing strategy under subsection (6) of section 219, different specific objectives may be indicated in respect of different areas, subject to the specified percentage referred to in subsection (10) of section 219 not being exceeded,

(b) indicate in respect of any particular area referred to in paragraph (a) that there is no requirement for housing referred to in subsection (6) of section 219 in respect of that area, or that a lower percentage than that specified in the housing strategy may instead be required in order to counteract undue segregation in housing between persons of different social backgrounds.

(5) Nothing in subparagraph (i) of paragraph (c) or paragraph (g) of subsection (3), subsection (4), or section 222 or 230 shall prevent any land zoned for residential use or a mix of residential and other uses being developed exclusively for housing of the types referred to in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of section 219.

(6) In this section, “greenfield site” means land that has not previously been built upon.”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

Gould, Thomas.
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. 391 not moved.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 392:

In page 106, after line 39, to insert the following:

“Obligation to prepare Cultural Development Strategy

47. A planning authority shall in consultation with An Chomhairle Ealaíon, the National Cultural Institutions, Fís Éireann, locally-based cultural institutions as well as local artists, arts workers, arts businesses and communities, prepare a cultural development strategy for their functional area.”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

Gould, Thomas.
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.

SECTION 47

Amendments Nos. 393 to 395, inclusive, not moved.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I move amendment No. 396:

In page 107, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

“(h) the zoning of sufficient and suitable lands for renewable and low-carbon energy deployment consistent with the achievement of Ireland’s national climate targets.”

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

-----a commitment that we would go back to the OPC about the correct reference. It references the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 but that was updated by the 2021 Act. We have committed to going back and looking at that.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I know there were amendments, which is fine, but they were some weeks ago. As soon as possible, almost all members of the committee would like to know if it is the intention of the Government to amend this section. It seems to me that there could not be a section that does not have the most up-to-date Act and, indeed, the climate action plans that arise from that. The sooner clarification can be provided, the better.

Other than updating it to include the most recent Act and, indeed, any climate action plan that arises from that and any legally-binding sectoral targets, which may or may not have a relevance to local authorities, is the Minister of State saying there is nothing else new in section 47 other than some restructuring and that the content is the same as section 10 of the existing Act? In legislation that is meant to update, review and improve the planning system, there is nothing new in this and I want to put on the record that it is not satisfactory. It is an issue which I am sure others will return to on Report Stage.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy O'Callaghan, you are part of the mix there as well.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Yes. I am happy with all that. I have a lot to say on amendment No. 407, so it would work better to take amendment No. 407 separately from amendments Nos. 401 to 403, inclusive.

An Cathaoirleach

We can do that. Deputy Ó Broin, if you wish to move and speak to amendment No. 399 and then the others in that grouping, we can get the Minister of State's response and we will go to amendment No. 407 separately.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I will speak briefly to the first group of the Minister of State's and then, depending on the replies, not unlike Deputy O'Callaghan, I might want to spend a little more time on individual amendments.

Amendment No. 399 is very straightforward. It is to ensure that public access to heritage be within the remit of the conservation strategy. That is the relevant section to which the amendment pertains.

Amendment No. 404 proposes to insert a reference to the Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. I presume that omission is either just an error or a result of the fact that the Bill has been worked on prior to the passage of that Act through the Oireachtas. That is why I am proposing that that reference be inserted there.

Yes. That is correct.

I will now address amendments Nos. 399, 404, 408, 409, 412 and 413, tabled jointly by Deputies Eoin Ó Broin, Thomas Gould and Aengus Ó Snodaigh.

Amendment No. 399 seeks to amend section 48 regarding the obligation to prepare a strategy for the conservation of natural and built heritage as part of a development plan. The amendment requires that the strategy also provide for public access to that heritage. Amendment No. 413 is consequential to this amendment, requiring that such strategies must include objectives for the conservation, protection, management and improvement of public access to a site, area, monument, structure, place, landscape or feature described within this subsection, including rights of way.

