Select Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage debate

Planning and Development Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)

An Cathaoirleach

Good afternoon, everybody. You are very welcome back to the Select Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, where we continue Committee Stage of the Planning and Development Bill 2023. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, to the committee to continue our deliberations on this important legislation.

I just want to comment that yesterday evening, we lost a full hour in the committee because votes were being called fully in the knowledge that members were not present to take those votes. It really delayed us. We lost about an hour which we should have been spending discussing amendments, notwithstanding any member's right to seek a roll-call. I have said at many of the openings that we need to consider that it is hard to get these committee rooms and I think the time is better spent discussing the amendments rather than sitting here, waiting, fully in the knowledge that members are not present. I wish members would turn up for votes. It would really help us with the process. I ask members to reflect on whether it is good for the legislative and parliamentary process and if it is respectful to the people who turn up to have those delays. I ask members to consider that.

Section 168 agreed to.

SECTION 169

Amendments Nos. 793 and 794 not moved.

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

I move amendment No. 795:

In page 311, line 37, to delete “permission for retention” and substitute “retention permission”.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 169, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I have two questions on the section.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I want to ask the Minister about subsection (2)(b)(iii), which is about matters related to the holding of an LRD meeting under section 88, including the provision of ancillary services, where required, including child care facilities. As the Minister might know, there is a significant enough problem not just with the availability of childcare but with how childcare facilities come through the planning system. In many cases, the childcare facilities that are provided are too small to be commercially viable so they remain empty for years to come. These are much-needed childcare facilities not just with regard to the new development that happens but also to meet needs in the wider community as well as the demand from newer development. It is an area that just has not been working well. Can the Minister let us know how he intends to address this? Is there anything in this section of the Bill or indeed elsewhere in the Bill that addresses this?

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Minister and the members.

Section 169, as amended, agreed to.

Section 170 agreed to.

NEW SECTION

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 796:

In page 312, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:

“Continued application of section 45 of Act of 2000 for certain purposes

171. Notwithstanding section 6—

(a) section 45 of the Act of 2000 shall continue to apply and have effect—

(i) in relation to a request made under paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of the said section 45 before the repeal of that section by section 6,

(ii) in relation to, and for the purposes of, a notice published under the said section 45 before the repeal of that section by section 6, and

(iii) in relation to land to which an order referred to in paragraph (b) applies, and

(b) an order under subsection (5) of the said section 45 in force immediately before the repeal of that section by section 6 shall remain in force and have effect on and after that repeal.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 171 agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 797 to 812, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 797:

In page 32, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“Interpretation

171. (1) In this Act—

“Act of 2019” means the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019;

“Aircraft Noise Regulation” means Regulation (EU) No. 598/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports within a Balanced Approach and repealing Directive 2002/30/EC;

“airport” means Dublin Airport and includes, as appropriate, the area around the airport significantly affected by aircraft noise;

“airport authority” means daa public limited company;

“appeal body” shall be construed in accordance with subsection (1) of section 10 of the Act of 2019;

“competent authority” means the competent authority designated by section 3 of the Act of 2019 to be the competent authority for the purposes of the Aircraft Noise Regulation;

“Environmental Noise Directive” means Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise;

“introduced” includes implemented;

“measure” includes a restriction;

“noise” means aircraft noise;

“noise abatement objective” means the noise abatement objective for the airport;

“noise mitigation measure” means a noise mitigation measure in place at the airport and includes—

(a) a land-use planning and management measure intended to reduce noise at source,

and

(b) a noise abatement operational measure, that do not restrict the capacity of the airport but does not include an operating restriction;

“operating restriction” means an operating restriction in place at the airport;

“relevant authority” means—

(a) the planning authority, or

(b) the competent authority;

“specified” means, in relation to a form, specified under section 28 of the Act of 2019.

(2) (a) A word or expression that is used in this Act and in the Aircraft Noise Regulation has the meaning in this Act that it has in that Regulation.

(b) A word or expression that is used in this Act and in the Environmental Noise Directive has the meaning in this Act that it has in that Directive.3) Where a provision of this Act or regulations under this Act provides for the specification of a period in a notice or direction, the period specified shall be a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

These amendments relate to Part 5 of the Bill, which restates, with minor modifications, the provisions inserted into the 2000 Act by the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Act 2019. The amendments are all minor in nature and do not change the policy position of this Part. They address some matters to make it easier to read the Part and some typographical errors.

For the sake of completeness I will cover some of these amendments. Amendment Nos. 797 and 798 replace the current section 171 relating to the interpretation of Part 5. Currently, section 171 notes that the definitions in the Act of 2019 apply to Part 5. This amendment inserts the text of the relevant definitions from the Act of 2019 into this Bill rather than just referring back to them. It is an insertion and this will make navigating this Part of the Bill easier.

There are a number of amendments and the response relates to all of them. Amendments Nos. 799, 800, 803, 804 and 808 to 812, inclusive, all relate to sections that refer to “measures and restrictions”. The reference to “and restrictions” is proposed to be deleted as “measures” are defined in section 171 to include restrictions.

Amendments Nos. 801 and 805 are very minor textual amendments that change a reference from “one relevant authority” to “a relevant authority”.

Amendment No. 802 deletes a comma.

Amendments Nos. 806 and 807 update an incorrect reference.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 171 deleted.

NEW SECTION

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 798:

In page 312, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

Application of Part

172. This Part (as well as Part 4) applies to an application for permission for development or proposed development at the airport.”.

Amendment agreed to.

SECTION 172

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 799:

In page 313, line 16, to delete "and restrictions."

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 800:

In page 313, line 17, to delete “and restrictions”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 801:

In page 314, to delete lines 14 to 19 and substitute the following:

“(3) Where the applicant gives any information or plans referred to in subsection (2) to a relevant authority, the applicant shall, on the same date (or as soon as practicable thereafter), give copies of such information or plans, as the case may be, to the other relevant authority.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 172, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

One of the questions I have on section 172 relates to section 173. It is the same, in effect, so I will just bring it in once and then I have a second set of questions on this. Section 172(15)(a)(ii) provides that the competent authority shall:

... send a copy of such decision, together with a copy of the notice referred to in paragraph (b) ... to—

(I) the applicant,

(II) the airport authority,

(III) the planning authority,

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I am not in any way dismissing the points the Deputy has raised because environmental considerations are extremely important. I know the areas that the Deputy has mentioned extremely well, having grown up and lived there my whole life. What I would say to the Deputy is this: this section in the Bill relates to noise and the aircraft noise piece, which goes back to the 2019 Act.

I move amendment No. 807:

In page 325, line 3, to delete “subsection (10) of”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 173, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 174

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 808:

In page 327, line 10, to delete “and restrictions”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 809:

In page 327, line 12, to delete “and restrictions”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 810:

In page 327, line 43, to delete “and restrictions”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 174, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 175

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 811:

In page 332, line 16, to delete “and restrictions”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 812:

In page 332, line 17, to delete “and restrictions”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 175, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 176 to 178, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 179

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 813:

In page 334, line 6, to delete “In this Chapter, “competent authority” means—” and substitute the following:

“In this Chapter—

“competent authority” means—”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 814:

In page 335, line 4, to delete “strategy, and” and substitute “strategy and”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 824:

In page 338, lines 14 and 15, to delete “(either individually or in combination with any project or other plan)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 825 not moved.

Section 183, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 184

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 826:

In page 339, line 6, after “plan” to insert “(either individually or in combination with any project or other plan)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 827:

In page 339, line 7, to delete “(either individually or in combination with any project or other plan)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 828:

In page 339, to delete lines 12 to 16 and substitute the following:

“(b) identify all of the habitat types and species—

(i) for which the relevant European site is designated, and

(ii) in relation to which the likelihood of significant effects arising from the proposed plan cannot be excluded,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 829:

In page 339, to delete lines 17 to 22 and substitute the following:

“(c) having regard to the European site’s conservation objectives—

(i) identify all potential significant effects of the proposed plan on the European site, whether such effects arise from the plan itself or the plan in combination with any project or other plan, and

(ii) assess the effects identified in accordance with subparagraph (i) and the implications of the plan for the European site,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 830 not moved.

Section 184, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 185

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 831:

In page 340, line 5, after “plan” to insert “(either individually or in combination with any project or other plan)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 832:

In page 340, lines 6 and 7, to delete “(either individually or in combination with any project or other plan)”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 840:

In page 346, to delete lines 1 to 9 and substitute the following:

“(13) Where the Minister comes to a conclusion under subsection (9) that—

(a) there is an absence of alternative solutions to the relevant plan,

(b) imperative reasons (which may include reasons of a social or economic nature) of overriding public interest exist for the making of the relevant plan, and

the competent authority shall inform the European Commission of those compensatory measures.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Question put: "That section 187, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 2.

