James Browne
Wexford · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“I cannot accept amendments Nos. 10 and 11. The interpretation of "lawfully resident" and "habitually resident" is construed in accordance with section 20A, which sets out the new residency requirements for social housing applicants.”
“The safety net provision is to be provided by the local authority on a night-to-night basis, and this is to allow local authorities to reassess the circumstances each day to determine whether the safety net should still be provided.”
“I cannot accept amendment No. 21. This amendment proposes the introduction of a social housing passport allowing households to transfer between local authority areas while retaining their original waiting list or transfer list position. The amendment as it stands is well-intentioned.”
“No one factor is intended to be decisive and it is not necessary for a person to score strongly on all five factors outlined in section 20A(7) in order to get a positive decision. However, the local authority decision-maker must be confident that there is strong evidence that it is the applicant's main centre of interest.”
“In relation to Senator McCarthy’s amendment, while it was a very well intentioned and constructed amendment, it has been disallowed. It was not my decision on those matters. I am satisfied the safeguards and safety net are there for those who are not entitled by way of legal or habitual residence.”
“In practical terms, if an Irish citizen has severed ties abroad and has decided to return home, the process of establishing habitual residency could be determined from day one.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,384 lines we hold for James Browne, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 19 of 28.
“24 seeks to include a requirement that applications for certificates under section 44B be notified to the public by way of a site notice. The proposed section 44B(13) would enable the Minister to make regulations for the purposes of this section. Where it is determined that a site notice is required, such a requirement will be introduced by regulations made under subsection (13) as is the case under the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. The amendment further proposes that the relevant authority must provide for public participation in the certification process by inviting written submissions from interested persons or organisations and the relevant authority must also have regard to those submissions when issuing a certificate under the proposed section 44B.”
“There is significant mixed tenure in these guidelines for apartments but we will not get any two-beds, three-beds and four-beds unless we make an adjustment so we can amend the viability of the apartment blocks to get them built so people can have those homes to live in. I will address amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 24, which concern the modification of a permission for residential development. Seanad mendment No. 24 proposes to introduce a new section 44B into the Act of 2000 providing a certification procedure for modifications to planning permissions for residential development which are in line with certain specific planning policy requirements contained in the recently published Planning Design Standards for Apartments, Guidelines for Planning Authorities 2025. Amendment No. 1 to amendment No.”
“Cultural spaces in the Dublin City Council development plan were mentioned. This Government and the previous one significantly funded community, cultural and sports places. There has been record funding for all those areas and we will continue to do that but the way to provide cultural spaces is not by way of a levy on developers building apartments who end up pushing that on to the purchasers and driving up the price of apartments. That is not the way to deliver cultural spaces. When I am doing this, I am thinking of those people who need homes to live in. Nobody can live in high-spec, high-design apartments that never leave the blueprints or drawings and that is what I am addressing here. I am very ambitious to address it.”
“We are making radical decisions to get people out of box rooms, to get viability and to get properties built across this country. We know we have a crisis. I am treating it as an emergency. If we do not take radical measures and do so quickly, we will not get the apartments in Dublin city and across this country. That is why we are bringing forward these measures to address the issue of viability in terms of these apartments. People will decide whether they want to buy them. In terms of judicial reviews, we have a very open court system. Anyone can take pretty much any action he or she wants. How far he or she gets is a different matter. These amendments were considered by the Attorney General and we have the Attorney General's advice. I would not be doing it otherwise. We are satisfied that these are constitutionally robust amendments.”
“We will always keep these things under review and monitored. In relation to this, I do not see any risk of speculation. There are strict time-bound limits in there. I think those are sufficient to ensure commencements are carried out.”
“In regard to ensuring the extensions are not sought for speculative purposes, the extension of duration provisions are time-bound and cease to have effect if the development has not commenced within 18 months of the coming into operation of the provision. The fact the extension ceases to have operation or effect if the development is not commenced should deter speculative applications. In regard to detailing the numbers who avail of such an extension, section 42(5) of the 2000 Act already provides that the details of any extension of duration are entered onto the planning register. In the circumstances, I am not minded to accept the amendments.”
