Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage debate -
Thursday, 11 Jul 2024

I welcome everybody to the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The committee meets this afternoon as part of the consultation on the draft national planning framework, NPF. We are joined by the following officials from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage: Mr. Paul Hogan, acting assistant secretary in the planning division; Ms Alma Walsh, senior planner; Ms Karen Kenny, senior planner; Ms Laura Courtney, planning adviser; and Mr. Colin Fulcher, planning adviser. The witnesses are all welcome and I thank them for their attendance.

The draft national planning framework is a vitally important document. It is an overarching national planning document. We only received a draft copy yesterday. Consultation with the committee is part of putting together the framework. I propose that the committee have a further meeting on this matter early in September, after we have had time to go through the document.

We are probably quite limited in the engagement today because we have not had time to go through the 200-page document. However, we all have a keen interest in it. I would not want anybody to think this is one and only consultation the committee is going to have. We have a couple of month's worth of summer holiday reading for everybody here.

I will outline a quick note on privilege before we start. I remind members of the constitutional requirement they must be physically present within the confines of the place where the Parliament has chosen to sit, namely Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. Those witnesses attending the committee room are protected by absolute privilege in respect of contributions made to today's meeting. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything said at the meeting. Members and witnesses are expected not to abuse the privilege they enjoy. It is my duty as Chair to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person or entity outside the Houses, or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. Hogan to make the opening statement on behalf of the Department. Then we will go to members for questions.

I thank the Chair. I will dispense with the introductions as he has already done those. To clarify, it was decided by Government on Tuesday to publish the national planning framework yesterday. We are very happy to facilitate the committee again in September should it wish us to do so.

We welcome the opportunity to update members on this draft first revision to the NPF. As I said, it was published yesterday, with submissions being accepted from all interested parties up to and including 12 September, so an extended period. In 2018, the national planning framework replaced the national spatial strategy as the overall spatial planning and development strategy for Ireland. The NPF combined with the national development plan form Project Ireland 2040, the overarching policy and planning framework for the social, economic and cultural development of Ireland. The NPF sets out high-level national planning policies and objectives as a long-term strategic vision to achieve both proper planning and sustainable development and guide decision-making in respect of future development and investment in our country.

Government gave approval to commence the process of undertaking the first revision of the NPF in June 2023 and to publish a roadmap outlining the process and timeline. As indicated in the roadmap, a number of key drivers for the revision were identified. These are climate transition, which requires addressing sectoral emission targets and the climate action plan; regional development, including the reality of regional ambition and the challenge of transitioning from business as usual; changing and diverse demographics, which entail planning for uncertainty - we have seen significant migration in recent times; digitalisation, including its impacts on work, retail, commuting and the regions; and investment and prioritisation, specifically the timing and delivery of infrastructure. Since the publication of the NPF in 2018 there have been a number of significant and critical developments on planning policy, guidance and legislation and governance and institutional change. Many significant initiatives, strategies and programmes have been introduced which further support the strategy approach of the NPF since it was published. An expert group was commissioned by the Minister, Deputy O’Brien, in March 2023 to undertake a high-level review and consider the appropriate scope of the first revision to the NPF. The expert group submitted their report to the Minister in August 2023 and the report was noted by Government and published in September 2023. Through engagement with relevant stakeholders, the group found there is widespread support for the NPF strategy and the long-term and principles-based approach it takes.

The revision process has provided for wide-ranging consultation and engagement with stakeholders to date, including the reconvening of the planning advisory forum for the purposes of informing the revision process, chaired by the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, and prior to that, the Minister of State, Deputy O’Donnell. A cross-departmental steering group was established in September 2023 as part of the NPF revision to enable consideration of the relevant issues. Bilateral meetings between the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and other Departments took place throughout the latter period of last year and input from the officials of all relevant Departments was provided through the revision process.