Tá

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Brien, Darragh.

Níl

O'Callaghan, Cian.
Ó Broin, Eoin.

come to a conclusion in relation to the relevant plan concerned as to whether or not—

(i) there is an absence of alternative solutions to the relevant plan,

(ii) imperative reasons of overriding public interest exist, or may, subject to the opinion of the European Commission, exist for the making of the relevant plan, and

(iii) the compensatory measures proposed by the competent authority are adequate to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 846:

In page 349, to delete lines 21 and 22 and substitute the following:

“(b) if satisfied that—

(i) there is an absence of alternative solutions to the relevant plan, and

(ii) the compensatory measures proposed by the competent authority are adequate to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 847:

In page 349, to delete lines 27 to 38, and in page 350, to delete lines 1 to 12 and substitute the following:

“(11) A relevant plan shall not be made under Part 3—

(a) unless the Minister has concluded that—

(i) there is an absence of alternative solutions to the relevant plan, and

(ii) imperative reasons of overriding public interest—

(I) relating to human health or public safety, or

(II) that the relevant plan will have beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment,

exist for the making of the relevant plan, and

(iii) compensatory measures proposed by the competent authority are adequate to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network,

(b) unless—

(i) the Minister has concluded that—

(I) compensatory measures proposed by the competent authority are adequate to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network, and

(II) the competent authority is satisfied that there is an absence of alternative solutions to the relevant plan,

and

(ii) the Minister has received an opinion from the European Commission (pursuant to a request under subsection (10)) that states that it is satisfied that other imperative reasons of overriding public interest within the meaning of paragraph 4 of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive exist for the making of the relevant plan.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 848:

In page 350, line 13, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

In page 353, lines 37 and 38, to delete “(either individually or in combination with any plan or other project)”.

I move amendment No. 869:

In page 357, lines 4 and 5, to delete “(either individually or in combination with any plan or other project)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 194, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 195 to 198, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 870:

In page 364, to delete lines 30 to 35 and substitute the following:

“199. (1) In this section “development concerned” means a relevant development in respect of which the competent authority has made a determination under paragraph (a) of subsection (7) of section 197 relating to a European site or European sites that does not, or do not, host a priority habitat or priority species.”.

Amendment agreed to.

SECTION 199

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 871:

In page 369, line 38, to delete “aimed at ensuring” and substitute “intended to ensure”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 199, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 886:

In page 400, line 34, after “Minister” to insert “or a competent authority”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 215, as amended, agreed to.

Section 216 agreed to.

SECTION 217

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 887:

In page 401, to delete lines 37 and 38, and in page 402, to delete lines 1 to 16 and substitute the following:

“(3) The Minister may make regulations for the purposes of subsection (1) including regulations—

(a) prescribing the procedures to be followed for the purposes of compliance with that subsection, and

(b) providing for—

(i) consultation by a competent authority with the Environmental Protection Agency where a relevant development requires—

(I) a permission under Part 4 and an integrated pollution control licence or industrial emissions licence under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992,

(II) a permission under Part 4 and a waste licence under Part V of the Waste Management Act 1996,

(III) a permission under Part 4 and a waste water discharge licence under the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations 2007, or

(IV) a permission under Part 4 and an abstraction licence,

and

(ii) the coordination by a competent authority and the Environmental Protection Agency of the performance by them of functions in relation to the relevant development.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 217, as amended, agreed to.

Section 218 agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 888:

In page 402, after line 34, to insert the following:

“CHAPTER 5

Accessibility Assessment of Development

219. The purpose of this Chapter is to give effect to the State’s obligations under Article 4 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 5.

Tá

Andrews, Chris.
O'Callaghan, Cian.
Ó Murchú, Ruairí.

Níl

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Brien, Darragh.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 889:

In page 402, after line 34, to insert the following:

“219. Where it is determined under section 203 that an environmental impact assessment is required, an accessibility impact assessment must also be carried out.”

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Chris Andrews

I move amendment No. 890:

In page 402, after line 34, to insert the following:

“PART 7

LANGUAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Language Impact Assessment

219. (1) In the case of any non-residential development within a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, or any residential development that includes the construction of not less than 2 housing units, a language impact assessment will be required before permission can be granted.

(2) A language impact assessment shall be prepared by an independent expert in language planning or sociolinguistics, with no link to any party involved in the application, and its objectivity shall be assessed and verified by Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga before consideration by the planning authority.

(3) A language impact assessment shall provide an analysis of the likely impact of the development on the use of Irish within the local Gaeltacht community, based on factors including, but not limited to—

(a) the most recent Census information on the use of Irish locally,

(b) the nature of the development proposed and the possible opportunities intended for employment of Irish speakers locally or for use of Irish locally, and

(c) any conditions proposed as part of the application to reserve a certain percentage of housing units for Irish speaking residents.

(4) Where a language impact assessment demonstrates that the proposed development is likely to have a positive impact on the use of Irish compared to English in the area, the planning authority shall make every effort to expedite its approval.

(5) Where a language impact assessment demonstrates that the proposed development is likely to have a negative impact on the use of Irish compared to English in the area, the planning authority shall withhold approval.

(6) The planning authority may provide guidance on the percentage of housing units that should be reserved for Irish speaking residents in an area in order for the impact of a development on the use of Irish locally to be positive, based on the sociolinguistic data relevant to the area from the most recent Census or other information sources.

(7) In the case of any conditions reserving a percentage of housing units for Irish speaking residents, an Irish speaking resident must be one who demonstrates a minimum level of spoken Irish that is equivalent to B2 or higher under the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, to be assessed and verified by the planning authority.”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 5.

Tá

Andrews, Chris.
O'Callaghan, Cian.
Ó Murchú, Ruairí.

Níl

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
O'Brien, Darragh.

Amendment declared lost.

An Cathaoirleach

We will move on to a group of amendments that commences with amendment No. 891 in the name of Deputy Boyd Barrett and others.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I will just get my stuff.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

Deputy Boyd Barrett should do as much talking as he wants.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I move amendment No. 891:

In page 403, line 6, to delete “a planning authority” and substitute “members of the relevant local authority”.

Should I move the rest of the amendments in the grouping?

An Cathaoirleach

No, the Deputy should move amendment No. 891 and then speak about the rest of the amendments in the grouping if they have been logically grouped. It is only when we reach an amendment that we ask the Deputy to move it and call for a vote if necessary.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Just bear with me a second. I refer to amendments Nos 892 and 898. Together we can do amendments Nos. 892, 903 and 905.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Duffy will speak to those amendments. I think my amendment No. 898 is covered by Deputy O’Callaghan’s amendment. Could we take amendments Nos. 892, 903 and 905? Does Deputy Duffy wish to discuss them?

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I make the point to Deputy Duffy that the inclusion of community-led housing in the Affordable Housing Act was a significant step forward. To be fair to the Deputy, that came directly from him and the Chair. I met with community-led housing organisations. It is the first time we have included that definition in legislation. That, in itself, is very important. That said, with the new regime, any community-led housing organisation will need to be approved by the Approved Housing Body Regulatory Authority, AHBRA. I have had good meetings with a couple of organisations in Ireland and my officials recently had a follow-up meeting with them. They would be approved by AHBRA. They would have to be approved in order to operate anyway and that is right and proper.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

This relates to the comments I made earlier. I brought the matter up in the Dail and I would like to hear about this from the Minister. Obviously, the amendment tabled by Deputy Ó Broin and other members of Sinn Féin is on the basis that he is not satisfied that the information of the housing needs demand assessment referred to by the Minister has adequate detail and specificity to ensure the housing strategy that will be developed by a council will meet the housing demand of that local authority area.

I assume that is the logic of what he is saying. The Minister has responded, including in our earlier discussions on this, that the housing needs demand assessment process introduced in 2021 has addressed the problem. The Deputy's amendment implies that we need not only a general housing needs demand assessment but also a specific one, with as much detail as possible about the local area, and also that we need to ensure the housing strategy developed will meet the needs of the area, particularly the social and affordable housing needs. Is the Minister 100% confident that what he has in the legislation will achieve this end and that what Deputy Ó Broin has proposed is not necessary? The Deputy is correct to highlight this, for the reason I outlined earlier, namely that the Housing for All targets for Dún Laoghaire were inadequate. If we had developed social and affordable housing to deal with the fixed number on the existing list, the targets for our area under Housing for All would just about have met the need. The amount would have fallen short but it would have been getting there. If you had added in the likely number of new social housing applicants over the period from when the targets were set to the end of the period of applicability of Housing for All, incredibly there would have been more people on the housing list than there were when the targets were set, such is the level of demand. We worked that out. My point is that we have to get this right. If we set targets based on very general statistics, not on a pretty forensic assessment of how many people are likely to be added to the list, it will be an issue. When you note the way rents and house prices are going, certainly in my area, you see that an increasing number of people are unable to source anything on the private market. Another fluctuation that is not so good in this context is that people's income takes them over the social housing threshold, meaning they get knocked off the list.

