Victor Boyhan
Agricultural Panel · Independent · Ireland
“It also mentions the agrifood sector and the importance of diversification in agriculture, the maritime sector, coastal communities and fishing communities in terms of rural policy.”
“I know from my engagement with both the Department and the Minister that over 900 submissions to the consultation process were received. No Member or parliamentarian will have had the opportunity to consider the anonymised version of these consultations, which contain many good suggestions in favour of the regulations and many concerns in…”
“I welcome the Minister and the official to the Seanad. This is particularly important Private Members' business. I thank Senators Collins and Tully for setting out the background and the rationale behind their Private Members' motion. I acknowledge the Minister's exceptional commitment to rural Ireland and his Ministry.”
“I am conscious of the Minister's public consultation, and I acknowledge it and thank them for it, in relation to the Our Rural Future work programme in 2025. In fairness to him, he did not stop at that. I received a further update when I requested it from his office very recently.”
“This will come about through that process. It is for the Minister to decide. Maybe he will do so tomorrow when the regulations are dealt with. However, when Senators are in this Chamber discussing these regulations tomorrow, they will have no sight of any constituent who made a submission. That is my first item.”
“I am pleased to see Senator Byrne in the Leader’s chair. I wish him well in that job. I also wish him well in his new position as Government Whip. There are three items I wish to discuss today. First is the exempt development regulations, which are being covered extensively in the media.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,616 lines we hold for Victor Boyhan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 33.
“The one thing the public wants and expects of us is unity in these political arenas, the House of the Oireachtas, such that we represent constituencies. They want us to support one another. It is not about arguing all the time and demolishing ideas. No one has a veto over ideas or concepts. It is a pity it has come to this. I do not know what thought put or strategy was put into it but it sends a bit of a negative. I will support the Sinn Féin motion. I am happy also to support the track record, in particular the Minster's, in this area.”
“It also mentions the agrifood sector and the importance of diversification in agriculture, the maritime sector, coastal communities and fishing communities in terms of rural policy. Consideration should also be given to heritage and culture, tourism opportunities and sport, including the GAA, the FAI and all other local sports organisations. We could go on and on and include Tidy Towns and credit unions. It is important we have rural proofing of every and any policy the Government espouses. That should go regardless of any policy the Government espouses. I would have liked to think we could integrate both of these - what my colleagues to my left have proposed and what the Government is setting out in its record because it does have a strong record. Let us be fair and reasonable and acknowledge that. It is a pity it should come to this.”
“Sinn Féin's Private Members' motion mentions employment opportunities, developing smarter towns and villages, community infrastructure and our ambition for housing, education, healthcare and childcare. The motion also mentions the importance of the Irish language, to which the Minister is fiercely committed, and rightly so, and this is very admirable. It references the importance of coastal communities and the islands to which, again, the Minister is fiercely committed. I thank him for the announcement made yesterday on funding for a number of coastal communities and the islands. It is significant. The Private Members' motion commits to supporting a just transition, to which I know the Minister is fully committed.”
“I am not looking for the names of the people to be published but it is important that we publish the outcome of it. We know the programme for Government includes a commitment to publish the replacement of this. It has been a very successful blueprint and it is great when a Minister has a whole policy to attach to it. I am also conscious of the fact the OECD principles on rural policy clearly set down 11 objectives and I know they are embedded into this as a given. I want to touch on a few issues before I finish. It is important we recognise the diversity in the demographics of rural Ireland. We recognise the planning challenges and opportunities ahead of us and we must be ambitious.”
“I am conscious of the Minister's public consultation, and I acknowledge it and thank them for it, in relation to the Our Rural Future work programme in 2025. In fairness to him, he did not stop at that. I received a further update when I requested it from his office very recently. It set out an intermediary between the two documents of ongoing commitments. It is very impressive and I acknowledge this. I know the public consultation is complete but it is important we publish it. We saw with regard to exempted development that 900 citizens made a submission and, as of today, the housing Department has not published the consultation. This is a bit disappointing. When people engage in a consultation process, they want to feel that their voices are heard. The only way they will see this is when it is published.”