I understand the impetus for the proposed amendments, which is to allow for greater access to our heritage. There are, however, a number of issues that need to be considered. Fundamentally, the purpose of the section is to protect heritage irrespective of ownership. A development plan objective does not infer public ownership. As an observation, it may not be possible or safe to access the sites, and in certain circumstances public access may be detrimental to the heritage in question. I am of the view that the relevant sections of the Bill, the subject of these amendments, are appropriately worded. As such, I cannot accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 404 seeks to require that such a strategy include, as well as the existing requirement concerning any national monuments as defined by or designated under the National Monuments Acts 1930 to 2014, such monuments defined or designated under the Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. I intend to move additional provisions on Report Stage for the recent enactment of the Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. As that Act will likely be commenced on a phased basis, the Bill will likely need to provide for both National Monuments Acts and the new historic heritage Act. In those circumstances, I ask the Deputies to consider withdrawing this amendment in the meantime.

Amendment No. 408 seeks to include "battlesites" along with other objects of archaeological, geological, historic, scientific or ecological interest such as places, caves, sites or features. Amendment No. 409 seeks to expand this provision to include cultural and mythological interest as well. Amendment No. 412 seeks to include a new objective that such strategies must include the conservation, protection, management and improvement of "the integrity of a site, area, monument, structure, place, landscape or feature described within this subsection within its surrounding context". Under the Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, the definition of a "monument" provides for a range of sites and structures, including those that are the subject of these proposed amendments. As I have just said, I will move amendments on Report Stage to ensure that Act is provided for under section 48 of the Bill, following the repeal of the National Monuments Acts. I ask the Deputies to consider withdrawing this amendment as a result.

-----then I am more than happy to withdraw amendment No. 404. I am unclear on the real rationale for his argument not to extend this to battle sites and cultural and mythological interests so I ask him to expand on that.

I would be willing to withdraw amendment No. 412 if, again, the Minister of State were to be very clear that if and when he addresses the principal concern of my amendment No. 404, that covers what I have outlined in amendment No. 412. I would not mind him just confirming that those specific issues - "the integrity of site, area, monument, structure, place, landscape or feature described within this subsection within its surrounding context" - will be adequately covered by his inclusion of references to the 2023 Act.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

On the Deputy's latter point, we are working with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to cover that range.

On the issue of public access, we might be able to look it on Report Stage but it should be covered where appropriate. It cannot be that there is open access to everything but we will look at that on Report Stage.

Amendment No. 401 relates to the obligation to prepare a strategy for the conservation of natural and built heritage under section 48. The section states, "The strategy shall include objectives for the conservation, protection, management and improvement of", and the amendment will add the phrase "native species subject to the strict protection of species under the second pillar of the Habitats Directive". That is quite specific but it is an important area to be listed here.

As for amendment No. 402, the wording in section 48(2)(b) is again quite specific, referring to "the National Biodiversity Plan including in particular the protection of trees, groups of trees or other features of ecological significance", and we want to include hedgerows. Hedgerows, as the Minister of State will know, are a very important part of our biodiversity. Their loss, when it occurs, has very significant impacts on habitats and wildlife, so having them listed specifically is needed and would strengthen the provision. In many ways, the protection of hedgerows is just as important for biodiversity as that of trees and groups of trees, not least in an Irish context, so that one word would significantly strengthen the provision and is highly relevant. I urge the Minister of State to accept that.

Amendment No. 403 would include in the section an area proposed as a natural Heritage Area under section 16 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 in addition to one designated as such. This means that an area will not have to have been designated but can just have been proposed to be such, and that will then feature in this obligation to prepare a strategy for consultation. As the Minister of State will know, if a site has been proposed, that is also significant. The word "designated" does not include proposed sites but it is important that proposed sites be listed there as well.

I might come in separately on the issue of historical sites after we have dealt with these matters.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Ó Broin wished to come in there as well.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I will wait to hear the Minister of State's responses, if that is okay.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I will address Amendments Nos. 401 to 403, inclusive, 407 and 414 together.

Amendment No. 401, jointly tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould, Ó Snodaigh, Boyd Barrett, Smith, Kenny and O’Callaghan, seeks to include a new objective in such strategies for the conservation, protection, management and improvement of native species subject to the strict protection of species under the second pillar of the habitats directive.

Amendment No. 402, tabled by the same Deputies, seeks to amend the objective concerning biodiversity as being in accordance with the EU biodiversity strategy and the national biodiversity plan, including in particular the protection of trees, groups of trees or other features of ecological significance, and to include a reference to hedgerows.