We had a discussion on undue segregation because I had a related amendment earlier, but I wish to refresh the Minister's memory. "Undue segregation" is stated. There is no due segregation; segregation is wrong. It is a form of housing apartheid and has to stop. The stigmatisation of social housing is a genuine problem that we have to eliminate. The key to this is a matter that cannot be dealt with in this Bill, namely raising social housing income thresholds to a much higher level, as has occurred elsewhere, in order that social housing will not just be for the people on the very lowest incomes. That is for another day's work but what can be addressed here is ensuring that when, for example, we have Part V obligations – now to become Part VII obligations – or when there are other measures taken by the local authority, all the social housing is not put in one place, all north facing, as happened with a development in my area. All the non-Part V accommodation had a much better spec and was of much better quality. That must not happen. It is absolutely wrong and it reinforces segregation and the stigmatisation of social housing. The phrase "undue segregation" is wrong. We should simply state there should be no segregation.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

On amendment No. 896, we had a long discussion. To make a general point, I have visited new social housing estates over the past four years and noted they were of top quality. Even in mixed developments, there was rightly no distinction between social, private and affordable housing. Unquestionably, there have been some legacy issues. I have encountered them myself but the issue simply does not arise anymore. Consider what we are investing in social housing. I came from the Hole in the Wall Road development this morning and noted that the quality of the apartments built there is exceptional. There will be about 150 cost-rental units and about 250 social units in this brilliant development.

We discussed the term "undue" in the context of amendment No. 896. The provision is from the 2000 Act, so it is very clearly understood by local authorities. It is working well and I am not going to accept the amendment. We had a long discussion on it. The issue the Deputy referred to was previously relevant but is no longer relevant because it does not arise anymore. The State is building the vast bulk of our social housing. The Part V social housing that is delivered is delivered within the estates, and there is no distinction between one form of housing and another. As the Deputy knows, the changes I introduced to Part V, which will be Part VII, reinstate the additional 10% for affordable housing. Its reversal by the previous Government was something I argued against in opposition. I reversed that Government's decision and the measure is back in play. We will see some of the additional Part V units later this year and next year because of the changes we have made.

On the housing strategy aspect, I do not accept the Sinn Féin amendment. The legislation sets out the process by which housing targets are reached. Amendment No. 895, which I assume was written by Deputy Gould or Deputy Ó Snodaigh, refers to "the Local Authority's own Housing Needs Demand Assessment". There is agreement on this and the HNDA is provided for. The reason for what I outlined in my response to Deputy Andrews concerned the timing of the measure's introduction. Some of the plans had been produced already but most authorities have used the HNDA. The amendment also states, "and any other data that may be available and in the view of the planning authority may be relevant". This is pretty vague, and to say so is not disrespectful. We use better data than that specified in the amendment.

I agree absolutely with Deputy Boyd Barrett that "undue segregation" implies that there is a due level of segregation. I do not believe any of us agrees with that. That wording should go and the amendment should be accepted.

I thank the Cathaoirleach. In a way amendments Nos. 897 and 898 are very similar. We have constructed them in slightly different ways. The Cathaoirleach has probably done it more efficiently. They both have the same objective. When I am speaking about amendment, No. 897 I also want to address amendment No. 909, which is related.

Amendments Nos. 897 and 898 seek to include new language in the list of items which the housing strategy shall take into account. At present the wording in section 219(5)(f) refers to the existing need and likely future need for housing, in particular houses and duplexes, for purchase by intending owner-occupiers. Amendments Nos. 897 and 898 seek to include the word "apartments".

Amendment No. 909 seeks to insert that a housing strategy shall provide as a general policy that at least 50% of any new apartment developments shall be reserved for the provision of housing for purchase by owner-occupiers. It qualifies this by stating it would not operate in any way to restrict any person, meaning an approved housing body, local authority or anyone else including a developer, from providing up to 100% of housing in any development as affordable housing or social housing, or restrict the provision of student purpose accommodation. This qualifier is included.

I want to speak about the issues surrounding this. As the Minister is aware, last year in Dublin 72% of new-build homes were apartments. Almost none of these was available to buy. The vast majority of new-build homes in Dublin last year simply were not available for individuals or families to buy. Every week in my constituency I meet older couples or individual older persons who say they are in a large family home where they no longer wish to be and that they would like to move to an apartment. They also say they will not move some miles away as they want to stay in their local communities where their friends, networks and families are. They might be involved in local activities. They may play in a local bridge club. Some of them play boules. They might be involved in a local sports club or local church. They know various people in the shops and their neighbours. They know places to go for a walk.

They want to move out of a larger home which they may be finding hard to heat and maintain. They may not be in a position to be able to renovate the new home and get it up to scratch in terms of insulation and so forth. They want to move into an apartment and are highly frustrated that new apartments are being built in their community of the right size but they cannot move into them. The only way they could do that would be to pay an exorbitant rent, but they have no ability to buy. They will clearly say they will not sell their home to pay a high rent and have an insecure position in one of these new build apartments but if they were able to buy, they would.

I do not want to overstate this but research backs it up. Research shows that about 20% of people are in this situation. Most people in this situation want to stay in their home, as is their right. They may have lived there for decades and raised their family there. However, a significant minority of people want to move into new build apartments and want to be able to buy them. They are often at the older end of the age group. Of course, there are also smaller households, younger people as well, who say they do not want to and cannot pay €2,000 in exorbitant rents for these new build apartments, but they would like the option to be able to buy. Not being able to buy causes a problem for single people who would be more likely to want to live in an apartment than in a family-sized house. Of course, they are effectively locked out or discriminated against by these new build apartments not being available for individuals and families to buy.

There is a mismatch in the housing stock where increasingly families are in small apartments and unable to access larger family homes. Increasingly, smaller families, couples or individuals in family-sized homes want to move out of them but do not have the options. We will never get a perfect match in the housing stock; it is not possible. It is private property and people are entitled to stay in their family-sized home if they wish to do so. However, people want to move and want to get a better match. In terms of housing stock, given that Government policy is strongly in favour of compact growth for sustainability reasons, we will see more and more apartment development. To have home ownership tenure almost excluded from new build apartments, except maybe in some very high-end developments, is hugely problematic. It does not make sense from an environmentally sustainable point of view for encouraging compact growth not to have the tenure choice in home ownership.

Since Independence, the State has invested massively into home ownership, in breaking up larger holdings and the redistribution of land. Huge resources went into that. We achieved 80% home ownership levels and now we have the lowest level of home ownership in more than 50 years. We need to do something about treating apartments in a similar fashion to houses and duplexes. I am not suggesting with my amendments that all apartments should be available for individuals and families to buy. Of course, a good chunk can be available for rent. However, if we do not do something on this and as more and more apartments become part of our new housing stock, particularly in our urban areas, home ownership will continue to shrink.

If somebody wants a new build home, all they can do is buy it out in the commuter belt which of course is more car dependent. On the one hand we are encouraging compact growth, but we are undermining it by not having the ability for people to be able to choose to buy there. That is why I have tabled these amendments and I would like to hear the Minister of State's response.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

This is a very important part of the legislation. There seems to be very little change, if any, in this section and Part of the Bill compared with what was there previously. If I am wrong, I ask the Minister of State to correct me, but it seems to be broadly a transposition. I am speaking specifically to amendment No. 895 but this is also supportive of the points Deputy O'Callaghan has just made. We often hear the argument that it is all about supply and that if we could just get the supply numbers up at a macro level, things would sort themselves out. We know that is not the case for two reasons.

The Minister will often tell us on the floor of the Dáil that we had record output at 33,000 new homes last year. Just over 8,000 of those were new build social homes, the vast majority of which were acquired by local authorities and approved housing bodies from private developers. Just about 8,000 of those were homes that went into the owner-occupier market for people to buy from estate agents. Again, just over 8,000 went into the private rental market. Even though we are meant to be seeing 11,500 homes for purchase each year and I think 6,000 homes for rental coming on stream according to the Government's housing plan, it was 8,000. Then there are about 5,000 one-off houses and about 1,000 affordable homes.

The problem is that when our planning system is making decisions about what planning applications to grant, it is completely blind to housing need. It is blind to tenure, age, life cycle, disability and income. Therefore, increasingly the decisions made on grants are so far away from housing need that we end up with the wrong kinds of homes in the wrong place at the wrong price, which creates all sorts of difficulties and challenges.