The Economic Social and Research Institute was engaged to update its previous projections relating to population growth to 2040 based on demographic and econometric modelling and having regard to the results of census 2022 and other factors with potential to influence fertility, mortality and migration trends. The ESRI projection is that the population will increase to approximately 5.7 million by 2030 and 6.1 million by 2040. This projection forms the central, core trajectory of a lower and higher range of projected population growth and forms the basis for the draft revised NPF strategy. Those figures are the central part of the range. The ESRI paper also contains comprehensive analysis, which provides valuable insights regarding national and local future housing requirements. This work is being used to form the basis for revised housing projections that will inform the forthcoming update of Housing for All. In this regard, the draft revised NPF anticipates a need to plan for approximately 50,000 additional homes per annum to 2040.

In effect, the revised NPF sets out a need to plan for a population of 6.1 million people by 2040. The draft revised NPF plans to apply the additional population on a pro rata basis, relative to current NPF growth targets, throughout Ireland. The core objectives of balanced regional development and compact growth are proposed to be maintained and notwithstanding that the transition to balanced regional development is taking time to materialise, it is not proposed to change the overall approach to deliver this over the period between 2022 and 2040. Accordingly, the objective of a 50:50 split of growth between the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly area and the Northern and Western Regional Assembly and Southern Regional Assembly areas is maintained in the proposed revision. The promotion of city-focused population and employment growth remains an important element of the NPF strategy. This is based on ambitious growth targets for the cities of Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford relative to their recent rates of development, with each projected to grow by at least 50% by 2040. Notwithstanding the challenges to delivering on city-focused growth, it is not proposed to diminish the growth targets in the NPF and the strategy maintains this level of ambition, with a focus on the need for enhanced mechanisms to support delivery. A new element of NPF strategy results from the requirement to plan for range of population growth that may exceed the overall 6.1 million projection, in line with the high migration scenario provided in the ESRI report. This is to be aligned with strategic planning for transport-orientated development, TOD, in and around Ireland’s five cities to support the delivery of new sustainable communities at brownfield and greenfield locations along existing or planned high-capacity public transport corridors. As to identifying locations for such housing development at pace and scale, it is critical that planning for these opportunities commences immediately, aligned with phased infrastructure investment. The approach to rural areas in the draft revised NPF is largely focused on supporting the current policy approach, which promotes the development of rural areas, including through managed and sustainable growth, in particular, the alignment of policy and funding measures across government that promote and support rural areas, including, for example, town centre first and the vacant property refurbishment grant. Single rural housing based on social or economic need will continue to be supported as an important element of maintaining rural communities.

There has been significant development in national climate policy since the adoption of the NPF and this is reflected in new and enhanced policy approaches proposed as part of the revision. New policies related to renewable energy development are proposed, including the identification of regional renewable electricity capacity to facilitate the accelerated roll-out and delivery of renewable electricity infrastructure for onshore wind and solar generation development to support the achievement of the national targets set out in the climate action plan. As signalled in the Climate Action Plan 2024, the revised NPF will enable each regional assembly, through their regional spatial and economic strategies, to identify targeted capacity in megawatts for new onshore wind and solar electricity development. The regional strategies will be required to break down the regional targets into county level allocations that will inform the updating and preparation of local development plans. This will result in the identification of suitable areas for such development, on the basis of a consistent four-tier classification system with the detailed requirements to be incorporated into the draft wind energy development guidelines. The draft revised NPF also acknowledges the clear link between the climate action response and the potential for investment generation and employment and jobs, including in connection with the offshore wind industry and green technology.

On the timeline, public consultation on the draft opened yesterday, 10 July and runs until 12 September. An information campaign including broadcast, print digital and social media is also being run to raise awareness of the consultation process and encourage the public to engage with the draft revision.

As for the next steps, all submissions received will be reviewed and considered ahead of the draft NPF being finalised for Government approval. The final draft of the revised national planning framework will require the approval of each House of the Oireachtas before it is published. Once finalised, the revised NPF will be incorporated into the regional spatial and economic strategies and the city and county development plans for all 31 local authorities in due course.

The first revision of the NPF builds on and updates the current NPF strategy. It retains many key elements of the NPF, such as regional balance, city-focused growth and the continued development of rural communities. It also incorporates revised population and climate targets and reflects a strengthened alignment of development and infrastructure as a matter of priority. The planning team are here to further detail the draft revised NPF as we now commence the public consultation stage. We thank the committee for its time and engagement.