“The motion also mentions accelerating investment in rural healthcare, home support services, childcare, schools, public transport, broadband and affordable housing. How could someone have an issue with this? How could someone suggest all of this is not good enough? Interestingly, these are all keywords and AI is a very interesting tool when used responsibly. All of this appears in the programme for Government. All of these key messages that the Government somehow seems to have a problem with are all positive ambitious plans in the current programme for Government. This is worth saying. I am very supportive of the motion and I thank Sinn Féin, in particular Senators Collins and Tully, for having this debate. It is important we have respectful and meaningful debate and I acknowledge this.”
“The next paragraph reads "the transition to renewable energy and the development of critical infrastructure must be carried out in a manner that respects local democracy, protects the environment and ensures meaningful community participation". Senator O'Loughlin spoke very eloquently about the need for critical infrastructure and supported it. I do not understand how someone could suggest all of this should be scratched out. It is something I think is very positive. These are just two or three examples of what the motion includes. The motion calls on the Government to "protect productive agricultural land through strengthened planning policy and ensure that food security is recognised as a strategic national priority".”
“How could the Government have a problem with the statement that "many rural areas continue to experience population decline, reduced public services, inadequate transport links, limited access to healthcare, childcare and housing, and declining frontline Garda visibility". There are reasons for these things and it is not laying the blame on anybody. The motion also states that "productive agricultural land is a strategic national asset that must be protected to safeguard food security, support family farms and sustain rural communities". There is no problem with that and I do not think the Minister has a problem with it.”
“This is important to say. I have to say I am somewhat surprised with the general Government response. Senators O'Loughlin and Lynch have spoken very positively about all of the issues and I do not understand why there is a countermotion. A countermotion is the Government's prerogative but this one is an add-on to what has already been said. I do not understand why it is one or the other. I genuinely say this as someone who likes to collaborate and work constructively with people. Both Senators come from constituencies that have rural and urban parts. There are urban parts in all of our areas. I am somewhat surprised by what the amendment tabled to the motion proposes to delete and it is important to say it to people are looking in at this debate.”
“I welcome the Minister and the official to the Seanad. This is particularly important Private Members' business. I thank Senators Collins and Tully for setting out the background and the rationale behind their Private Members' motion. I acknowledge the Minister's exceptional commitment to rural Ireland and his Ministry. It is an amazing Ministry and I acknowledge the significant work the former Ministers, Heather Humphreys and Michael Ring, did in this area. It is a very special Ministry. There is not a day that statements do not come from the Minister. On a personal level I thank him for the level of engagement he has always shown to me in a most timely and professional way in relation to any representation I make on behalf of our rural county councillors and with regard to my interest in agriculture on the committee here.”
“I said to IFA representatives last night that I would flag it here. Everyone will have received a copy of its submission. Hopefully, many of us will meet each other in the Mansion House this afternoon where we will be discussing the IFA’s critical suggestions and proposals – that is all they are – for agriculture in the context of budget 2027.”
“This will come about through that process. It is for the Minister to decide. Maybe he will do so tomorrow when the regulations are dealt with. However, when Senators are in this Chamber discussing these regulations tomorrow, they will have no sight of any constituent who made a submission. That is my first item. Second, I thank the Minister for education, Deputy Naughton, for organising a formal briefing today on the planning and building unit and its overview for 2026-27. It is an important opportunity for Oireachtas Members to attend today, given that issues around school building programmes are a regular occurrence. I also commend the IFA, which is carrying out an engagement process for Oireachtas Members in relation to budget 2027 in the Mansion House this afternoon. That is an important process.”
“I know from my engagement with both the Department and the Minister that over 900 submissions to the consultation process were received. No Member or parliamentarian will have had the opportunity to consider the anonymised version of these consultations, which contain many good suggestions in favour of the regulations and many concerns in the contrary. It is a mockery that no one can see the content, however. I do not seek the names of individuals or the geographical spread. I once again call on the Minster to release those submissions. He is no stranger to this appeal because I have been engaging with him in this regard. He is fully aware of it. I can confirm that last week, as I was getting no progress, I submitted a number of freedom of information, FOI, requests. The Department has confirmed it has received all of those requests.”
