Rory Hearne
Dublin North-West · Social Democrats · Ireland
“I thank you, a Leas Cheann-Comhairle, for your work and support during the year and thank all the staff here. I wish my colleagues in government the best of luck over the summer and respite from our robust engagement. We look forward to going at it again in the autumn.”
“The Dublin public will be very upset when they realise their fire fighters and emergency response service are at risk of being split and downgraded.”
“I thank the Labour Party for bringing forward this motion. It is important to have a discussion about the context of education costs and back-to-school costs. Of course, the context is massive inequality in this country.”
“However, what it is actually doing is throwing families into even more stress on top of not being able to pay the basic bills. In my constituency to respond and support families struggling with back-to-school costs, the Finglas voluntary food and family support service, Feed Our Homeless, last year organised help for families with a pop-u…”
“A second tier of child benefit would lift 55,000 children out of poverty but the Government will not do it. It costs the same as what it has given in tax breaks to developers, investor funds and large fast-food giants. Childhoods pass quickly. No child should have their future limited by poverty.”
“The Government is ramming through planning legislation this week that will exempt sheds out the back without proper scrutiny. It is satisfied with handing our young people to vulture landlords. The Government is now offering a future of renting a shed out the back with no rights whatsoever.”
The complete record
Every one of 986 lines we hold for Rory Hearne, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 20.
“Every act of this Government so far has, it states, been intended to try to increase supply. Where is the supply of affordable housing? Let us look at what is actually being proposed here. The size of units is being reduced. Windows, balconies and community facilities are being removed. I want to read into the record the assessment of the changes by the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland. That organisation, as I am sure the Minister is aware, is the body that registers architects and represents their views. As the organisation describes, it works across the full breadth of construction, playing a vital role in the public and private sectors.”
“They are a capitulation to the developer and investor lobby. I do not know whether the Minister believes in them, but they are shocking. It feels as if the young people who will have to live in these homes are not being considered or thought of. It is, in my estimation, purely about two things. Those are increasing the profitability for investors and developers and pushing up the Government's figures for the housing statistics. That is deeply cynical and disappointing. I contend that the Minister is playing politics with the homes that people will have to live in. I do not say that lightly Ramming through this legislation will mean that generations of Irish people will be paying high rents to live in dark shoeboxes. It is a failure of vision and ambition when we see what is happening here.”
“Where is the evidence that these regulations will lead to savings for those who are going to rent the homes or, although it is highly unlikely, buy such an apartment? No mechanism is set out by which this decision, which will allow developers or investor funds to add more units to a development, will present any reduction in rents or house prices, which is what we are trying to do. I will set out in detail what has been presented by those experts - not by me but by others who work directly in the field. Something that disappoints me deeply about these regulations is that there was no consultation with key stakeholders. Perhaps the Minister could correct the record if that is not the case. Those stakeholders include, in particular, architects and planners. I am deeply frustrated and annoyed by these regulations.”
“I have been deeply shocked by these regulations and these new standards the Minister is introducing. As an academic, I did research for years. One of the starting points of research, of course, is gathering evidence. Policy is supposed to be evidence-based. The evidence that has been presented to justify these decisions does not stack up. The Government has claimed it will lead to savings of €50,000 to €100,000 per unit. We have not seen what the LDA has set out but in the estimates set out by the Department of housing, those claims that €100,000 will be saved do not stack up. We have heard clearly from other experts in the private sector who say that those savings will not be made. One piece is completely missing.”
“It is clear that chronic underfunding, historic under-resourcing and, I would argue, a lack of commitment to a public dental care system and model, have resulted in this crisis. It has to be addressed. Children cannot be allowed to languish on waiting lists without access to appropriate healthcare or to suffer the pain and indignity of poor access to the dental care that should be available as a human right and a public need. It is the least we should be doing in a republic that is committed to cherishing all children of the nation equally.”
“In my constituency of Dublin North-West, the number of dentists contracted to the dental treatment service scheme in January 2024 was a shocking 31. Almost 20,000 children in Dublin North-West are being treated by 31 dentists. It is a simple and sad fact that these children will not receive the oral and dental care they need and deserve. Figures released by the HSE in February indicate that 6,289 children were registered as new patients for scheduled assessments Dublin North-West. This cohort is to be assessed by 31 dentists and is in addition to their current patients. Acute need for dental care impacts on vulnerable children and children with additional needs. Children with autism or special needs face extremely long waiting times as they often need more specialist care and there is no staffing capacity for it.”