“The RZLT is resulting in more land transfers. I am very satisfied of that. It has a cumulative effect. As time goes on, we will see an increasing rate of transfers as a result of the 3% year on year. It only commenced its application this year and there is a review to be carried out each year. In relation to the amendments, I am satisfied the timelines strike the necessary balance. On viability assessments, the planning and development regulations set out detailed requirements and I am satisfied they are sufficient.”
“Article 42 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 provides that applications for extensions of duration should be accompanied by, among other things, particulars of the works which are proposed to be carried out pursuant to the permission during the period by which the permission is sought to be extended; the date or projected date of commencement of the development to which the permission relates; the period by which the permission is sought to be extended; and the date upon which the development is expected to be completed. I am satisfied that these requirements are sufficient and it is appropriate that such matters are set out in regulations rather than primary legislation. Prior to commencing this provision, these regulations will be reviewed and will be updated, if needed, to reflect this provision.”
“If a person applies for and is granted an extension six months after these provisions come into effect, they will have only the remaining 12 months to commence work before the extension ceases to have effect. I am satisfied these timeframes are appropriate and therefore cannot accept these amendments. Amendment No. 11 seeks to provides that, as part of an application for an extension of duration, the applicant shall submit a viability assessment and a detailed schedule of works. I cannot accept this amendment as there are already regulations associated with section 42 of the 2000 Act which deal with some of these issues.”
“It is therefore not possible that developments should be commenced within six months of the coming into operation of the provision. The Bill sets out that the applications for extension of duration may only be made within six months of the coming into operation of the provision. Further works must commence within 18 months of that coming into operation; otherwise, the extension will cease to have effect. These time periods run concurrently; for example, if a person applies for and is granted an extension within the first month of the operation of the provision, they have 17 months to commence development before the extension ceases to have effect.”
“The five-year period is well established and, in general, strikes an appropriate balance between the length of the necessary construction period and the length a permission may be acted upon. I am satisfied five years continues to be appropriate with regard to extended durations of permission. Amendment No. 14 seeks to provide that development must commence within six months of the coming into operation of the provision on extension of permission, rather than the 18 months set out in the Bill. I cannot accept the amendment as it conflicts with the timeframe set out in the Bill. The Bill provides that applications for extension of duration may be sought within six months of the coming into operation of the provision.”
“Where a permission has two years or less remaining, there may be viability issues associated with the development in terms of putting the arrangements in place to commence and carry out substantial works in order to avail of a regular extension of duration. Allowing an application to be made when there is two years left of an uncommenced permission deals with these issues. Allowing applications for extension of duration for uncommenced housing developments in the final two years is appropriate as it will allow development sooner. If it were limited to the final year, the only option for developers at the moment would be to apply for a new permission if they could not meet the criteria for an extension. Amendment No. 13 seeks to reduce the overall extension of duration period from five years to three. I cannot accept the amendment.”
“Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 to 14, inclusive, seek to amend the timelines in section 16, which amends section 42 of the Act of 2000. Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 seek to provide that applications for extension of duration of uncommenced housing developments may only be made in the last year of permission remaining, rather than the last two years, as set out in the Bill. Existing planning regulations set out that an application for an extension of duration under section 42 of the 2000 Act may only be made in the final year as a development must have substantial works carried out. For uncommenced housing developments, it is appropriate to allow such applications in the final two years of a permission.”
“I am satisfied that the RZLT is a more appropriate measure than a use it or lose it principle. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.”
“This is a more appropriate legislative code for such matters, rather than planning legislation for dealing with it on a use-it-or-lose-it-type basis. The residential zoned land tax, RZLT, applies to lands zoned for residential development or for mixed-use purposes including residential development, which is either vacant or idle and which, in both cases, also has the necessary services in place to support the development of housing. The tax was introduced in the Finance Act 2021 and came into effect on 1 February 2025. The aim of this tax is to increase the supply of land for building by activating land which has been zoned in a statutory land use plan adopted by a local authority and which is also serviced. The tax will be charged at 3% of the market value of the land every year.”