My amendment No. 895 seeks to insert a much more sophisticated local authority-led housing need demand assessment at the very centre of planned decision making. This is meant to be about plan making. This is about getting the plan-led approach right. When a planning authority is sitting down with an application for apartments, houses and duplexes, one of the things it should have in its assessment toolbox for a particular geographical area is a sense of the current housing need demand by tenure, topology, age, life cycle and disability. That is what is done in other jurisdictions, albeit not perfectly. For example, Scotland uses the housing need demand assessment at a granular level better than we do. However, we do not do that here. That means that our planning authorities are making decisions with one hand tied behind their back. A good planning authority will try to get under the bonnet of the HNDA and start trying to apply it at a more granular level, but it is not very simple and it is very challenging. Therefore, we are getting the wrong decisions on land, which is of enormous importance in meeting housing needs, and completely the wrong types of homes are being delivered.

Deputy O'Callaghan made the point about age-friendly development. I want to use this as an example. Some of our local authorities are starting to do good age-friendly development which is fine. However, surely in locations where we know there is an ageing population, particularly with private residential stock, local authorities should have either the ability if not the requirement to ensure that with new granted planning permission, private developers take account of the fact that just across the road there is a significant cohort of people many of whom would love to right-size from a private home to a different private home but stay within the parish, neighbourhood etc.

There have been previous attempts - I have spoken to some departmental officials about this - where local authorities have tried to set percentages or use very blunt tools. That is not the right approach. The right approach is to have a sophisticated granular housing need demand assessment tool which is constantly updated which planners then use in making planning applications. It should also be publicly available for those people who have a commercial or public housing interest. That is just not there at the moment. My amendment seeks to insert that.

Separately, of course, it means we need to get the housing need demand assessment tool right, which is not the case currently, not just in terms of its macro targets but also its functionality at a county, local electoral area and even DED area or small area level, which would be very helpful. If we do not fix this here in this Bill, when will it get fixed? When will we have a planning system that makes decisions based on actual objective assessment of need rather than solely on the basis of what a particular private developer thinks is commercially viable?

I am not saying to disregard what is commercially viable but there is not enough of a consideration of actual need. Too much of it is still developer-led. We can have all the great plans we want but if we do not have a tool for making decisions embedded in the housing strategy and then, in turn, impacting on grants of planning as per previous parts of the Bill, I think we are on a hiding to nothing.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

Deputy Ó Broin has set out the case and, while he was not here, I was defending his amendment for similar reasons. He has elaborated more. One other example, and I do not know if it is covered by Deputy Ó Broin's amendment, though it is in the same territory, strikes me because it is such a big, strategically important site. At the moment, it would seem that, on planning grounds, you cannot make those sorts of decisions which would meet housing needs because you are bound to accept what is currently a legitimate planning application but which any sensible person would look at and ask if that is the best use of that site.

What sticks out like a sore thumb to me is the Jurys site, which is now going to be a new US embassy. I was gobsmacked when I heard they could get planning permission. There is a building which has been sitting empty in the teeth of a massive housing crisis, the International Protection Accommodation Service people living in tents down the road and huge numbers of people homeless in the south Dublin area, while probably 1,000 beds have been sitting empty in the Jurys and Berkeley Court for ten or 15 years. I thought that at least when this was redeveloped, somebody would put housing there, because it is the obvious thing that should happen, particularly in an area where house prices and rents are through the roof and there is a desperate need for social and affordable housing. You would think that is a no-brainer. It is an important strategic site and, for God's sake, the only thing that should go there is social and affordable housing, but what is actually going to go there is a new US embassy complex when there is a perfectly good building sitting across the road. Surely the planning authority should have the power at its disposal to say that is not really the best location for that and this site really should be used for the pressing needs we have for social and affordable housing.

That is the kind of consideration I think should be put in to developing housing strategies so that we can look at sites in our area and say, given our needs, these sites should be used for these purposes and should not be used for other purposes, even though a planning application might be deemed legitimate from a planning point of view but, from the point of view of actually serving the needs of the community, makes no sense whatsoever.

Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (Deputy Malcolm Noonan)

I will not rehash the issue. I will address it briefly but amendment No. 895 was already discussed just before the break and we have moved on. Deputy Ó Broin referred to the planning system being blind to housing need. That is what the housing need demand assessment, HNDA, is about. It has been tested in many counties. The methodologies are also being adopted in other counties. It is based on census data and is informed by how the housing strategy is developed. I think it was well discussed just before the break. The point Deputy Boyd Barrett made is what zoning is about, where certain developments are located and giving direction to where developments are located.

While on amendment No. 897, will I address amendments Nos. 898 and 909 too?

An Cathaoirleach

Yes, please.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

Amendment No. 897 from Deputy O’Callaghan seeks to delete lines 7 and 8 in page 404 and replace them with "the existing need and the likely future need, including houses, apartments and duplexes, for housing for purchase by intending owner-occupiers". However, I can confirm that the text as drafted includes all housing types, including apartments, so although not explicitly expressed, the policy intent already covers the requested amendment.

It was linked.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

Amendment No. 909 seeks to insert the following into section 219:

(12) A housing strategy shall provide that as a general policy at least 50 per cent of any new apartment developments shall be reserved for the provision of housing for purchase by owner-occupiers.

(13) Subsection 12 shall not operate to restrict any person (including a local authority) at its election from providing up to 100% of housing in any development of the types which paragraphs (i) to (iii) of subsection (10) apply.

Very good, I wanted to clarify that.

My amendment No. 907 would nicely dovetail with Deputy O'Callaghan's because the net result would be that we would get rid of vulture and cuckoo funds. My amendment proposes that the Part VII requirement, which used to be Part V, would not be 20% but 50% of social and affordable. My amendment proposes that, "In page 405... subject to subsection (12), a housing strategy shall provide that [as a general policy] a specified percentage". The Government says this should not be more than 20% of the land zoned. The Government is saying what is now Part VII provision for social and affordable is not to be more than 20%. I propose to amend that to say it shall not be less than 20% for social housing, and not less than 30% for social housing, the different categories of affordable housing, or both. It is giving flexibility on that additional 30%. To put it another way, we propose that a minimum of 20% should be social housing and another 30% should be a mixture of social and affordable housing as may be decided by the local authority. In total there would be 50% social and affordable housing. It is obvious to me why this should be the case. We can set current average incomes against average house prices and rents. A case involving two incomes is slightly different, but in cases involving a single income I would say that approximately 70% of people are now priced out of being able to afford the rents or house prices being charged in Dublin and many of the urban centres. We are going to have to face that fact, because I do not think we have faced it. The market is not capable of delivering affordable housing for between 60% and 70% of the population, and it never will be. That is my view. The evidence is pretty clear. Let us be honest - the housing crisis predated this. It just got a hell of a lot worse after 2008, and is now at dire proportions. It would be a very foolish person who suggests at this point that the market is going to resolve this for the majority of people. We have to face the fact that unless there is a spectacular increase in people's incomes they will never be able to afford this stuff, so what are we going to do about it? We have to do something and we have to do something urgently. Given where social housing income thresholds are, you have to be beneath a low level of income to get social housing. We have to have affordable housing as well as social. We obviously need to address that by raising those thresholds, but that is a separate debate.

A minimum of 50% of any housing that is built now has to be social and affordable. To be honest, the Minister of State should increase it to 60%. I am trying to get this amendment passed in order to move the debate forward. I note the situation in places like Austria and Finland. The latter is the only country in pretty much the whole of Europe that has actually seen its homelessness situation improve. This is because the state has taken control in the context of what is being built. The Finnish authorities are saying that they are not interested in housing being built just to make money and are only interested only in housing that is going to meet the needs of the people. They are beginning to impact on the level of homelessness because they have adopted that approach, which, in turn, is impacting on their approach to planning, etc. That is what I am arguing for. We have to do something radical like that because the market is failing so drastically.

I doubt that the Government is going to accept the amendment, but I honestly want it to start considering this. The situation is so bad that radical measures have to be taken now to address the utter unaffordability of the housing the market is delivering.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett. Does the Minister of State wish to read a response to amendment No. 907? I will suspend proceedings when he has done so.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

I will respond to amendment No. 907 in order to quickly address the points raised by Deputy Boyd Barrett.

An Cathaoirleach

We can cover amendments Nos. 907 and 909.

Deputy Malcolm Noonan

In amendment No. 907, which relates to section 219, the People Before Profit Deputies are seeking to delete lines 21 to 40, and change the percentages associated with what was known as Part V housing in the Act of 2000. Any amendment to Part V policy risks delaying housing delivery as the sector comes to terms with its implications.