“It is wrong that children should bear the cost and pain of inadequate public dental healthcare. As recently as 2023, 104,000 eligible schoolchildren were denied screening appointments by the HSE's dental service due to a shortage of public-only dentists employed by the executive. The Irish Dental Association has voiced serious concerns regarding access to dental care for children. There are two-year waiting lists for treatments requiring general anaesthetic, as my colleague Deputy Quaide outlined, with decisions having to be made on which children have the greatest need. This is a sanitised way of saying dentists are being forced to choose which children are in the most pain in order to treat them first.”
“Dental health and general health are not two separate things; they are intertwined. Unfortunately, as a result of the cost-of living-crisis, people have far less disposable income. The Irish League of Credit Union's annual back-to-school survey has found that one in three parents will get into debt to cover back-to-school costs. Along with covering rising rents and the rising cost of food, families have to consider whether they can afford to go to the dentist. What does this mean? It is an incredible decision when we think about it. Families have to decide whether or not they can bring their child to the dentist. They will put off this care. The child might be in pain but they put it off because they cannot afford it that week. Then it ends up being a much worse situation. Parents have to choose between food and going to the dentist.”
“A total of 65% of dentists have said that staff shortages impact on the care of their patients and their capacity to deal with emergency appointments. Delays in visits result in escalating need. Delayed intervention requires more intensive and emergency care, particularly for children. It is no different to early years intervention for additional needs in education. Dental intervention in children is key to preventing the much more expensive and traumatic procedures that must happen if we do not have proper preventative care and intervention. Dental care is an extreme financial burden on families. Children are suffering as a result of the lack of dental care. As I have said, oral healthcare is not a luxury; it is necessity. The current model of access denies children this necessary care.”
“People who need a tooth out are told it will take a certain amount of time. As a result, they have no choice but to go private. The cost of private dental care is astronomical. This is another part of the quasi-privatisation or outsourcing in our public services. It is deeply disappointing. The Social Democrats believe in a public universal health system under which people have access to dental care as a human right and a basic human need. Dental care is interconnected with so many aspects of our lives. The problems have been outlined, including underfunding, under-resourcing and understaffing. I want to speak about children and dental care. Since 2023, more than 100,000 children nationally have been missing dental checkups annually. Two thirds of posts advertised remain unfilled as the staffing crisis worsens.”
“I thank Deputy Stanley for tabling this motion on what is a very important issue. The public dental care service has declined significantly in recent decades. It is incredible how the idea of access to dental care is considered a luxury rather than a public service that should be universally available on the basis of need. It should not be about whether people can afford to pay. It is an incredible indictment of how we have developed our public services that areas such as dental care are not seen as core to the public health system. The Government can argue about the funding it has put in - and it will speak about that - but the reality for people is that trying to access dental care in the public system, including for an emergency, is extremely difficult. One of my children needed a tooth out.”
“Where will young people in our cities be able to have enough space to have a family when all that is built is one-bedroom apartments and studios? It is a cynical move, creating micro-units that will inflate the Government's delivery numbers so it can say it has met its housing targets, just like half its affordable home delivery this year has been vacant grants. Where is the evidence that the Government's new apartment guidelines will result in more affordable homes?”
“The Government's last action before the Dáil rises for the summer is to cook the books on affordable housing delivery and ram through new legislation to reduce apartment standards that will mean generations of Irish people will be forced to pay €3,000 a month rent to investor funds to live in dark shoeboxes. Once again, the Government is sacrificing renters to investor funds and developers, who are clearly the ones making the housing policies. The apartment reductions will result in delayed projects. Ultimately, they will result in the creation of modern-day tenements. No mix, just all high-density micro-unit misery, less light, less space and higher rents. We are likely to see to see more overcrowding and negative impacts on mental and physical health.”
“It is absolutely unacceptable that those who are fleeing violence are not being supported by the State to be able to leave situations of violence. The housing disaster is making Ireland less safe for those who are suffering domestic violence.”
“Those in domestic violence refuges are not counted in our official homelessness figures. They are hidden. They are not being considered sufficiently. When they are in hidden homelessness, they are absolutely not prioritised. We have a housing crisis that is worsening this crisis and epidemic of domestic violence. We need to see local authorities that are trauma-informed and that understand that this needs to be a priority. When families present to them as being homeless and coming from domestic violence, they need to be believed, rather than, as I have heard, instances where they are turned away and asked if they have somewhere to stay because the local authorities have no emergency accommodation available.”