“Under the Act of 2024, development must have commenced before an extension of duration can be sought. This is to encourage holders of permission to commence development as soon as possible. In the event that a holder of a development does not commence before the end of the duration of the permission, the permission will expire and a new application for permission will need to be made. This is appropriate as there may be valid reasons that are sometimes entirely outside of the control of the holder of a permission as to why a development does not proceed as intended. The Minister for Finance has already introduced legislation providing for the application of financial penalties for non-activation of zoned residential land.”
“Amendment No. 8 seeks to introduce a use it or lose it principle into the Act of 2024. The amendment itself does not appear to amend a specific section of the Act of 2024 or to outline any details or criteria concerning the timeframes to be specified for commencement or what penalties may be applied. While it is, of course, important that we encourage holders of permissions to commence development as soon as possible, I do not consider it appropriate to introduce a use it or lose it principle in this manner. The extension of the duration of permissions proposed in this Bill are time limited and restricted in that the development must commence within 18 months of the commencement of the legislation or the extension will cease to have effect.”
“I am very strongly of the view that the operation and procedures of the superior courts is a matter for the Judiciary of the superior courts. It would be inappropriate for the Oireachtas to set down statutory timelines for the courts. The courts need to be able to manage their lists in the manner they see fit. That is my personal opinion and my position as an officeholder.”
“The rules and procedures of the High Court are set out in the rules of the superior courts and these are made by the Superior Courts Rules Committee in concurrence with the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. If by good practice guidelines the Deputy is talking about practice directions, it is my understanding that these are issued by the President of the High Court under section 11 of the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020. Regardless of my views on the matter, the regulation and the operation of the High Court is a matter for the Judiciary.”
“19 seeks to provide that within three months of the passing of the enacted Bill, the Minister shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the compliance of all sections of this Act with the State's obligations under the Aarhus Convention and the environmental impact assessment directive. I am satisfied that the Bill is compliant with the Aarhus Convention and the EIA directive and, therefore, I cannot see the need to report on this matter in the manner suggested. As I outlined, I am satisfied that these provisions are in compliance with all international obligations, including the Aarhus Convention, and, therefore, I cannot accept the proposed amendments.”
“If an EIA or AA is required, under the Act of 2000 procedures, a new application for permission is required in respect of the development and thus any public notification or participation requirements are fulfilled. Under the Act of 2024, if an EIA or AA is required, there are procedures for a material extension of duration under Chapter 5 of Part 4 which include the public participation and notification procedures. In relation to the publication of notices, section 42(5) of the Act of 2000 already provides that the details of any extension of duration is entered on the planning register. Similarly, section 180(6) of the Act of 2024 provides that the details of the suspension of duration of a permission due to judicial review shall also be entered on the planning register. Amendment No.”
“At no point in the process does the role of the planning authority involve consideration or the making of a determination other than to ensure the notices provided to the planning authority are in accordance with section 180 and any associated regulations. It is for this reason I am not in a position to accept the proposed amendments. As a decision of a planning authority, beyond whether the criteria are met, does not form part of the process under section 180, public participation is neither necessary nor appropriate. It should be noted that the extensions of duration cannot be granted where the extension proposed would require an environmental impact assessment, EIA, or an appropriate assessment, AA.”
“If the criteria set out in legislation are met, the planning authority shall grant a suspension or extension. For example, under section 180 of the Act of 2024, a planning authority is notified in writing of the date of the commencement of judicial review proceedings by the person who is carrying out or proposes to carry out the relevant development. A second notice is subsequently issued when the judicial review proceedings are finally concluded and that notice must include the date that the proceedings concluded. The planning authority's role in the process set out under section 180 is primarily to enter the relevant details in the planning register.”
