Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2026: Committee and Remaining Stages
Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-14
============================================================

Victor Boyhan (IND), Agricultural Panel

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. 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. 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. 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.
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.
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? 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. 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.
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? 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-07-14/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-27T06:52:15+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-07-14