Amendment No. 403, tabled by the same Deputies, seeks to amend the existing requirement for the inclusion of objectives for the conservation, protection, management and improvement of an area designated as a natural heritage area under section 18 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 to require this provision to apply also to proposed natural heritage areas.

Significant environmental designations are already available and are widely used. The expansion of the objective could add further complexity to the planning system. In particular, there may be a requirement to remove existing hedgerows to allow for appropriate development that may meet wider polices relating to sustainable development and the need to adapt to the consequences of climate change and to reduce our carbon emissions. As I have mentioned, we believe there is sufficient provision within the planning system to suitably protect the environment while balancing this against the need to promote sustainable and appropriate development.

On this basis, I cannot accept the amendments. However, this is very much the area of the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, who has previously appeared before this committee and committed to looking at the reference to biodiversity and the biodiversity action plan within the Bill. His observations may supersede much of what I have just read out from my note.

Amendment No. 407, tabled by the same Deputies, seeks to include a new objective in such strategies for the conservation, protection, management and improvement historical sites. I am of the view historical sites are adequately provided for under section 48 (2) (i), referring to “places, caves, sites, features and other objects of archaeological, geological, historical, scientific or other ecological interest”. On this basis, I cannot accept that amendment.

Amendment No. 414, tabled by Deputy Duffy, concerns the definitions that will apply to section 48 in respect of strategies for the conservation, etc., of natural and built heritage and seeks to amend the definition of EU biodiversity strategy to mean not just the strategy for 2030, as worded, but to also include related directives and regulations. I consider that the reference to unspecified EU directives and regulations is too vague to allow for the appropriate consideration of the implications of this amendment and, therefore, I cannot accept it. As I indicated, the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, has dealt with this. We are reviewing the references to biodiversity and the biodiversity action plan in the Bill and, if appropriate, may bring forward amendments on Report Stage. On that basis, I cannot accept the amendment.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

With respect to the Minister of State's response to amendments Nos. 401 and 402, if adding further complexity to the planning process was a reason to not put something in the Bill, very large sections of this Bill would not see the light of day given the very significant level of complexity they are adding to the system, whether one can say that is a good idea or not. I therefore just do not accept that.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I thank the Cathaoirleach.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

We should nominate a charity and have a box for donations so every time a Minister or Minister of State uses "added complexity", "to strike a balance" or "to avoid unintended consequences"-----

That will complete the group.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

These amendments introduce two key changes to terminology used in the Bill with respect to UNESCO world heritage properties. As currently drafted, section 48(3) defines a UNESCO site as a site which has been inscribed on the world heritage list by the world heritage committee. As there are a range of different UNESCO cultural conventions, covering areas such as world heritage, underwater cultural heritage, cultural institutions and protected monuments, the use of the term “UNESCO site” only in the context of world heritage could be confusing. Many sites could be considered UNESCO sites and only a subset of these would be specific world heritage properties. As a result, amendments Nos. 405, 406, 415 and 416 will remove the term “UNESCO site” and replace it with “World Heritage Property”. They will also insert the phrase “World Heritage candidate site’” to include those sites that have been submitted by the State to the UNESCO world heritage committee and which await consideration of their proposed inscription on the world heritage list.

Corresponding amendments are also proposed section 48(2), to include world heritage property and candidate sites to the list of objectives for strategies prepared by planning authorities for the conservation, protection, management and improvement of the natural and built heritage in their functional areas.

An Cathaoirleach

Do members have a response to that?

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

That seems sensible enough.

An Cathaoirleach

How stands amendment No. 399?

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

It is being pressed.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

Gould, Thomas.
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. 400 not moved.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 401:

In page 108, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

“(b) native species subject to the strict protection of species under the second pillar of the Habitats Directive,”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

Gould, Thomas.
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.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 402:

In page 108, line 6, after “trees” where it secondly occurs to insert “, hedgerows”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

Gould, Thomas.
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.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 403:

In page 108, line 8, after “area” where it firstly occurs, to insert the following:

“proposed as a natural Heritage Area under section 16 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 or”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.