“I will address amendments Nos. 5, 15 and 19 together. These amendments relate to the Bill's compliance with the Aarhus Convention. Amendment No. 5 seeks to provide for third-party observations as part of the suspension of duration of a permission while it is subject to a judicial review by amending section 13. Amendment No. 15 seeks to make similar provisions for third-party observations as part of the extension of duration provisions in section 16. The criteria for the suspension of the duration of a permission while it is subject to judicial review proceedings and the extension of a duration of a permission are clearly set out in legislation and does not involve a decision of the planning authority beyond whether the specified criteria are met.”
“Section 180 deals exclusively with suspending the duration of a permission and puts obligations on a person seeking a suspension. As the section does not contain provisions relating to funding, and there is no other reference to or mention of a special purpose vehicle within the Act of 2024, I cannot accept the amendment. It would not be appropriate to seek account information as part of a request to suspend the duration of a permission. A test for whether a suspension of a duration is appropriate is already set out in legislation, as follows: was the development subject to a judicial review? Is the permission still active, that is, not expired? Were works carried out while the judicial review was ongoing? I am satisfied that these criteria are entirely appropriate and, therefore, for these reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.”
“The amendment seeks to amend section 13, which amends section 180 of the Act of 2024. In relation to the suspension of the duration of permission while a judicial review is ongoing, the current provisions provide that where a person is seeking a suspension of duration in respect of a concluded judicial review, they must submit a declaration that the development did not substantially commence before the conclusion of these proceedings. The amendment proposed by the Deputy seeks to provide that, in addition to that obligation, a contractor must publish an annual profit and loss account, an auditor’s report and a balance sheet to qualify to provide dwellings for the purchase of which funds may be made available by the special purpose vehicle.”
“I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I understand where both Deputies are coming from. Having examined it, there are some challenges around shortening the period. I understand the Deputies' intention. However, when we look at the necessity for bigger projects to secure finance, deal with compliance and complete the development, the five-year period is a more balanced approach to this. Then, obviously, with single one-off houses, those families need time to be able to complete those houses. In my view, the five years is appropriate. I can confirm for Deputy Ó Broin that the amendments will be published on Friday morning.”
“There is capacity under the existing legislation and the 2024 Act for longer timeframes to be granted in view of matters such as the size and complexity of a particular proposed development. For these reasons, unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.”
“I will address amendments Nos. 2 and 9 as tabled. Amendment No. 2 seeks to reduce the standard duration of a permission in the Act of 2024 from five years down to three years, while amendment No. 9 seeks to make the same amendment in respect of the 2000 Act. I cannot accept these amendments. The purpose of having a specified period for a planning permission to act upon is to balance the operational and practical aspects of construction with the need to bring certainty to the development process. The period for permission, which is generally five years, is well-established and in general strikes an appropriate balance between the length of period necessary for construction and the length of period a permission may be acted upon.”
“The housing strategy shall take account of the existing and likely future need for affordable housing, including for the purposes of the provision of social housing, while section 242(10) of the Act of 2024 provides that up to 20% of land used for residential purposes, including land that is not zoned for residential use or for a mixture of residential and other uses but in respect of which permission for the development for houses is granted, must be provided for social, affordable or cost-rental housing. Therefore, I am satisfied that the provisions regarding affordable housing under the Act of 2024 are appropriate and, therefore, I cannot accept this amendment.”
“Prior to making a development plan a planning authority shall prepare a housing strategy under Part 7 of the Act of 2024 for the purpose of ensuring that the corresponding housing development strategy makes adequate provision for the housing of the existing and future population of the area of the development plan in accordance with proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”
“Amendment No. 1 seeks to provide for the zoning of land for the particular use of affordable housing. The amendment itself appears to amend a wrong section of the Bill, as section 4 of the Bill amends section 45 of the principal Act, which deals with the implementation and monitoring of regional spatial and economic strategies. In any event, I cannot accept this amendment as zoning requirements are already adequately dealt with in the Act of 2024. Section 43 of the Act of 2024 outlines the content requirements of development plans. Section 43(6) of the Act provides that the written statement for the integrated overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area included in a development plan shall include zoning objectives for the zoning of land for a particular use or mixture of uses.”