“I am pleased to see Senator Byrne in the Leader’s chair. I wish him well in that job. I also wish him well in his new position as Government Whip. There are three items I wish to discuss today. First is the exempt development regulations, which are being covered extensively in the media. We know the committee met last night to discuss these regulations and they are before the Dáil today. We expect they will be before the Seanad tomorrow. There is much talk about these exempt development regulations. They have gone through a process, whatever issues anyone has about them. What I want to renew today, however, is a call for the Minister to release the 900 public consultation submissions to the exempt development public consultation process. A mockery is being made of the public consultation process.”
“Our planning system must be responsive to the needs of local housing assessments but I do not see any evidence of that happening. There is a rush to throw up more buildings and bring in more money. All of that has been going on for years and it appears we are not learning much from it. Senator Higgins made her point really well regarding the Aarhus Convention. It is very important that we encourage and facilitate our citizens to engage with a meaningful planning engagement process.”
“We need flexibility, whether in Limerick City and County Council, which is the Minister of State's local authority, or elsewhere. Local authorities will understand from their housing assessment the projected needs for a period. We need agility and responsiveness in the system to be able to tweak and to build. I have no difficulty with apartment living. I know many people would wish to live in an apartment because of the likelihood it will have a central location. I see the potential for movement by people from the outskirts of cities and towns to central hubs where they are more likely to have access to apartments. I am not saying they will be affordable - it does not look like that will be the case - but the option of living in an apartment will appeal to some people.”
“We at least need a level playing pitch for people to put forward their genuine concerns, based on the principles of proper planning, sustainable development and compliance with the Aarhus Convention. This is an important point when it comes to the development of the predominantly one- and two-bedroom units that have been described as boxes or cubes. We must remember that the local authorities are charged with the responsibility of carrying out an assessment of housing need. This is where we need agility and flexibility for councillors, in conjunction with their executive, namely, directors of services and chief executives. How can we tweak our future-forward planning to meet the housing needs of citizens within local administrative areas, with local authorities clearly having function and responsibility in that regard?”
“Senator Higgins has made an important point. I reiterate her concern regarding the Aarhus Convention, its protocols, the strategic environmental assessments and the other appropriate attached assessments. Somehow, when people are unhappy, they choose to ignore them. This really is an important issue. Ireland is a signatory to the convention and its protocols. We are bound by them. At all times, in our planning processes, protocols and code, we must encourage engagement. We must be a democracy open to genuine participative engagement in the planning process. Citizens are entitled to that. If the Minister of State or I had something happening in our backyard, we would be concerned, and rightly so.”
“We need to be cautious if we are going to embrace this type of policy because, quite frankly, I personally do not think it is the right policy and I cannot support it.”
“We are not getting them and no-one is giving them to us. The taxpayers are paying mad money for units because, again, we are being held to ransom by certain developers who have an agenda for themselves. That is not all of them and it would be unfair to paint that picture. Based on that I do not think we have thought this through. There is litigation ongoing and there will be an outcome from that. It is important that, when we vote on this legislation, we are fully aware and cognisant of the fact that a High Court judge has referred this matter - the parameters of this area - to Europe for determination. I do not want to come back and say we were bitten in the face and did not know what we were talking about.”
“I was a member of the housing and planning committee for two terms and I have seen it with developers, although not with all of them, because many of them are very responsible, and yes, they have to pay their bills, but I have seen the goalposts continue to change and to move, it keeps being cranked up and the Government feels it has to do this, that and the other. I do not want to go off the point but I am seeing apartments that are part of Part V agreements for which local authorities are being asked to pay €500,000, €600,000 and €700,000 for social housing. I do believe in full integration and do not believe we should be able to tell the difference, but somehow it is all part of the housing strategy that we are getting units that we perhaps might not even want and we certainly do not want to be paying that for them.”