President McAleese referred Part V of the Planning and Development Bill 1999 to the Supreme Court for a decision on its compatibility with the Constitution. The court considered whether Part V restricted the rights of landowners and in its decision applied a test of proportionality when considering whether Part V restricted the rights of landowners. The test of proportionality is an approach generally taken by the courts. To pass the proportionality test, the measures must:

(a) be rationally connected to the objective and not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations;

(b) impair the right as little as possible; and

It is uncertain whether increasing the Part 7 requirement above 20% would pass the same proportionality test and the amendment will require further detailed consideration, including legal advice. Furthermore, increasing the percentages could impact on the perceived viability of developing sites and risk the overall supply of housing. I cannot accept this amendment.

I direct Deputy Boyd Barrett to section 219(11), which states:

Subsection (10) shall not operate to prevent any person (including a local authority) at its election from using more than 20 per cent of land in respect of which permission for the development of houses is granted for the provision of housing ...

Therefore, a local authority can go higher than 20%. The Land development Agency, LDA, can also go higher than 20%.

I will quickly address points raised by Deputy O'Callaghan. Deputy Ó Broin inquired about the metric. The housing strategy and the housing need demand assessment, HNDA, constitute the metric. It is quite clear in terms of what is outlined and required in the development of a housing strategy, that is, the demographics of an area, the development plan and the existing and likely future need for housing, in particular houses in duplexes for purchase by intending owner-occupiers. It is, therefore, addressed through the housing strategy.

The Croí Cónaithe scheme is there to address the viability for owner-occupier purchasers. Local authorities can buy up numbers as well. Under the LDA, there is 100% social and affordable housing on key sites in urban areas, such as Shanganagh and the Central Mental Hospital site. That is being applied at 100% thorough the LDA.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Minister of State. I will now suspend proceedings, as we have reached the time for doing so. I have to give people the chance to take a break and have dinner. We will be back here at 6 p.m. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, for his attendance and engagement today.

Sitting suspended at 5.04 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.

An Cathaoirleach

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Niall Collins. We are discussing the group of amendments starting with No. 891. Deputy O'Callaghan wishes to respond to the previous contribution on amendment No. 909 by the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

There has been some suggestion that my proposal to the effect that at least 50% of new-build apartments would be available for individuals and families to buy, except in cases of social and affordable housing, affordable rental or purpose-built student accommodation, could be a blunt instrument. However, the current situation is not working and is incredibly blunt. We are close to 0% of new-build apartments being available for individuals and families to buy. There needs to be action to give people choice. The status quo is not working. It is driving down home ownership levels and restricting the choice that people have. I strongly refute what the Minister of State who was hear earlier said.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I spoke to the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, on this but would like to hear the Government's response or some kind of response. Amendment No. 913 proposes a minimum requirement of 20% social housing and 30%, on top of that, social and affordable housing in all developments. We propose the Part V social and affordable obligation, which is 10% social and 10% affordable, goes up to 50%, comprising a minimum of 20% social housing and a minimum of 30% that is a combination of social and other forms of affordable housing, whether cost rental or affordable purchase.

To summarise what I said earlier, the rationale is simple. The vast majority of working people are priced out of the market. They cannot afford rents or house prices. I would say 60% to 70% of single-income earners cannot afford what the market is delivering and there is no sign, and I believe no chance, the private market will deliver or is interested in delivering housing that is affordable because it is motivated by profit. We have to do something about this. Whether the Minister of State has my ideological perspective or not does not really matter. The point is that it is obvious to all and sundry. Even some building contractors and developers now say the market is not capable of delivering the affordable housing we need.

It might be of interest to the Minister of State that next Tuesday outside the Dáil at 5.30 p.m. the Raise the Roof campaign, which involves housing groups, trade union groups and many of the left parties represented here, will hold a major rally at which we hope to see large numbers of people demand more affordable and secure housing because of the failure of the Government to deliver that. Central to their demands will be the direct construction of far more social and affordable housing. One demand is the Government raise the current level of 20% social and affordable to a higher level. This is necessary. We are in an emergency and a crisis and need to take far more radical measures.

What is the point of stuff being built at €600,000, €700,000 or €800,000? To my mind, it achieves nothing. We have to deliver housing that is affordable. The market will not do it of its own volition. The State has to intervene and this is a way to do that.

Minister of State at the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science (Deputy Niall Collins)

Amendment No. 913 seeks to remove the words "20 per cent" to "not less than 50" in section 224. As previously stated, any amendment to Part V policy risks delaying housing delivery as the sector comes to terms with its implications. With the Planning and Development Bill 1999, President McAleese referred Part V of the Bill to the Supreme Court for consideration of its compatibility with the Constitution. The court considered whether Part V restricted the rights of landowners and in its decision it applied what it described as a "test of proportionality", an approach generally taken by the courts. To pass the proportionality test, the measures must, in the words of the court:

(a) be rationally connected to the objective and not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations;

(b) impair the right as little as possible; and

It is uncertain whether increasing the Part 7 requirement above 20% would pass the same proportionality test and legal advice would be needed. Furthermore, increasing the percentages could impact on the perceived viability of developing sites and risk the overall supply of housing. On that basis, we are not accepting this amendment.

Section 219(11) allows a local authority to have more than 20%, as the Deputy knows, and the LDA goes up to 100%.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

My amendment would make it an obligation. The Minister of State is saying that local authorities or the LDA higher can go higher; I am saying they must. The amendment would make it a requirement that they go higher and that it goes up to 50%.

It is interesting the constitutional issue has raised its head in this debate. One of the demands of Raise the Roof, which has been a long-standing demand of many of us in this House and of the housing movement, is that we need a constitutional amendment referendum on the right to housing precisely to address this issue. Legal opinion is divided on this but most constitutional legal experts will say there is no barrier, legally, to doing things because it does meet the rational objective, which is the provision of social and affordable housing which society needs and that is the definition, surely, of the common good as set out in the Constitution. What the Constitution currently says, which some of these far-right nut jobs do not seem to understand, is that it delimits the right to private property on the grounds of the common good, and it does so all the time. The idea that such a right would run foul of existing constitutional provisions is doubtful, in my opinion. That has been cited many times by the Government before doing things which did not require a referendum. The Government brought in RPZs and other measures which when they had been argued for previously were deemed to run foul of the Constitution but then it turned out they did not do so. Frankly, that is a bit spurious. Even if it was a barrier, however, then it should be combined. Let us remember the Government has committed to having a referendum on housing. That referendum should ensure that the State has the capacity to meet the common good and there could be no clearer definition of the common good than the provision of social and affordable housing for the people of this country.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

It is a very selective set of quotations from the court judgment. It is one of the only court judgments we have had looking at the issue of property rights and how they interact with the State’s policy attempts to meet housing need. It is also an incredibly progressive decision. One of the points that Dr. Rachael Walsh, one of the country’s leading constitutional law experts, argues is that if governments were brave enough to introduce other measures such as Part V and they could be challenged in the courts, there is a likelihood that the courts would uphold Government decisions, as was the case with Part V. It is also important that section of the Act was referred to the courts by the Government to ensure its constitutionality. Even it was not fully aware of it at the time. I would take a very different read of the judgment. Having said that, one could argue that up to 50%, rather than a minimum, might be constitutionally more sound. The principle, however, that in a much deeper housing crisis today than we had in 1999 when the legislation was first passed by the Oireachtas, there would be a constitutional difficulty with moving beyond 20% does not stand. Ultimately, however, a Government could test that in the courts rather than hide behind what is, in my view, a poor interpretation of the judgment.

The second thing is viability. This is one of the greatest canards in the whole debate. Part V actually reduces the market value of the land. As a consequence of reducing the market value of the land, it makes the developments more viable. As the Minister of State will know from his own experience, for the portion of the development which is purchased under Part V, the land value is the existing-use value. Over time, one of the good values of Part V is that it moderates land values. If the Government were to increase, whether through a mandatory minimum or up to Part V to 25% or 30%, over the medium to long term it would make projects more viable.