“As mentioned, this Government is committed to ensuring that housing is delivered as quickly as possible. It is vitally important we do all we can to support the developments that already have planning permission. This is another timebound provision, in this case for two years only, to encourage the activation of existing permissions rather than developers having to seek a new permission in such cases. I thank all the Deputies for their engagement on this Bill. I look forward to discussing it again on Committee Stage.”
“The regulations provide that applications for extensions must be accompanied by information, including the date of the commencement of the development, the additional period required and the date works are expected to be completed. A number of queries were raised regarding Committee Stage amendments. These can be responded to as part of the Committee Stage discussions. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, outlined the amendments I intend to bring forward in the Seanad, most of which are of a technical nature and relate to transitional arrangements as we move from the 2000 Act to the new Act. In addition to these amendments, I will bring forward amendments relating to apartment guidelines. As the new guidelines were only published today, it was not possible to include them in the published Bill.”
“I will address some specific issues that were raised. The new apartment guidelines can apply to applications for permission that are not yet decided through use of further information requests. The Oireachtas joint committee briefing requested can be facilitated. My officials will engage with the Chair of that committee to organise this. The pre-legislative scrutiny waiver was agreed by the Oireachtas joint committee, given the urgent need to progress this legislation. A number of Deputies sought more information on the extension of duration to be submitted with the request. There are existing regulations that support the extension of duration provisions, which will apply to this amendment.”
“However, it is important that the planning system remains agile and responsive to issues. It is for this reason I am introducing measures to clarify the transitional arrangements that the development plan variations commenced under the 2000 Act can continue under that Act when the relevant provisions of the 2024 Act are commenced, with a similar provision for the local area plans that have been commenced under the 2000 Act. This will ensure that following approval of the revised national planning framework of 2025, which will facilitate the delivery in excess of 50,000 additional new homes per annum, the updated housing requirements can be incorporated into the planning system as quickly as possible. Local authorities will be required to update their current development plans over the coming months.”
“The new measure being introduced will allow the holders of permissions under the 2000 Act to apply to a planning authority for the suspension of the permission for a period of a judicial review, if the judicial review is upheld. It provides that where a permission was or is subject to judicial review, the holder of the permission may seek a suspension of time for the period the judicial review was or is ongoing. Retrospective applications for a suspension of duration may be made in respect of active permissions where a judicial review has concluded, provided that the person applying declares that the development did not substantially commence while the judicial review was ongoing. As the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, mentioned, the implementation of the Planning and Development Act 2024 is a key priority for the Government.”
“The application for the extension must be made within six months of the commencement of the legislation and the development must commence within 18 months of the commencement of the legislation. In line with existing provisions, a further application for an extension of up to two years may be made once a development is substantially complete. This provision has a sunset clause, which will expire in October 2027. It is also important to note that an extension of duration may only be granted where an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment would not be required for the proposed extension of time. There is also evidence that a large number of permissions delayed due to judicial review proceedings now only have a limited time left.”
“On planning permission for residential development, however, there is evidence to suggest a significant number of planning permissions for housing are due to expire shortly that have not yet been commenced. While planning permission is an essential step in any project, there are other factors that may impact on the commencement of the project, such as the availability of development finance, market viability, infrastructure constraints or phasing. By allowing holders of permissions to apply before the commencement of the development, we will address the issue of permissions that do not have enough time left to commence and be substantially completed before applying for an extension, as is currently the requirement. I also note the measure being introduced is timebound.”
“I thank all Deputies for their engagement on this Stage of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2025. It is imperative that the Government takes all measures necessary to increase the supply of housing. Let me be clear that no single measure will solve the challenges we face on its own, but I firmly believe the combined effect of the measures being introduced through this Bill will have a significant and much-needed impact on the delivery of our housing supply. We all recognise it is important that developers use their permissions. Whether it is for housing or, for example, energy projects, to encourage developers to act quickly on their consents the Acts of 2024 provide that the duration can only be extended if the project has commenced.”
“Again, that is because we are not using modern methods of construction compared to other countries. We are behind the curve on this. The Minister of State and I are determined that we will catch up very quickly.”