“The parents also needed a bit of space from her. This unit was the best she could achieve, with no car or facilities. The Government then calls this proper planning and sustainable development. It is simply not good enough. Of course, there are the issues of play and how and where these units are going to be interfaced with existing residential properties. That dynamic and mix is needed in terms of good planning and sustainable development. Based on all of those issues, I have concerns. I cannot support a Bill that does not address this issue and rams this through, because it cannot be about profitability; it has to be about sustainability. There is an overemphasis on making a profit.”
“The block next door, which so happens to be private – this is an LDA development – has car parking. The social tenants, however, are told they cannot drive. One particular woman explained to me how she has a car and works in a shoe shop in Bray. She queried with the unit’s management whether she had to sell her car. She was told that she might have to and that she could avail of the DART instead. She then asked how she could be expected to repay the credit union the €12,000 she owed for the second-hand car. They told her that it was not their problem and that there were no units available and she accepted the residential unit on that basis. She then explained that she accepted it because she was on the housing list for 16 years. Her folks told her she needed to get out and have a bit of space to grow and develop.”
“Where is the storage for the segregation of waste as part of our new environmental arrangements and given the importance placed on segregating our waste? Where are the facilities for that? Where is the private internal amenity space, given that we get rain for a considerable time of the year? Where is the external amenity space in terms of the landscape areas and the forecourts and all of that? Where are all of the play facilities and the safe, open spaces within complexes where these apartments are envisaged? What are the security considerations, such as oversight and the passive surveillance of these new homes? I could go on and on. Car parking facilities is another example. I am thinking of one such residential unit near to me where residents were told that they have no car parking facilities and that they are social tenants.”
“The floor to ceiling height will be reduced. Why is it that we have issues with height for this cohort of residential units? We talk about sustainability but it is really about profitability. I know business people want to make money but at the end of the day, many of these units will come into our social housing stock. I do not draw a difference between public and private housing. I believe in good, sustainable housing, regardless of who it is for. The anticipated cohort of people who will live in these units should not colour the decision. There is a lack of internal storage. I went to see some of these units over the weekend. There are places where there is no internal storage. That is unacceptable. Where is the storage for the bicycles, given the Government is talking about its new active travel plans?”
“In its place, we have this suggestion that we are going to shoo people into boxes on top of each other facing south to burn up for a few months or facing north where they are so cold in the winter. On both sides, they will need energy, either to heat them up or cool them down. That is not sustainable and it is ridiculous. There is too heavy an emphasis on single-aspect units. Of course, we hear the story that the homeless will be shooed into them, or that we can throw students into them because they are out all day. There is absolutely a case for studio apartments. I have nothing against them. However, they must be nice and properly designed because we are talking about people’s living space. We are talking about living well and healthily and having meaningful lives in interactive communities. The Government is wrong in this regard.”
“Let us take a north-facing single cube – that is what they are at, at best – that is facing low in a building, possibly at basement level or semi-underground. How does one heat it? It is cold and cool. That is not sustainable. In an ideal world, we need dual-aspect units. When there are a number of rooms, people can move around. However, there is this high focus and attention on building cubes on top of cubes and simply saying everything will be grand. As someone said to me in a housing authority not too far from here, we have single people - mostly men over a certain age - but we do not have bedsits any more. That is because it was Government policy to close them down and get rid of them. Good, clean and well-designed bedsits provided an opportunity and served some people. People chose to live in them.”
“I have a south-facing office in the LH 2000 building next door. We now have three ventilators on all the time to try to cool it down. It is 35°C in there this week. A member of the facilities staff had to come over and tell us they cannot cool the place down. We are single aspect and we have to remember what single aspect is; we are facing south and so we are burning up in the place. Staff in Leinster House this week are burning up in offices, and they only have to stay in them for a working day of 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. or whatever. That is not acceptable. Are we suggesting that these single-aspect cubes, be they high, across or low, are practical and sustainable? Where does fossil fuels and sustainable energy come in when we think about cooling them down in the summer?”