The other interesting thing is that increasingly developers are proactively looking to sell at least 30% of developments to local authorities and approved housing bodies. Again, that is particularly the case in Dublin and the commuter belt. The problem is when the local authority or the AHB comes to buy them, they get a better discount for the Part Vs than they do for the turnkeys. At a time when interest rates have put a level of pause on institutional investment for purchases and the State is now expected by developers to pick up the slack and buy the units, would it not make more sense to ensure that you get the Part V discount for those? Where you do not get that discount, you pay significantly more. I know the Minister of State is not accepting the amendment but when I hear some of the amendments put forward - I appreciate the Minister of State is just reading a brief given to him by another Department - those arguments do not stand up to the empirical reality out there. I do not expect that will change the mind of the Minister of State or that of his officials in terms of the amendment.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Without repeating the extensive debate we had previously, I assume in the Minister of State's response we are going to be told that these are matters for building control rather than for the housing strategy. All I would say to the Minister of State, and through him to his officials, is that at some point this is going to have to happen. At some point, if we are to meet our embodied carbon emissions reductions targets, there will need to be an element of planning, plan making and housing strategising that looks at the level of embodied carbon in the built environment. It will not just be a matter for building control. I want to say that because if the officials with the Minister of State are here when that happens, I will be reminding them that we could have done it at an early stage. It is deeply disappointing and frustrating that we are not getting anything on embodied carbon in the built environment in this Bill, and I look forward to when the officials bring back, at a later stage, amending legislation to do the thing we could have done this time around because 2030 is only around the corner. This is such an important thing to do. It is one of the easiest things to do with regard to climate. It is far less politically contentious.

I am not going to look for a follow-up. I trust the Minister of State will read his note eloquently but this issue is not going away folks, and we need to deal with it at some stage.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Briefly, I want to strongly support these amendments. They are incredibly important. We are at a time when huge asks are being made of a lot of people with regard to climate change. For us to effectively not make similar asks of developers is completely inequitable, when you think of what other sectors are doing. The built environment is one of the biggest contributors to our carbon emissions, so this needs to be done as quickly as possible. It is deeply unfair that other sectors have their shoulders to the wheel, and the built environment, in respect of whole-of-life carbon, is not being asked to contribute at all at the moment.

Deputy Niall Collins

Amendments Nos. 902 and 904 from Deputy Duffy seek to add reference to the "whole life carbon impact" of developments. As previously noted, with respect to whole-life carbon emissions, this is a complex area that is, from a data point of view, at an early stage of development, particularly when this is applied to a complex area such as the built environment. For example, matters not directly related to plan making such as the type of building material, its source, etc., would be required for whole-life carbon emissions to be calculated. Furthermore, issues such as the baseline for measurement are not fully defined.

However, we recognise the need to reduce carbon emissions. Development plan policy is one that takes a series of legitimate but disparate inputs that create a framework for that, promote sustainable development and take measures to reduce our carbon emissions, such as promoting compact urban growth. In view of this, I consider that the Bill as drafted is reasonable, balanced and sets a framework to proactively reduce our carbon emissions.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Minister of State. We had a good long discussion about this on a previous section as well. We covered a lot of that. Is amendment No. 906, in the name of Deputy O'Callaghan, a standalone amendment?

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 906 is standalone, and inserts, on page 405, the following wording:

A Housing Strategy shall include—

(a) an estimate of the amount of land that the local authority will need to acquire through compulsory purchase orders or other means to meet future housing needs as estimated in the housing strategy and to ensure that land is available at affordable prices for housing development of all tenures and types, and

(b) targets and timelines for the acquisition of land to meet housing need as identified in the housing strategy.”.

This amendment is, in effect, to give effect to the Kenny report that was published more than 50 years ago. If the recommendations of the Kenny report had been implemented more than 50 years ago, we would not be in the situation we are in with the current housing crisis. What the amendment seeks to do is to not just identify in the housing strategy what housing is needed but for the local authority to be proactive in assembling the land required to meet those housing needs.

Section 377 of the Bill, which is on land acquisition, allows local authorities to CPO land to give effect to or facilitate the implementation of its development plan or housing strategy, so it is a very good section of the Bill. However, without there being an obligation on the local authority to identify the housing strategy and how much land is needed, and without it setting out targets and timelines for acquiring that land to meet housing need as identified in the housing strategy, we are not going to get implementation of the Kenny report as I think we need. In effect, what happens is the current situation where you will have the housing strategy identifying what is needed, and then you will have zonings and plans around it but it will effectively be up to the private market then to assemble the land and so forth.

I do not need to talk about the effects of the housing crisis but, with regard to leaving it to the private market to assemble the amount of land needed to ensure it is available at affordable prices for housing that is affordable, it is blatantly clear that is not happening. It has resulted in record numbers of people who are homeless and a huge amount of hardship, grief and stress for people.

I want to reference a couple of things on this. The ESRI, for example, has called for tighter regulation of the land market, and that it is needed to bring down house prices. Of course, this has not been done by the Government. There were comments published just over the weekend by the head of property and land development at the Land Development Agency saying that many private landowners are sitting on overpriced sites with unimplementable planning permissions. If we do not tackle the issue of land assembly, and tackle it on scale, we are not going to the level of affordable housing delivery that is needed.

Some think the Kenny report is some sort of massively radical plan that could not be implemented here. Of course, there has been work done since on constitutionality, etc., and there was the all-party Oireachtas group, which must be the best part of 20 years ago at this point, that recommended that the Kenny report be implemented, with a majority view that it was constitutional and so forth. However, this level of land assembly is standard practice in some other European countries. If you take the Netherlands, for example, local authorities are actively involved in assembling land and ensuring there is a continuous supply of land for all different types of housing. When you look at Germany, for example, local authorities have been very active in acquiring land and making it available for development. These are countries where the housing situation is significantly better than ours in terms of affordability.

Then, if you look at the programme for Government agreed between three parties, it commits to the Vienna model of housing. Of course, what do they do in Vienna? The municipality assembles land, buys it or CPOs it as agricultural land, effectively changes the zoning, and puts in all the services. We are talking Kenny report, except they have been doing that for the best part of 100 years in Vienna. If we had done this about 50 years ago when it was recommended in the Kenny report, we would not be in this situation. Housing is much more affordable in Vienna than it is in Ireland, on any proportionality basis that you look at.

If you look at land costs and how this is affecting housing affordability, the SCSI report estimates that land acquisition costs, in terms of any housing unit built, are at about 15%. Land costs are significantly more than that when you apportion margin and finance costs to it. That is, if you were to remove the 15% cost, you would actually make an affordability gain beyond 15% because it is not just the 15% handed over. There are the margin, risk and financing costs that apply to that 15%.

To give some examples in terms of land assembly costs, if we look at Marino, which was built as affordable-purchase housing 100 years ago, the land costs there were less than 4% of the unit cost for the delivery of a house. The land for the first phase of the Marino housing scheme, some 231 houses, was purchased at a cost of £4,794, which worked out at little more than £20 per house. The houses themselves were completed for £589 each.

If we turn then to look at what is happening with land acquisition now, the Housing Agency, for example, has given figures for the land acquisition fund. It bought a site in Rathbeale in Swords for €20 million for 500 affordable homes, which works out at a cost of €40,000 per home in terms of land acquisition costs. Media reports concerning a site in Malahide, with planning permission for 47 homes, referred to it being sold on the private market. The site cost per home was €186,000. This is certainly at the upper end of things, but it shows some of the major problems we have in this area.

There is a strong and compelling case, therefore, for the State and local authorities to get involved in land acquisition. Not getting involved in land acquisition, as has been done successfully in other countries, has left this process to the private market and to speculation, which means there is a massive uplift and gain when someone buys up land and gets it rezoned. Very large windfalls are made from doing this. We spoke previously about issues in the Bill concerning public areas and amenities in new developments not being taken in charge, the delays in this regard and how these can go on for decades. Unfortunately, this is an area on which the Government has not accepted my amendments.

If the Minister of State were to accept this amendment, however, I could forgive him for not accepting my taking-in-charge amendments because we would not then have this problem. The local authority would buy up the land, and it could then put in the roads, footpaths and parks and sell on plots of land, some of which could be used for affordable housing and some for social housing, with some going to not-for-profit entities. The local authorities, in this approach, could then sell on plots to small builders or whomever. The plots will have been bought via a compulsory purchase order at existing-use land value, as is allowed under section 377 of the Bill concerning land acquisition. A margin can then be applied to the land and site costs to pay for the infrastructure needed for the paths, roads, parks, community facilities and so forth.

This would mean we would not need a taking-in-charge process because the infrastructure would be built before there are even any homes constructed, which, of course, is done in some countries. Imagine having this infrastructure in place before the houses are built, instead of our approach now, when some of the infrastructure and community facilities come in after kids that were not even born when their parents moved into a development have moved out having reached their 20s or 30s. This is the current situation. Quite frankly, it is outrageous. I, therefore, urge that this amendment be accepted, so we can just get on with providing a sufficient amount of land at affordable houses to allow us to have the affordable houses we need in well-planned communities with the requisite infrastructure and facilities in place up front, as was recommended more than 50 years ago in the Kenny report.

Deputy Niall Collins

On the last point, I think there are some examples across Dublin where local authorities have done just that in the context of public-private partnerships. Services were put in and the site made available after they had partnered up.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

It works very well when it is done, does it not?