I thank Mr. Hogan and his team for the presentation and their work to date. I agree with the Chair, although this is not in any way a criticism of Mr. Hogan or his team, given we understand it was a decision of the Government, that we will definitely need a meeting in September. Moreover, although this is also an issue for the Minister rather than for the officials, the 12 September deadline is far too tight. It leaves a very short period and people will be on holidays for some of that. Given the breadth and scope of the NPF and the desire of many of us to put in detailed submissions, it may be that we need at least until the end of September but that might be something we consider as a committee to request from the Minister.

I have not had time to go through the detail of the draft but I will deal with the housing targets, which will be no surprise to Mr. Hogan. It is most welcome that the final draft of the revised NPF will require the approval of each House of the Oireachtas, given that the NPF itself did not go to the Houses of the Oireachtas. That that was what the legislation required is interesting. I welcome that and contrast it with the row that was had over the failure of that to happen the previous time.

When I read the section on housing, it jumped out at me that the Department is saying there are going to need to be on average 50,000 new homes a year out to 2040, but I have no idea where that number comes from. The ESRI's report is very good research, even if the terms of reference were too limited, which was the fault of the Department and the Minister rather than that of the institute. It said that structural demand and new emerging housing demand would require 44,000 new homes on average per year over that period. Of course, as Mr. Hogan will know, the ESRI was not allowed to look at the issue of pent-up demand. The Housing Commission has calculated an estimate and indicated that pent-up demand would require an additional 15,000 to 25,000 new homes a year over the period the commission has outlined. The Department has added just 6,000 and I understand, if I read correctly its press release in response, that it explains the difference between the 44,000 and the 50,000 by reference to unmet or pent-up demand.

Where does the figure 50,000 come from? It seems it came from a speech by the Taoiseach at his party's Ard-Fheis and not from the research of the ESRI or the Housing Commission, although Mr. Hogan might correct me if I am wrong. Does the difference between the ESRI's 44,000 and the 50,000 equate to 6,000 to deal with just some of the unmet demand?

Clearly, there will be further detailed analysis of a more precise figure for the autumn Housing for All revised action plan document and that will probably be of the order of slightly more than 50,000 for the period to 2030, or thereabouts. For the NPF, we are looking at the period all the way to 2040 and at an average over the period. The 50,000 figure will not be achieved next year. It will have to be worked up to over the period.

I am honestly not being in any way belligerent, but the question is a simple one. The Department has stated a figure in the document and there is a reason that figure was chosen. According to the ESRI's report, structural demand will comprise on average 44,000 and the Housing Commission has calculated 60,000, adding 16,000 to the former figure Why is 50,000 the starting position?

However, again, that does not answer the question as to why the figure is 50,000, because that does not make a reasonable allowance for the pent-up demand. We have one assessment of pent-up demand. It would have been much better if the ESRI had also been asked to carry out an assessment but, obviously, that was not permitted by the Government. The Housing Commission's report is not only saying there is a housing deficit of anywhere up to 156,000 homes, although it has a midpoint, but it is also saying that has to be front-loaded. It has a nine-year trajectory from 2025, hitting 70,000 homes in 2029. I am not saying that is correct or has to be accepted, but I do not understand where the 6,000 homes, on top of the ESRI's figure, are coming from. Why was that figure of 50,000 chosen?

First, this is not a housing plan. It is a strategic, long-term planning document for the next 16 years, so it is an average of 50,000 over 16 years. How that will stack up against the next few years, the pent-up demand and so on has yet to be worked out in fine detail. For the purposes of publishing this document, we took the figures from the ESRI, made a reasonable allowance based on the previous methodology for unmet demand and averaged it out over the whole period. Different approaches are going to be considered for how unmet demand is calculated and met and we are not offering a definitive position on that right now. Fifty thousand is a round number. We could have said 53,000 or 47,000. Fifty thousand is a reasonable working assumption over the next 16 years, based on the information we have.

I will finish on that point, because I do not agree. I do not believe it is reasonable and I do not believe that Mr. Hogan privately thinks it is reasonable either, but that is just my own view. The Housing Commission is telling us that over the same period, we need an average of at least 60,000 homes. If 50,000 was reasonable over the Department's trajectory, we would be under-delivering by 100,000 homes or more over that decade. Mr. Hogan is saying it is a reasonable allowance. It is fewer than half of the lowest scenario that has been set out by the Housing Commission. I will tease this out in the submission, but given that one of the fundamental weaknesses of the original national planning framework, which then fed into one of the fundamental weaknesses of the Government’s housing plan, namely, an underestimation of housing need, we are again starting from the wrong position.