“We have a problem with the layout. I know some councillors and local authorities have been told they have to mass produce and pump out studios or one-bedroom units, but people do not really live in isolation and most people do not want to. They want people to be able to come and stay at some point in their tenure in a particular property so we need flexibility. That is an issue. The apartment mixes are not providing for the sort of sustainable, attractive mixes that are required. A mixed demographic and age is so important when we are developing community. There are issues and concerns about the apartment floor areas. There are offices in Leinster House that are bigger than some of these proposed one-bedroom units. That is the reality of it, as the Minister of State is aware. Suddenly, we are expecting people to live in these apartments.”
“Their concerns relate to apartment design standards. There seems to be no reflection on or tweaking for what is relevant to a particular planning authority. We have 31 planning authorities as the Minister of State knows. Building height is a concern. The layout of apartments and apartment mixes are a concern. What are we about? We are about creating sustainable, liveable, healthy communities. Why do we have difficulty with having three- and four-bedroom apartment units? We had the Canadian ambassador in here earlier on and I was telling him that when I was in Ontario, friends of mine had a four-bedroom place. We are not used to the model that is across Europe and other places. There are people who may choose to downsize to a two- or three-bedroom unit and free up a five-bedroom unit. That is the reality of it.”
“It is also important to note - I am not going to stray into this area - that there are legal proceedings relating to these matters. The Minister of State will be aware that a number of councillors have put their money where their mouth is, and this legislation is now before the courts in Europe. There was a consultation process. The difference between the statutory and non-statutory consultation process is another issue and difficulty with a lot of legislation, but particularly around the planning and development sector. I have concerns, as have others. I have spoken to a number of sitting county councillors who, over the past year or two, have really strongly articulated their concerns in relation to this legislation. These are individuals and party members, but ultimately they are within councils.”
“When we legislate and a measure is passed, we empower the Executive, which then decides to proceed with an element of the legislation or not. That then becomes relevant when one talks about judicial review because as a Legislature, we have given a legislative effect. The three strands of the Legislature are, of course, the Dáil, Seanad and Uachtarán na hÉireann. When all that has gone through that process, that then becomes law. When people link into judicial reviews, such as in relation to this particular aspect of the Bill, the courts have to have regard to what the Legislature intended. I am not sure if some people in the Legislature really know what they intended. Things fall out of legislation that we do not always envisage are going to be the case. That is an important point.”
“This and the issue of judicial reviews are perhaps the two biggest and most difficult concerns in this legislation for me, as they were in 2024 but they have come into focus in this legislation. At the outset, I am conscious that sitting county councillors are the people who ultimately confirm or make a county or city development plan. The Minister of State is aware they put a lot of time into that. The proposal is to move this to a ten-year plan and I understand all of the processes. I am conscious that we are making legislation and for those who did not read the law gazette produced by the Bar Council, there was a very interesting article sent to everyone today, regarding Jim O’Callaghan. He made a really good point - and this could be a general application for anything - about the Legislature.”
“We do not want to hear anything about embargoes and how it is not able to manage its affairs. That goes for planning authorities as well. I again salute the work of planners in our 31 planning authorities, who are under immense stress. The Minister of State knows it in Limerick city and county. I know some of the people down there. There are real difficulties as so much is coming at them. I welcome the idea of tight timelines. They are really important. No more excuses. Allow the democratic process. Allow public engagement, which is so healthy in a democracy, to shape the outcomes, or contribute to shaping them. It is about not having predetermined outcomes for everything but shaping those outcomes for the better of us all.”
“What I am really saying is that when the Minister of State gets this legislation through the House, there can be no more excuses about planning. The 2024 Act was to be the panacea for all our problems. We were going to have homes everywhere. They would be falling out all over the place. We were going to have wonderful playgrounds, community facilities, sports clubs, leisure clubs and swimming pools. You name it - we were going to have it. This is now 2026 and in a year's time, I hope I will be saying "Well done, great" but it is about the lead-in to proper development. It is not about building bricks alone; it is about building sustainable communities. What I am really saying is that we must resource An Coimisiún Pleanála with the expertise, experience and staff.”