Deputy Niall Collins

Yes, it does. In relation to the compulsory purchase order process, this is a process. The local authority cannot direct the valuation within the CPO process. This is an independent input, as the Deputy is aware. Whatever is being bought via a compulsory purchase order is being bought at market value. This must be borne in mind. Much of what the Deputy referred to is going to be the remit of the LDA. We think that section 377, as it stands, already in the Bill is pretty adequate in respect of where a local authority can CPO land for its housing strategy. We are not, therefore, accepting the Deputy's amendment.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Minister of State. Deputy Ó Broin does want to come in on this point as well, but does Deputy O'Callaghan want to contribute further?

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I will come in on this point and then Deputy Ó Broin can come in. I have not sought to amend and change section 377.

Deputy Niall Collins

Yes.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I am trying to build on section 377 and ensure this process is used, because it is rarely used now, as the Minister of State will know. The CPO powers in this section, which are similar to those in the existing legislation, allow local authorities to buy up land needed for housing. This is good. The problem is this power is not being used. What I am seeking to ensure, therefore, is that it is used. I am not seeking to have people's lands acquired by compulsory purchase order at discounts below market values. The Kenny report referred to the existing land-use value plus a margin of 25% as a means of compensation.

I am not proposing that there would be an uplift of 25% on the market value because I do not think there is a need for this. If the purchase price is at the full market value, why would there be a need to do this? What I am seeking, however, is a situation where local authorities and municipalities would be planning ahead. This approach would be preferable to the current process of rezoning land, thereby causing an individual landowner to benefit from a windfall overnight by virtue of a public action, which makes no sense. That landowner will not have done a thing to earn the huge increase in value resulting from the rezoning. It is quite unlike many other activities where people contribute a great deal. I refer to people running small businesses, for example. They put their blood, sweat and tears into any kind of profit they try to generate, as do their staff. It is not just the person running the business who is involved in generating the profit.

In respect of windfall profits generated from land rezonings, no effort is put in to achieve them. It results from a public planning function. We are relatively unique in this regard because we are one of the few countries that just gifts these windfalls to landowners in this fashion. I have given examples of other countries that do this very differently, where the public authorities buy up the land when it is in agricultural use, rezone it and then put in the infrastructure. All the public components that increase the value of the land are put in by the public authorities concerned. They ensure the costs in that regard are captured and not passed on to someone trying to buy a home. Any excess uplift funds, indeed, are then used to fund much-needed infrastructure and amenities.

Not only does this approach work, but the programme for Government praises it and cites where it is used in Vienna as a model we should be employing here. Vienna, of course, is probably one of the only cities in Europe that, apart from the period of the Nazi occupation, has had a council that has had almost 100 years of leadership by a social democrat party. Perhaps this situation is related to the fact that the city now has such affordable housing. There is also the fact that measures of this type are not only undertaken extensively but undertaken well.

The Minister of State has not said anything in this context. The only thing he has said that I agree with is that where this is done, where land is assembled by local authorities, it does work very well. The point, however, is that we should be doing this at scale. A local authority can assemble the required land that can then be sold on to the LDA, a not-for-profit housing body or whomever. It is not the case that the local authority must undertake the whole process. What is the point, though, in having the housing strategy but then not having the land needed to deliver it? We are, as a result, going to be caught for decades now with these great housing strategies, hopefully, if they are done right, but we are not going to meet the needs in the housing strategy if we are simply leaving the assembling of land to the luck of the private market. Adding insult to injury, then, is the fact that people trying to buy or rent homes will be paying a premium because some land speculator has been able to invest in land, buy it up when it was zoned as agricultural land and then get it rezoned. Some such speculators sit on the land for years during this process.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I will make three very short points. First, CPO does not work insofar as it takes too long and is too expensive. There is no legal or constitutional reason compensation should require market value, especially when there is such a gap between the existing-use value and the market value. One of the reasons our local authorities are less likely to CPO land for housing is that it is prohibitively expensive. This is why two Law Reform Commission reports have strongly recommended reform in this area, among other things.

My second point is that the LDA cannot do active land management. It has said this itself. The officials on either side of the Minister of State know this. When the agency published its significant report, the point was repeatedly made that, because the body does not have comprehensive CPO powers, it has no negotiating power when it goes to State agencies to engage with them. Other than land voluntarily provided to the LDA, the agency has been singularly unsuccessful in acquiring State lands, which, of course, under the provisions of the Land Development Agency Act 2021, it can acquire at discount values, depending on whether the land is intended for social or affordable housing. The agency is now being forced into looking at market-value land. It is a completely crazy situation.

For me, there was a really disappointing aspect to this situation.

We saw a glimmer of hope on this front when the urban development zone general scheme was introduced. That, for the first time, had a provision – the Chair will remember this – where, within a UDZ, if a landowner was not activating their land, the local authority could step in and acquire it at a discount, the discount being the difference between its value and the amount payable under the land value sharing tax. Unfortunately, that has been shelved so we do not have movement on it. Given that Part V allows the State, under certain circumstances, to acquire land at existing use value, I do not understand why at some point somebody does not say that where a landowner who has residential zoning is not activating that land for no explicable reason, then the State should step in and give them an ultimatum to either develop the land or the State will go to the court and apply under a designated site scheme as per the Kenny report to acquire it at existing use value. We are not denying anybody their constitutional rights because we are giving the choice to develop the land for which they got zoning and, if not, the State will not pay them any more than its existing use value. That would be the sensible way to proceed. If that were done - in some sense, this is the spirit of Deputy O’Callaghan’s amendment – either you would get lots of land activated by the owners for fear of losing profitability by having to sell it at existing use value or you would get the land at a discounted price and you could develop it. Such legislation, not unlike the Planning and Development Act and Part V, would have to be referred to the President, who would refer to the Council of the State which would refer to the Supreme Court. That is not a bad thing because that would mean it would be constitutionally tested at the highest possible threshold.

The answers the Minister of State gave do not deal with the core issue, which is that we have lots of land with the gift of residential zoning that is not being developed, but the State does have a viable mechanism to access it. On that basis, I am happy to support Deputy O’Callaghan’s amendment.

Deputy Niall Collins

I have two points. The Law Reform Commission has prepared a report on CPO reform and the Government is committed to reviewing it and bringing forward legislation if needed, which would include changes to the CPO process in planning. In addition, a land value sharing Bill is being prepared and it will come forward as a stand-alone Bill.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I suspect after the local elections, but that is another day's argument.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

A huge amount of work was done on the Law Reform Commission report on CPO reform. I appreciate there is some additional work to be done at Department level or at the Minister of State’s end. However, given the amount of work that was done on it, why was that not incorporated into the Bill?

Deputy Niall Collins

It is dealing with the valuation side and the process side. It is looking at both legs of the stool and, in time, it will come forward as stand-alone legislation to amend the planning Act.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

The amendment may have unintended consequences. Accordingly, it is prudent to retain the wording of the exemption at this time, particularly when certainty and stability in the Part V process is fundamental to achieving buy-in and delivery. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Deputy Niall Collins

We will check the original Act for the Deputy now.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Particularly in the Ringsend area, knowing the level of social housing, in granting permission for 14 storeys and 35 apartments, which is obviously less than what was sought, I would be genuinely surprised if Dublin City Council would not have sought the 10% Part V which would have been required given when the land was acquired.

Deputy Niall Collins

Section 97(3) of the 2000 Act states:

(3) A person may, before applying for permission in respect of a development—

(a) consisting of the provision of 4 or fewer houses, or

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

Níl

Collins, Niall.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 894:

In page 403, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

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

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

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.

Tá

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

Níl

Collins, Niall.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 895:

In page 403, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

“(b) the Local Authority’s own Housing Needs Demand Assessment and any other data that may be available and in the view of the planning authority may be relevant to ensure the housing need assessment is based on the most up to date and detailed data available,”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.

Tá

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

Níl

Collins, Niall.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.

Amendment declared lost.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 896 is in the name of Deputy Boyd Barrett. There is nobody to move the amendment so it falls.

Amendment No. 896 not moved.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 897:

In page 404, to delete lines 7 and 8 and substitute the following:

“(f) the existing need and the likely future need, including houses, apartments and duplexes, for housing for purchase by intending owner-occupiers,”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.

Tá

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

Níl

Collins, Niall.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.

Amendment declared lost.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 898 is in my name. I withdraw it based on the clarification.

Amendment No. 898 not moved.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 899:

In page 404, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“(k) (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 need to protect 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 need to protect 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, 5.

Tá

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

Níl

Collins, Niall.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 900:

In page 404, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“(l) the distinct existing need, and likely future need, for housing, including social and affordable housing, for Irish speakers in Gaeltacht areas to ensure the viability of Irish as the spoken language of the community, and the need to mitigate the potential negative impact on the use of Irish in Gaeltacht areas as a result of poorly planned development that fails to take account of the sociolinguistic context,”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.