“The connections between the housing crisis, homelessness and domestic violence have been shown over and over again. The state of the housing emergency is having direct impacts on women and their children being unable to flee situations of violence. Indeed, front-line domestic violence services repeatedly raise concerns that the housing crisis is forcing victims to either stay with the perpetrator or enter homelessness services because of the lack of appropriate supports. Then, these mothers decide that bringing their children into homelessness or inappropriate emergency accommodation would further traumatise the children, so they go into hidden homelessness. They become couch surfers and try to stay with families and friends, where they can, and they are not counted.”
“I back up what Deputy Ó Broin has said and ask the Minister to take this on board and give us detail in this regard in the coming years so we can understand what is going on in our housing system.”
“I am very conscious of time. I want to support this amendment and reiterate the deep concern we have been highlighting around the speculative development that is happening. It is very clear to anyone who studies the real estate and property market that there are actors in it who are not just about building homes. A part of real estate development is accumulating sites and planning permission in order to sell that on. That is a part of the real estate market internationally and it is very problematic because it does not give an indication, as was set out by Deputy Ó Broin, of whether planning permissions actually lead to the delivery and building of homes. In particular, the concern is that it will not tell us whether there will be homes built as a result of planning permission where this extension applies.”
“Will we see a situation where someone who has planning permission for ten years, obtained under the old Part V provisions when there was only a 10% social housing requirement, will now get an extension of three years but will not fall under the current 20% social and affordable housing requirement? Is this essentially facilitating developers to get out of obligations that have been changed?”
“Are we going to just facilitate this ongoing speculative approach to land development in the real estate sector? We are absolutely naive if we think this is not going on. The Government should introduce a serious use it or lose it clause that would have penalties and that would be set within a timeframe that is less than what is set out at the moment. This is a common-sense approach to avoid further delays. It would place an onus on developers to either get on with building or to sell the land to someone who would actually develop it rather than just sit on it.”
“First, it potentially rewards speculative development, whereby developers, land speculators and real estate investors simply sit on land for ten years without any real intention to build and without any penalty for not building. In many situations, we have land with planning permission on it which is essentially an asset that has a value. It can sit on real estate investors' or developers' books and be used as an asset. It can be used as leverage and then they sell it at a certain point, making a profit from the uplift on the value on it over time. If that is the case, then this is a giveaway to developers and speculators who have sat on land for a decade who now will get three more years. What happens in two years' time? Will there be another three-year extension? Is that possible?”
“I move amendment No. 8: In page 12, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “Construction within a specified timeframe 16 . In line with a use it or lose it principle, development must begin construction within a specified timeframe after receiving planning permission. Penalties for non-compliance will include the withdrawal of permission for the development.” This relates to the proposal in the Bill to extend planning permission for an additional three years. This is problematic because it could lead to a situation where someone who has had regular planning permission for five years and an additional five-year extension can now get a three-year extension on top of that. That is my understanding. Is that correct? My reading of it is that this is what the Bill could potentially enable. There are several problems with this.”
“In particular, in making changes that will enhance the profits of landowners and developers, we at least need to see the accounts of those who are developing land made public.”
“I move amendment No. 4: In page 10, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(d) A contractor must publish an annual profit and loss account, an auditor’s report, and a balance sheet in order to qualify to provide dwellings for the purchase of which funds may be made available by the special purpose vehicle.”. The amendment seeks transparency in relation to developers and builders who are going to benefit from an extension of planning permission. We need to see open books for developers and contractors because we do not know what is going on in terms of profit-taking. In the development of the property sector, there are major issues regarding the lack of awareness, knowledge and understanding of the level of profit-making that is going on.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 4, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following: “The written statement referred to in subsection (2) shall allow for the zoning of land for the particular use of providing affordable housing as defined in Parts 2 and 3 of the Affordable Housing Act 2021.”. My party colleague Deputy Cian O'Callaghan and I put forward this amendment. It is related to the approach of zoning affordable housing. It is done in Vienna to very good effect and we feel this should be introduced as a possibility for local authorities to perpetually ensure housing is affordable in certain areas.”
