Paul Murphy questions LRD 70% residential threshold

Yeah, so in relation to two, first of all, the purpose of this is, so it relates to the definition of an LRD where it currently says is not less, the floor space is not less than 70% or such other percentages may be prescribed of the LRD floor space of the buildings comprising the development, i.e. that housing development or student accommodation development makes up 70% and what our amendment would do would be to lease that or such other percentages may be prescribed because as it currently stands, the or such other percentages may be prescribed means that the 70% can become entirely meaningless, it can be reduced to 60%, 50%, 40%, 30%, 10%, it could be done with a meaning then that you could have a large-scale development, a very small percentage of which is actually residential, but which then could be classified as an LRD So that's the purpose of that amendment. In relation to amendment 4 is the other one, yes, so again it relates to the floor space that is not being used for residential or student accommodation, saying that a public consultation shall take place with individuals and community groups with the planning authority, which the planning authority shall have due regard to in determination of the granting permissions of such floor space, again to ensure that even if you say the 70%, that the 30% is not simply a free-for-all in terms of what goes there, but instead that there is real community input and so on. Thank you Deputy Murphy. Minister to respond please. Just in relation to both amendments here, we're actually taking feedback from LGMA and others on this, like one of the big challenges we have is in relation to Brownfield side urban development, and it has been very clearly said to us that the 15% was restrictive, that we do want to, where we're looking at some larger developments, that we want to be able to have that mix of, you know, crèches, shops, whatever, and to do that. So 15% was far too restrictive, so we're saying that we should go to 30% and we should allow that to be varied as is deemed appropriate. I think this is actually a positive move, genuinely, and it actually speaks to the experience that we've had of the lack of development that we've had on Brownfields in particular in our cities. And it's considered genuinely that the proposed amendment would limit the ability to respond to possible future external factors, like which affect the viability of sites that we already have issues with. And the ability to vary the percentage of the LRD floor space that makes up a development by regulation will allow the planning system to respond to changing conditions and changing circumstances in particular communities as to what facilities we need. I do not see a situation, Deputy Murphy, genuinely don't, where you're going to see, you know, what we need is more people living in our cities and in Brownfield, but you need to have liveable communities. You need to have communities with facilities where you're talking about where we would be varying to below 50% and that is not going to happen. I said the maximum 30% other use threshold in the bill, and that's when you said it, will allow the relevant local authority, and local authority again, not the board, local authority based on our development plans. And that's important as well that we remember the context of that, to consider what's appropriate in a relevant area on a case by case basis. But I think if you're far too prescriptive, you've got to allow that, this is about returning planning to those who should know best, i.e. the local planners and the local authority members. This is the whole purpose of the legislation is about bringing back planning to the local area and to the planning officials who know the prevailing local conditions and circumstances best. And I think it is better for qualified planners and to be able to make that distinction as applications come in, rather than us to be far too prescriptive and restrictive, actually, at a general level. Like if we're going to restore planning, which I'm going to do to a local level for these large developments, with planners who know the area that have to have regard and would be following the development plan, that councillors will also have their input as they should, and there needs to be a level of flexibility to allow for these conditions. Housing developments of the scale do need local support, supporting amenities, and I know you're aware of that. They do need services, they do need other facilities, and planning authorities need to be able to ensure that they're provided for in LRD proposals. So actually, this change here that I'm bringing forward is a positive one. I can't accept the amendments that you put forward. I think they're far too restrictive, and they're like on a one-size-fits-all basis. You need to allow that local ability to be able to vary there as well, and to make decisions at a local level. I think that's appropriate, Paul. Thanks for the amendment. Please. Yeah, just thanks a lot. Just one point of clarity. You are saying, Minister, that when it says, or such other percentage as may be prescribed, you're saying that's a power of the local authority, as opposed to being an issue of ministerial order, which is how I would have read it. Sorry, Paul, I would vary as already. It is you. But we're setting what the maximum other use is. Yes, but it'd be a ministerial order that says, okay, let's say instead of 70%, we're going for 65% based on our experience or whatever. The last 50%, that's, you know, so. Yeah. See, the point, I mean, I accept the point that, of course, look, large scale residential developments won't simply be 100% housing of regular housing or student accommodation. I accept that. We want communities with other things that people need. But the point is that this is the threshold by which developments can get into this special LRD process. They don't get into this process. They still have to go through a planning process. They have to go through a regular planning process. And the point that we're making is that, you know, it's appropriate to say something like 70% have to be made up of actually residential units if you're going to avail of this special planning process. And that there is, by simply leaving it in your hands, minister, or, okay, you say you're not going to bring it down to whatever level, but obviously, well, presumably you're not going to be minister forever. A future minister may well decide to bring it down. That's a problem. And also, I mean, there's a basic democratic point that a future government could say, well, actually, we have a problem with this 70%. We think it should be 60% or whatever. Okay, fine. But then you bring it back before the door and there could be a debate about it as opposed to the minister simply by a stroke of a pen, having the capacity to do that. So I do think that is problematic. I leave it there.