“People who object, raise concerns or submit observations, not necessary objections, are interested and are engaging. From talking to politicians in Leinster House last year, I have been quite amazed by those who talk about people frustrating the process. People do not set out to frustrate the planning process. Indeed many politicians in this House are on record as having made submissions and objections to developments in their own backyard. They cannot have it both ways. A politician cannot have a view because he or she is meant to be representing people and a different view when coming in here as a Minister - I am not talking about the Minister of State - suggesting all these objections are holding up the process. There are many strands to proper planning and sustainable development of our communities.”
“For some reason, however, through the planning process, they seem to be locked out of further engagement and many of them are waiting months to get a response from An Coimisiún Pleanála - just a status update about where they are with their application to build 135 homes in south County Dublin. This is the problem. An Coimisiún Pleanála has to be fit, slick, efficient and fit for purpose. If the Government is serious about tackling sustainability, houses, proper planning and sustainable development, the commission has to be responsive and capable of responding to valid applications that have come through a process and are sitting in it. We cannot have a situation where the commission cannot do its work so if it is short of resources or staff, it needs to be equipped with them. That is the story coming in.”
“Perhaps the Minister of State could bring it back to the Department. I welcome any timeframe where we put down statutory timelines for delivery because at the last outing on this Bill, I cited how developers were very successful in building new homes. These are very desirable, proper and sustainable homes that people were buying in advance of them even going on the market and expressing an indication of their desire to buy them. The problem is that I am meeting entrepreneurs and people who want to put the money where their mouth is and develop really classy, good and sustainable homes.”
“I wish to speak on the section. I am using this as an opportunity, as I did with the earlier section. This the first mention of An Coimisiún Pleanála and I want to use this as an opportunity to highlight a number of issues relating to An Coimisiún Pleanála. It has come along a pretty rocky road. The Minister of State and I know, as do a number of Senators who served, particularly Senator Flaherty, on the housing committee, about the long and protracted discussions we had about An Coimisiún Pleanála. There were a lot of shortcomings but, in fairness, the commission has responded well. It appears to be up and running. There are issues around timelines. Again, I am not expecting the Minister to respond tonight. I am just using this as an opportunity on the floor of the House to echo some of my concerns.”
“I will not come back in because it would not be appropriate. I will just say that I understood that it was already completed. In light of all these very intelligent Senators here making further contributions I am not suggesting it is to be tweaked further. I do not think so. I think we just need to get the Minister to publish it.”
“I presume that all of these consolidated Bills and legislation is to bring all the dots together, to have everything working in unison and delivering what it sets out to do; proper planning and sustainable development in terms of new homes, new industry, new enterprise, new commerce and a better environmental country and world for us all to live in. I would appreciate if the Minister of State takes this back to the Minister. I did not indicate that I was going to speak about this. I ask that it be prioritised or we be briefed about it. Once the report is considered I ask that the appropriate people would publish it. It is in the interests of the Office of the Planning Regulator and of all the parties aligned, interacting and crossing the varied space of proper planning and sustainable development.”
“Therefore, the Government has committed to review the role and the functions of the Office of the Planning Regulator. This is very much an important view. It is recognised that it was essential. As I say, there was nothing wrong with it. This was to be published. I know it has been completed and the question really is that there is a critical role for the Office of the Planning Regulator. It is embedded in the 2024 legislation. It is mentioned in this legislation in this relevant section 18 that we are now talking about. If we are going to join up all the dots, planning is a very fragmented science.”
“It is important that there is role for the Office of the Planning Regulator. I support that role but it is important in the programme for Government and the Government's housing plan, as the Minister of State has said, that the review of the role and functions of the Office of the Planning Regulator takes place. Action 16 seeks to review the role of the functions of the Office of the Planning Regulator and drive performance in the planning system, including consistency with decision-making. We have heard this consistency right through this legislation. The Office of the Planning Regulator ensures that local authorities and An Coimisiún Pleanála are consistent with their implementation of central government policy through the planning system.”