“I agree. It is simply taking too long to get certification for the use of modular builds in this country. The Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, is engaging with his counterpart in the Department of enterprise. We are determined to get to a situation where we can get certification done at a much quicker pace. We need it done. We have an ageing workforce. It is getting more difficult to replace them. If we want to go from 30,000 houses a year to 60,000 houses a year, it has to be done using modern methods of construction. That is modular build. I was in Hong Kong in March. There, 45-storey apartment blocks are being built purely using modular. They can do it at an extraordinary pace. We need to do it. It is also about productivity. We have very low productivity in the building sector in Ireland.”
“One of the things the Government did today was to get agreement to end the four-stage process and reduce it to a single-stage process, but also to make it mandatory for local authorities to use a housing design manual from the Department of housing, which contains 60 designs. What that will also do is help those providing MMC across the country to know they can now scale up because there will be consistency of style specifications for the delivery of social housing throughout the country.”
“I fully agree with the Deputy that MMC is critical to housing delivery in this country. When modular units were first proposed for schools, for example, there was a little bit of pushback from school principals, who were concerned as many of them had grown up with very poor prefabs and perhaps they thought that was what was coming. I was chair of a school board of management at the time, and when the modular building arrived, we saw the high quality of the build. School principals then raced to get them because they could be got at such speed. A similar change of mindset is required for housing. It is the way forward. Our tradespeople are getting older and it is becoming more and more difficult to replace them, so if we want to build housing at scale, it must be done through modern methods of construction.”
“In terms of modular projects, Wexford County Council is progressing a pilot social housing project for 22 modular homes at a site in New Ross, with funding support from my Department, and that will present an opportunity to examine the potential of this type of MMC through this and other modular projects. I am keen to continue the progress the Government has made to date in encouraging the use of MMC and it will form an important aspect of the next housing plan.”
“We have already made a good deal of progress under Housing for All in terms of promoting the use of MMC in both public and private housing. We are supporting local authorities to adopt MMC in social and affordable housing, including through the publication of the 2023 roadmap for increased adoption of MMC in public housing and by providing real opportunities to deliver homes using MMC. For example, my Department has an accelerated delivery programme which will deliver more than 1,500 social homes through local authorities, all being built using modern methods of construction.”
“I thank Deputy O'Sullivan for raising this question about the encouragement of new technologies in the construction sector, including modular housing. I understand he has raised this issue on numerous occasions. The use of modern methods of construction, MMC, is a key policy measure to boost construction sector productivity and to support the scaling-up of delivery of new housing supply. MMC is a collective term which describes a number of innovative alternatives to traditional on-site construction methods. It does include 3D volumetric modules, which are commonly known as modular houses, but also includes a number of other systems, including 2D systems like timber frames, light-gauge steel or insulated concrete formwork, all of which have the potential to increase productivity in construction.”
“The Department has not received any formal submission on funding. We have been made aware that there is a funding issue and we are engaging with the local authority to see what is the best way forward to address it.”
“In total, the proposed mixed tenure development will comprise 181 affordable purchase homes and two community dwellings for people with disabilities, which are being delivered by the Land Development Agency, together with 69 social houses for older persons and a crèche to be delivered by Clúid AHB. I welcome Limerick's ambition in this regard. Limerick City and County Council has informally advised the Department that a funding shortfall of €5 million has been identified. It is understood that this funding requirement relates to the infrastructural realm. We will work with Limerick City and County Council to help meet its ambition.”
“Funding for the housing activation office will come under the national development plan, which is currently being agreed. Limerick City and County Council has received local infrastructure housing activation fund, LIHAF, funding for the delivery of the first two phases of a new distributor road at Mungret. LIHAF funding approval of €22.1 million was given, of which €6.6 million was funded by the Department and the balance by Limerick City and County Council. Both phases funded by LIHAF are now complete, with the second section of the road opening in April 2024. Up to the end of 2024, this road has allowed 203 homes to be delivered, including 99 cost-reduced units. Funding approval of more than €18 million is in place to support the delivery of 181 affordable purchase units by 2027 with the support of the affordable housing fund.”