Tá

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

Níl

Collins, Niall.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 901:

In page 404, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“(l) any local demand outside Gaeltacht areas for dedicated housing, including social and affordable housing, for Irish speakers to live within a majority Irish-speaking neighbourhood or housing cluster within the area of the development plan, particularly within the vicinity of an Irish medium school, and the potential for such a community to compliment a designation as, or to develop into, an Irish Language Network under the Gaeltacht Act 2012,”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.

Tá

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

Níl

Collins, Niall.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 902:

In page 404, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

“(m) the whole life carbon impact of various types of housing developments.”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.

Tá

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

Níl

Collins, Niall.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 903 not moved.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 904:

In page 404, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

“(d) whole life carbon emissions associated with the development of under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c),”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.

Tá

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

Níl

Collins, Niall.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 905 not moved.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 906:

In page 405, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“(9) A Housing Strategy shall include—

(b) targets and timelines for the acquisition of land to meet housing need as identified in the housing strategy.”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.

Tá

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

Níl

Collins, Niall.
Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.

Amendment declared .

Amendment No. 907 not moved.

Deputy Niall Collins

I move amendment No. 908:

In page 405, after line 39, to insert the following:

“(12) A housing strategy within the meaning of Part V of the Act of 2000 included in a development plan under Part II of that Act and continued in force by virtue of section 66 shall, until the replacement of that development plan in accordance with Part 3, constitute the housing strategy of the planning authority in respect of whose functional area the development plan applies.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 909:

In page 405, after line 39, to insert the following:

“(12) A housing strategy shall provide that as a general policy at least 50 per cent of any new apartment developments shall be reserved for the provision of housing for purchase by owner-occupiers.

(13) Subsection (12) shall not operate to restrict any person (including a local authority) at its election from providing up to 100 per cent of housing in any development of the types which paragraphs (i) to (iii) of subsection (10) apply.

(14) Subsection (12) does not apply to a development consisting of student purpose accommodation.”.

Sitting suspended at 7.33 p.m. and resumed at 8.22 p.m.

An Cathaoirleach

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Ossian Smyth.

We were on amendment No. 909, on which a division had been requested.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.

Tá

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

Níl

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
Smyth, Ossian.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 910:

In page 405, after line 39, to insert the following:

“(12) Subsection (10) shall not operate to prevent the zoning of land for the particular use of providing affordable housing.”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.

Tá

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

Níl

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
Smyth, Ossian.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 219, as amended, agreed to.

Section 220 agreed to.

SECTION 221

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications (Deputy Ossian Smyth)

I move amendment No. 911:

In page 406, line 21, to delete “chapter” and substitute “Chapter”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Ossian Smyth

I move amendment No. 912:

In page 406, to delete lines 22 to 37, and in page 407, to delete lines 1 to 7 and substitute the following:

“ “certificate” has the meaning given to it by subsection (3) of section 231;

“existing use value”, in relation to the value of land on the date permission relating to the land is granted, means the value of the land calculated—

(a) by reference to its use immediately before the permission was granted, and

(b) as if, on and from the date of such grant, it would have been unlawful to carry out development in relation to that land other than exempted development;

“market value”—

(a) in relation to the value of a house on a particular date, means the price that the house would fetch if sold with good marketable title on the open market on that date, and

(b) in relation to the value of land other than a house in respect of which permission is granted, means the price that the land would have fetched if it had been sold with good marketable title on the open market immediately following the grant of the permission;

“net monetary value” means, where permission to which this Chapter applies is granted in relation to land, the market value of the land on the date of the grant less the existing use value of the land on that date;

“owner” means—

(a) a person, other than a mortgagee not in possession, who is for the time being entitled to dispose (whether in possession or reversion) of the fee simple of the land, or

(b) a person who, under a lease or agreement the unexpired term of which exceeds 5 years, holds or is entitled to the rents or profits of the land.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 221, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 222 and 223 agreed to.

SECTION 224

Amendments Nos. 913 to 917, inclusive, not moved.

Sections 225 to 230, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 231

Deputy Ossian Smyth

I move amendment No. 918:

In page 414, to delete line 1.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 919:

In page 414, to delete line 12.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Ossian Smyth

I move amendment No. 920:

In page 416, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

“(18) A certificate under section 97 of the Act of 2000 granted before the repeal of that section by section 6 shall have effect on and after that repeal as if granted under this section.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 231, as amended, agreed to.

Section 232 agreed to.

SECTION 233

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 921:

In page 417, after line 36 to insert the following:

“(2) Notwithstanding any other enactment, it shall be lawful and permissible for Údarás na Gaeltachta to carry out the functions of an approved housing body.”.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.

Tá

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

Níl

Duffy, Francis Noel.
Flaherty, Joe.
Matthews, Steven.
McAuliffe, Paul.
Smyth, Ossian.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 233 agreed to.

SECTION 234

Deputy Ossian Smyth

I move amendment No. 922:

In page 420, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

“(13) An agreement under section 47 of the Act of 2000 or section 38 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963 that was—

(a) made for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development of land, and

(b) in force immediately before the repeal of the said section 47 by section 6,

shall, on and after that repeal, be deemed to be an agreement made under this section, and accordingly this section shall apply to that agreement.

(14) An agreement under section 47 of the Act of 2000 or section 38 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963 that was—

(a) made for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development of a maritime site, and

(b) in force immediately before the repeal of the said section 47 by section 6,

shall, on and after that repeal, be deemed to be an agreement made under this section, and accordingly, for the purposes of the application of this section to that agreement—

(i) references in this section to land shall be construed as including references to a maritime site, and

(ii) references in this section to the land shall be construed as including references to the maritime site.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 234, as amended, agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

We are moving on to the next grouping. There are a number of amendments in this grouping, beginning with amendments Nos. 923 and 924 in my name. I will not move them as I understand what they mean now.

Amendments Nos. 923 and 924 not moved.

Deputy Ossian Smyth

I move amendment No. 925:

In page 422, lines 26 to 28, to delete all words from and including “unless” in line 26 down to and including “notice” in line 28.

An Cathaoirleach

I did not move amendment No. 924 but I ask the Minister of State to read the response to it, if possible.

Deputy Ossian Smyth

Amendment No. 924 sought to amend section 235(4)(b)(i), which relates to notices requiring "the demolition, removal, alteration or replacement of any structure" by also requiring the “restoration” of such a structure. The function of this section is to remove or discontinue a use or structure. The level and requirement to restore land on foot of a notice under this section is one that should be made on a case-by-case basis. I am happy that given the function of this section, which is a serious and exceptional act, it is appropriately drafted. Therefore, I had not intended to accept the amendment.

An Cathaoirleach

I accept that. I thank the Minister of State.

Deputy Ossian Smyth

An Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 941 is solely in-----

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I am talking about amendment No. 945. It is a similar amendment to two other amendments in this grouping. Briefly, the intention of amendment No. 941 is to ensure public access to areas of beauty. It should be within the remit of the planning authority to vindicate rights of way or establish new rights of way. That could help. As the Minister of State can see, amendment No. 941 states:

It shall be the duty of a planning authority to vindicate public rights of way where they exist, and to work to establish rights of way, where possible, to advance the right of people to access any monument, seashore, mountain, lakeshore, riverbank or other place of cultural or natural heritage, natural beauty or recreational utility.

Deputy Ossian Smyth

Amendment No. 941 seeks to amend the right of way procedures in section 246. It states:

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

On the matter of vindication, which is not a function of Tailte Éireann, where does it rest if there are issues or challenges with rights of way?

Deputy Ossian Smyth

The idea is that the local authority identifies existing rights of way that are well grounded, which probably means registered with Tailte Éireann, or else that are long held. Those rights of way may not be fully public and may be restricted in some way, such as for the purpose of moving cattle from one place to another. The provision in the legislation refers to the process of the local authority in identifying existing rights of way and mapping them in its county development plan. The other sections referred to are for the creation of new rights of way, whether through agreement or by means of compulsory purchase.

They have been very frequently used. They have been found to be-----

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

The Bill allows for the strategy of conservation of natural and built heritage and allows for having architectural conservation areas.

Amendment No. 946 is in my name. I will withdraw when the time comes because I do not think it is necessary.

It is now 9 p.m. I propose that we meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow and deal with amendments Nos. 933 to 939, inclusive, which are in my name and which we skipped over, and the four ministerial amendments after that. I thank the Minister of State for attending.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The select committee adjourned at 9.02 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 18 April 2024.

Select Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage debate - Wednesday, 17 Apr 2024

Planning and Development Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Tá

Níl

Select Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage debate -
Wednesday, 17 Apr 2024