“It gives nice words and states it is taking action but we need to see real action for the people struggling, and for middle Ireland and working-class people, who are being absolutely gouged by these supermarkets and the big retail companies. I encourage the Minister of State to support our motion and take some real action on this.”
“When I spoke to her, she was at her third supermarket of the day, spending hours going from shop to shop to feed her family. This is unsustainable. The price gouging should not be tolerated when people are suffering and struggling to get by. I do my shop each week for three young kids and I see the large increase in the cost of trying to feed a family in this country. This is even more expensive for parents of children with disabilities, carers, lone parents and those in homelessness. It reveals the Government's lack of priority for working people and for most people. It is not willing to stand up to the supermarkets.”
“Working families are relying on food banks to survive to get through the week. I went outside SuperValu in Finglas this week and spoke to people about the cost of their grocery shop and the Social Democrats tabling the motion. One man told me he saw the price of a pack of six rashers increase by 75 cent in one jump. That is a 37.5% increase. The number of rashers per packet has also been reduced to five, so it is actually a 66% increase on a per rasher basis. This is shrinkflation, which is covering up the gougeflation done by supermarkets. Another woman advised me that she has seen the price of her shop increase weekly and that she is nervous going to the till, wondering whether she will be able to cover it. Another woman told me how she now splits her shop now across multiple supermarkets to find the cheapest possible product.”
“CSO figures published today show Ireland's national income rose by 4.8% last year and GDP rose by 7.4%. According to these fiscal indicators, Ireland is doing well, but in reality there are two Irelands. There are those who are doing okay, a minority, and there is the majority, who at some level are struggling in one way or another to cover the basic costs of living. In fact, even the concept of the cost of living is deeply disturbing. The basic costs to survive are now unaffordable for most people in this country. One third of parents have gone into arrears on energy bills and 28% state they do not have enough food to feed their children. A total of 12% use a food bank. Last week, I visited a food bank in Finglas run by Feed our Homeless. The group stated that the biggest growth in those who need its food is among working families.”
“The lack of staffing is clearly identified. The Minister of State identified in his statement the increase in complexity of need and number of referrals so clearly there is an increased need for staff. Existing staff cannot cope with that increase in either. References to workstreams, analysing capacity and aims of developing plans do not say recruitment of staff. I would like the Minister of State to address that in his response. What is the Department going to do to increase the number of staff so it can provide the services needed? Even producing these high-level waiting times does not address the other issue of people waiting six months, a year or two years. This issue, in a matter of weeks and months, has lifelong impacts on children.”
“I thank the Minister of State for that. I appreciate the Minister for Health, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, is responding by saying she will address this and take action. I am disappointed there was not a specific response to the constituency of Dublin North-West or the rationale for why that area in particular has such high lists. The Minister of State might take that back to the Minister to ask what specific interventions will be addressed for this in my constituency. Again, that length of time is truly shocking when we think that the child in question, who is waiting for responses and services, must have been two or three years of age and now would be 16 or 17 years of age. It is absolutely unacceptable. I did not hear or read in the response any increase in recruitment of staff. Again, this is a key issue.”
“What is he going to do to ensure these wait times are reduced and that children and their families have access to the primary care services they urgently need?”
“They are being denied the right to see therapists and get speech and language therapy, occupational therapy and psychological support when they need it most. The crisis is one of a lack of staffing. There is a number of reasons for this, particularly the HSE primary care strategy known as pay and numbers, as well as the recruitment embargo, but also issues with retaining and attracting staff and Dublin is a particular issue. We know the cost of housing is a major issue, but other issues raised with me by staff in these services include childcare and a lack of maternity care. We do not see staff being replaced. Will the Minister of State explain why the waiting lists for psychology and speech and language therapy in my constituency of Dublin North-West are the highest in the country?”
“One particular case in my constituency concerns a mother who contacted me about her young son. He received an autism diagnosis in April 2024 and the diagnosis report indicated that follow-on psychology, occupational therapy and speech therapy were required. When looking for these services, however, she has been left utterly heartbroken by the lack of availability of services. Over a year later, she has not been able to secure any therapy for her son, particularly occupational therapy, which she was advised he would need and from which he would really benefit. Like so many others, she has had to pay privately for speech and language therapy. Many children are being impacted by this in my constituency and across the country.”