My view, although I am not asking Mr. Hogan to comment on this, is that this is a political number. It is not based on any evidence or empirical assessment. Nobody has picked a figure of 6,000 additional units on top of structural demand. It is interesting, when reading the reports of the ESRI and the Housing Commission, that their figures for structural housing demand are almost exactly the same. When we look at the mid-range in the Housing Commission’s report, it has taken the underlying structural demand from the previous ESRI report and added a little to it. The ESRI's report of last week has done something similar. It is about the pent-up demand, and the idea we will need just an additional 6,000 units a year, when it could be anything from 15,000 to 25,000 in addition, is a big problem but I will leave that to one side.

The next issue will be helpful for the committee. I presume that in preparing the document that was published yesterday, there was an assessment of which objectives, as set out in the original NPF, were met, partially met and not met. Did the Department conduct that exercise following the publication of the expert review group's report of last year, and if so, can that be shared with the committee? It would be interesting to know what did and did not work. Compact growth, for example, clearly did not work. If we look at what is being built in, say, the greater Dublin area, almost everything is outside of the M50 or on the commuter belt, rather than inside the urban core.

Typically, it is still low-rise, low-density or mid-rise, low-density. Is there an assessment of what did and did not work that can be shared with the committee?

I will give the Deputy a high-level answer to the second part of his question and then maybe let some of the team come in on that because there is more detail in it. Of course we did an assessment of what is working and what is not working, but this is not an end-state document. The NPF did not finish the day before yesterday, before it was published. It is simply a revision of an existing long-term strategy. It is certainly monitoring what is working and what is not working or what is working more slowly than expected. Our overall narrative is probably that, yes, it is making a difference but it has also been slower than expected to make that difference.

I fully accept that it is a document out to 2040 - that is in its title - but some of the revisions the Department has made to it are based on the assessment of what has worked or what has not worked or what needs to be tweaked. Therefore, in order for us to fully understand the changes the Department has made, understanding its own assessment of what is working, not working and partially working would be really useful. If any such documentation could be shared with the committee, it would be really welcome between now and the submission deadline.

As a point of clarification, there is material available on the npf.ie website, to which is uploaded the specific amendments that have been applied. That is available to any viewer to access and see where the amendments have been made. The Deputy is absolutely right about the assessment that has been undertaken of the national policy objectives, NPOs, and the national strategic outcomes, NSOs, in determining what is required to be amended as part of this revision. There were some that have been fulfilled and completed in respect of matters related to, for example, the establishment of the Land Development Agency, LDA, and those updating pieces, where there have been deletions or amendments to those.

Overall, however, and to answer the Deputy's question about the report of the expert group, by and large, the principles-based focus of the strategy and, in particular, the core objectives related to balanced regional development, and the 50:50 and compact growth targets have largely been retained. The actual strategy piece has been retained on the basis that it is sound for the purposes of a long-term strategy. Specific amendments to the NPOs were required to be made on the basis of the response to the updates and to the population projections, for example, and how that had to be reflected across the regions and across the cities.

The other matter of policy change which the NPF has introduced as part of this revision relates to the introduction of the renewable energy capacity allocations for each of the regions. They are some of the more substantive amendments. I refer to the material available on the website, coupled with the expert group report. We can seek to make further clarifications and offer a full summary to the committee to support its understanding of what has changed.

For the information of members, although we received the draft document yesterday, we also received a lot of other documentation, including the Natura impact statements and the strategic environmental assessment, SEA, statements. It is a kind of changes document. Is that the one to which Ms Walsh is referring? We have that in our Teams folder.

Yes. It is 270 pages long with the draft itself. It compares the 2018 national planning framework to what is proposed in this draft one. There are strikeouts and so on. It is a helpful document.