“It could be argued that the Minister has other things going on, and work planning and delivery have to be prioritised, but parliamentary business in the Chambers of the Houses is winding down this week. Since the establishment of the OPR a number of key policy objectives have been progressed by the Government and I acknowledge that. They all have significant impact on and interaction with our statutory planning processes. Therefore, it is important that we deal with the issues. We must remember that planning is critically important for the delivery of housing, our climate action objectives and plans, Government policies such as the national housing plan, Delivering Homes, Building Communities 2025-2030, and accelerating essential infrastructure. I will finish on this point.”
“It is responsible for conducting national education and training programmes for members and staff of planning authorities and regional assemblies. We can have the best legislation in place but we need to have the planners, architects and all the background people. We need to have them trained and upskilled. We know we have problems in An Coimisiún Pleanála and I will talk about them later. We had a shortage of staff, training and resources and a whole range of issues. It looks as if An Coimisiún Pleanála, in fairness, is back up on four cylinders and is delivering on its timeframes. We were promised that the periodic critical review would be completed. My understanding from contacts in political circles and the Customs House is that this work is done and is sitting on someone's desk.”
“The OPR's main statutory functions, in summary, are evaluation of statutory plans and responsibility for the independent assessment of all local authority forward planning and regional assembly forward planning, which we will be talking about in this Bill; the hierarchy of the planning system, including development plans, local area plans and regional spatial and economic strategies, all of which is covered in this legislation; and planning reviews and examinations, which involve reviewing the organisation, systems and procedures used by the planning authorities, including An Coimisiún Pleanála, in the performance of their planning functions under this Act and subsequent legislation. There is also the role of the OPR in education and research. I acknowledge the proactive, significant and positive work it does in this area.”
“When we signed off on the 2024 Act, we were told it was the be-all and end-all, but now we are doing another patch-up of that legislation through this legislation to give effect to a number of areas that were approved. I see the reasoning behind some of that. The Minister of State will not have prepared a response to this because he did not know I would bring it up. My ask is that he take it back to his officials. The Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, was established in April 2019. Last year we were told there was to be a periodic critical review of the office. That is not unusual. It happens in many agencies.”
“This is the first reference to the Planning Regulator so it is an opportune time to mention a few issues of concern in this area. I acknowledged during the last session when we were dealing with this Bill the important and significant work of the Planning Regulator. I acknowledge the Office of the Planning Regulator, rather than the individual, and its support for sitting county councillors. It runs many workshops of engagement, which is critical. I have said time and again that councillors are not engineers, planners or architects - most of them anyway, although there might be the odd one. They are usually committed to the proper planning and sustainable development of their functional areas and beyond. Therefore, they need a lot of assistance.”
“We talk about the need to enhance and develop our land use strategy and I know there are plans to bring other strategies down the pathway. It would be helpful to have some clarity in relation to the residential zoned land tax. If this tax is mentioned even once, be it in the Irish Farmers Journal , agriland.ie , the Farming Independent or elsewhere in agriculture news, it becomes a huge issue. It is an issue that farmers are particularly exercised about, and rightly and understandably so. As Senator Higgins said, we need a bit of clarity in regard to the residential zoned land tax in the context of what she is proposing.”
“We must never lose infrastructure and enterprise in the bigger debate on proper planning and sustainable development. It is not only about houses, while houses are very important. I am somewhat surprised in relation to one thing, which may be helpful for the Minister of State to clarify. There were great expectations about the residential zoned land tax. I sit on the agriculture committee. The Minister of State will be aware that the IFA made submissions in relation to this tax. He will also be aware of the Taoiseach's commitment to look at the tax again. We cannot countenance a situation where land that is in active use for agriculture, horticulture and industries and services related to agriculture and sustainable food production can fall under the residential zoned land tax.”