“Everything we know about children and psychology is that early intervention is absolutely key. From speech and language to behaviour to dealing with trauma, early intervention in children is absolutely essential so they can develop and grow and reach their potential and the issue they face is addressed and does not leave lifelong impacts. I am not surprised by these figures because I have been contacted by many parents in my constituency who have children with additional and developmental needs. While working with them, they have told me they have been stuck on waiting lists for primary care supports, therapies and interventions. They have told me about the stress and anguish they face, their frustration and experience and the negative impact on their children of being unable to get the vital services they need.”
“The figures released by the HSE this week to my colleague, Deputy Quaide, reveal a truly shocking level of waiting times for essential primary care services for children. My constituency of Dublin North-West has recorded the longest waiting time in the country for psychology services for a child, with one waiting 706 weeks, or 13 and a half years, for psychological care. I cannot understand how a child whose parent probably contacted the HSE and was probably referred by a GP in need of psychological supports, be that for mental health trauma or developmental need for intervention, has been left waiting for 13 and a half years for that support from the State. The longest wait time in the country for speech and language therapy is over six years, or 313 weeks, also in my constituency of Dublin North-West. What is going on here?”
“There is a complete lack of investment in our public sector's capacity to deliver housing. We need a step change. We need to do what we do in health and education and have the State provide public housing through building and financing, particularly through the homes for Ireland State savings scheme, which I have mentioned. Such a scheme would channel the €160 billion in bank accounts into this area. It would not be an SSIA scheme, despite how the Taoiseach and Minister have completely misunderstood our proposal. It would be similar to the Livret A scheme in France. It would channel deposits to provide funding for social and affordable housing delivery on a long-term basis. That solution should be taken up.”
“What an absolute shambles of a decision it was to withdraw those public-private partnerships without considering the potential for legal challenge. I assume that was not considered because, if it was, it will have to come out someday that the Minister made the decision to cut those projects knowing that it could potentially be subject to a legal challenge. Whether that was considered will have to come out. Either way, it is a scandal. It shows the complete disconnect from the need for social housing in communities like those of Ballymun, Wicklow, Sligo and Kildare that the Minister would play with these decisions because he might be brought before the Committee of Public Accounts at some point. It was a bad decision. It is clearly an absolute mess as regards these social housing projects. It also sets us up for future problems.”
“It will not be able to go forward with public contracts if legal proceedings are ongoing so not only do Dublin City Council and the local authorities in counties Wicklow, Sligo and Kildare, where these 500 social homes were going to be developed with works ready to begin on site, have to figure out ways to deliver these projects - direct build is the obvious choice and what should be done - but they also will not be able to go to public tender until the legal situation is clarified. This legal situation could drag on for months. We do not know. It could drag on for years. What is it going to cost the State? A decision that was made on the basis of value for money because these projects cost too much is going to end up costing significantly more. Building costs are going to increase so the projects are going to cost more anyway.”
“He had to know there would be judicial proceedings as a result of that decision. If he did not know, his officials need to be brought in. I cannot believe a Minister for housing with a legal background did not consider that there would be a judicial challenge to a decision to withdraw projects at the last minute when a preferred bidder had been selected. It is beyond belief. The State has spent €8 million on these projects. It is likely to cost significantly more if this judicial challenge is successful. On top of that, these projects, which were going to deliver 500 social homes, are going to be delayed as a result. There is no doubt about that. Dublin City Council has made it clear that there will be significant delays with these projects.”
“Local authorities need to be given the capacity to deliver social housing on a significant scale and, importantly, to deliver affordable housing for rent and for purchase. I will turn briefly to my constituency. In areas of Dublin North-West plans for housing, including social housing, are being withdrawn or ripped up. I refer here to public-private partnership, PPP, housing projects. It is absolutely scandalous that we are now seeing a judicial challenge to those projects. It is so frustrating. The language I want to use is not language I should use in this House but this is a complete shitshow as regards housing. The public-private partnerships were in place, were going to deliver and were going to start on sites weeks ago but the Minister decided to pull these projects.”
“Councils up and down the country built homes that working people could afford to live in, rent or buy but under Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael we have had decades of the State moving away from the delivery of housing. This is the fundamental core of our problem. While the Government says it is returning the delivery of social housing to local authorities, the majority of the social housing being delivered is not actually being built or delivered by local authorities or not-for-profit housing bodies. It is being bought from the market. It is being bought from developers as turnkey housing or being leased. This is not increasing the capacity of local authorities or not-for-profit housing bodies to deliver housing.”