Tá

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.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 404:

In page 108, line 11, after “2014” to insert “or the Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023”.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I move amendment No. 405:

In page 108, to delete lines 12 and 13 and substitute the following:

“(e) World Heritage Properties, having due regard to the reasons for the inscription of the property on the World Heritage List under Article 11 of the World Heritage Convention,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I move amendment No. 406:

In page 108, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“(f) World Heritage candidate sites,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 407:

In page 108, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

“(g) historical sites,”.

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 Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 408:

In page 108, line 18, after “places,” to insert “battlesites,”.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 409:

In page 108, line 19, after “historical,” to insert “cultural, mythological,”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.

Tá

Gould, Thomas.
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 Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 410:

In page 108, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

“(k) areas subject to Special Amenity Area Orders and the identification of areas where such orders would be beneficial for the community or biodiversity objectives".

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

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

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 411 not moved

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 412:

In page 108, between lines 25 and 26, and insert the following:

“(l) the integrity of a site, area, monument, structure, place, landscape or feature described within this subsection within its surrounding context,”.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 413:

In page 108, between lines 25 and 26, and insert the following:

“(l) public access to a site, area, monument, structure, place, landscape or feature described within this subsection, including rights of way,”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.

Tá

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

Níl

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

Amendment declared lost.

An Cathaoirleach

We will move now to amendment No. 414 in the name of Deputy Duffy.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Chair, I will have to leave shortly, but I am withdrawing amendment No. 420 and reserve the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.

An Cathaoirleach

I will note that now for when we get to amendment No. 420. That is unfortunate that the Deputy has to change over.

Is Deputy Duffy withdrawing amendment No. 414?

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

I move amendment No. 414:

In page 108, line 29, after “2030” to insert “, related directives and regulations,”.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I move amendment No. 415:

In page 108, to delete lines 35 to 40, and in page 109, to delete line 1.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I move amendment No. 416:

In page 109, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

“ “World Heritage Convention” means the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage done in Paris on 23 November 1972;

“World Heritage candidate site” means a property included in the most recent inventory submitted on behalf of the State to the World Heritage Committee in accordance with Article 11 of the World Heritage Convention;

“World Heritage Property” means a property included in the World Heritage List under Article 11 of the World Heritage Convention and which is situated in the State.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 48, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 49

Amendments Nos. 417 and 418 not moved.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 419:

In page 109, line 33, after “riverbank” to insert “, monument”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.

Tá

Gould, Thomas.
O'Donoghue, Richard.
Ó Broin, Eoin.

Níl

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

Amendment declared lost.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy O'Callaghan has withdrawn amendment No. 420 but reserves the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.

Amendment No. 420 not moved.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 421:

In page 109, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:

“(h) regulating, restricting, expediting, controlling or promoting the use of any land or structure, in particular in a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network for the purpose of providing residential housing to Irish speakers or to grow the use of Irish within the area and the viability of the Irish speaking community.”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 6.

Tá

Gould, Thomas.
Ó Broin, Eoin.

Níl

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

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 422 not moved.

Section 49 agreed to.

SECTION 50

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 423:

In page 110, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

“(iii) all Gaeltacht Language Planning Areas, Gaeltacht Service Towns or Irish Language Networks within the functional area of the development plan,”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.

Tá

Gould, Thomas.
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. 424 not moved.

An Cathaoirleach

As we have full attendance, I will offer that members can if they wish to do a few more of these and clear them.

My contribution was related to the Chair's proposal. It had nothing to do with Deputy O'Donoghue's.

Deputy Richard O'Donoghue

My contribution was the same.

An Cathaoirleach

We have been working very well here. I want to thank the members for their co-operation. We made some good progress this week. I thank everybody for their attendance and co-operation. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, and his officials for their attendance. I will adjourn the select committee until Tuesday, 26 March. I wish everybody a pleasant day's work tomorrow and weekend ahead of that. Go raibh maith agaibh.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The select committee adjourned at 4.03 p.m. until 9 a.m. on Tuesday, 26 March 2024.

Select Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage díospóireacht - Thursday, 21 Mar 2024

Planning and Development Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Tá

Níl

Select Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage díospóireacht -
Thursday, 21 Mar 2024