“That would mean genuinely affordable homes could be built on specific areas of lands and in those areas, we would essentially be keeping housing affordable in perpetuity and not allowing future speculation on that housing or land. This is something that should be introduced. The Government is using this Bill, the shambolic rent changes legislation and the deregulation that it is now talking about in relation to apartment standards to deflect from its own failures. Ultimately, that is what this is about. These failures are the housing policies of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael for over 40 years, which has seen the State moving away from the delivery of housing.”
“Creating a zoning for affordable housing would mean that only genuinely affordable homes could be built on specific areas of land. For example, if industrial land was zoned for affordable housing, a maximum price per square metre would be set on the homes built on that land. This would ensure that these homes remain affordable for future generations, even when the initial occupiers have moved on. What is really frustrating is that the Government says the Opposition does not provide any solutions or alternatives and that all we do is criticise but here is one very specific measure, the introduction of a specific zoning for affordable housing, that would ensure permanent housing affordability is introduced into certain areas, as is done in Vienna.”
“The amendment represents a step towards greater accountability and could impact land hoarding and speculation, which we know is ongoing in our housing market. It would be completely naive to think that developers and those who own land, including land with planning permission already on it, are building on the basis of providing housing that is actually affordable; they are not. Their aim is to maximise the return from their sites and land and this is speculative development. We should not have financial penalties under this Bill. My final amendment relates to zoning for affordable housing. This is a key feature of housing delivery in Vienna. This is a model that the Government has cited as an inspiration in the past but it does not seem intent on implementing any measures that would emulate the Vienna housing model.”
“The level to which private developers and institutional investors are, and continue to be, subsidised by the State is really astounding. I refer to the croí cónaithe scheme and housing assistance payment. Now we have reports of developers gaming the system by circumventing the value limits of the help to buy scheme. There needs to be proper oversight of developers in receipt of State subsidies and that is why I tabled this amendment. It aims to increase transparency around profits made by property developers who receive State subsidies. The amendment would require these developers to publish annual financial statements and this would apply to developers benefiting from schemes such as the shared equity scheme.”
“This is additional time during which they can watch rents rise higher and land prices increase and they can sell these sites with the planning permission extended. By extending the planning permission time, the Government is essentially promoting further speculative development. This is the fundamental problem with the housing policy that has been delivered in this country for years, which is based on speculative development. We do not have the development of affordable housing; rather, there is speculative development. Huge numbers of planning permits exist but the land is not being built on. Where is the approach that will deliver more affordable housing? The second amendment I tabled relates to the profits being made by developers.”
“Under this Bill, and the Minister or Minister of State might correct me if I am wrong, the maximum duration proposed is ten years, with a further extension. The Minister of State is indicating that is not the case and I look forward to clarification on that. Is there a bonus extension of three years if a developer decides to sit on the site? I ask the Minister of State to clarify what the developer will get under the proposed changes. I also ask him to respond on the use it or lose it measures. Did the Government consider these? If not, will it consider them? The Government is adding an extension to planning permission but has it explored the possibility of going for use it or lose it measures? It is as if the Government is telling people not to use their planning permission. Essentially it is giving them additional time but for what?”
“The policies make private, build-to-rent property accommodation even more profitable so rather than building homes for sale at affordable prices, land will be bought up, planning permission will be granted on it and what we will see is more investor-funded, build-to-rent accommodation, if it is built at all. It certainly will not lead to increased home ownership or to reduced rents. I submitted three amendments to the Bill on behalf of the Social Democrats. They seek to create a specified zoning for affordable housing and to create a use or lose it clause for planning permission. Regarding the three-year extension that will be added on to planning permission, I want to clarify the current position. Currently, planning permission is valid for ten years and then an extension for another ten years is available.”
“This is going to have negative impacts down the line. The Minister said that radical thinking is needed on housing. It is interesting that he has taken the word "radical". This was clearly used by the Housing Commission, which mentioned "radical measures" several times, but the only radical measure in the provisions to change rents and regulations is to radically increase the profits and returns that institutional investors will make from delivering apartments in this country. There is no radical change to reduce house prices or rents and there is no radical change to massively increase the delivery of affordable housing. Of course, what we are seeing is the failure to deliver affordable housing. The Government's policies on rent regulation and the changes to regulations will lead to higher rents and reduced home ownership.”