As regards the eight-week or ten-week consultation period, or however long the period is, I am in two minds about whether it is good or not during the summer. I find I have more time on my hands to read those documents when I am not here. Some people just may not want to do any of that and may want to take a break completely. I am not fixed on extending the period. If we go further into September, we will be into back-to-school and other pressures. That is just my view on that.

The next speaker is Senator Cummins.

I thank the witnesses. I have an open mind as to which is better as well - possibly an extension to the end of September. That would allow us as a committee to meet to discuss this and give sufficient feedback. That would be appropriate, but that is a discussion for another day.

The area I want to focus on is the population targets, specifically as regards Waterford. This has been a bugbear of mine for some time. The fact that the metropolitan area strategic map, MASP, for Waterford does not include the Tramore area is a really serious cause for concern. Tramore is only 7 km or 8 km out the road. More than 90% of the population of Tramore work in the city and get their main services in the city. It is a suburb in the same way as Carrigaline is to Cork, Shannon is to Limerick or Salthill is to Galway, yet the NPF document says that Waterford city and suburbs should grow by 28,000 people to at least 88,000 in total. That would lead you to believe that the population of Waterford city and suburbs is currently 60,000, when the actual metropolitan area of Waterford, which includes the Tramore area, under census 2022, has a population of 75,210. I am trying to understand - and I have never been able to get an answer - why a suburb like Tramore has been excluded from the Waterford metropolitan area strategic plan, MASP. Second, if that is the case, we want to see the population growth but it needs to be off the actual figures right now as opposed to an artificially low figure, I would argue.

I thank the Senator for his question. The population figures set out for Waterford at 2022 are 60,000. I am referring to table 4.1 in the revised NPF. As regards additional people in the target population, growing to 88,000, there is an additional 28,000 between now and 2040. The MASPs are established and determined based on a very specific methodology that accounts for a percentage of the commuting population working and living within the city and suburbs area. It is a methodology that is applied consistently across the cities for the Dublin MASP area, the Cork area strategic plan, Limerick, Galway and Waterford. The boundary for that particular MASP area follows that methodology, and that is the resultant one. We can certainly-----

I strongly contest that point. It is not consistent where it applies to Waterford because the population of Tramore is 11,500 now, I think. It has outstripped Dungarvan for the first time. It is a suburb of Waterford city. If the Department were applying the same methodology, it could not but tell me that there is any difference between Shannon to Limerick, Carrigaline to Cork or Salthill to Galway and Tramore to Waterford city. Can the witnesses explain that?

The commuters from Tramore to Waterford city account for 70%-plus daily. The point I am making, not to labour it, is that I believe the Department's figures in 4.1 for Waterford are not accurate as a starting point, and that obviously impacts the second point, which is what the population growth target for the area is out to 2040.

If we are not starting with the right figure, then the figure to 2040 will not be accurate either.

If I look at the regional, spatial and economic strategy, RSES, document, there is the city and suburbs in the Kilkenny area, the remainder of the metropolitan area in Kilkenny, the Waterford city and suburbs in the Waterford administrative areas, and the remainder of the metropolitan area within the Waterford area. If I just take the three metropolitan areas excluding anything in Kilkenny, that is 75,210 which includes Tramore. That is what I am asking about and what I am trying to understand. I never understood why Tramore was not included. This needs to be rectified as part of this process. That is my main point.

As Ms Walsh has already highlighted, there is a distinction between what the CSO defines as the city and suburbs area. Generally, it would refer to the built-up area around the city and the wider metropolitan area which refers more to the functional urban area around a city. The figure that is in table 4.1 that Ms Walsh set out is actually the city and suburbs area. It is not the wider metropolitan area. It is defined by the CSO on the mapping that is used as part of the census process. That is defined by another agency. It would not be appropriate to bring another settlement into that.

I am saying there is. There is a glaring omission. Representatives of the Southern Regional Assembly, when they were before the committee on pre-legislative scrutiny on the Planning and Development Bill, acknowledged that they had no hand, act or part in the development of the boundaries of the MASPs. They were handed down by the Department to them and they equally cannot understand how Tramore is not included in the Waterford metropolitan strategic MASP.

Finally, the Department said it carried out a process that was equal across all the areas and that it engaged with stakeholders but it is very clear the Southern Regional Assembly is of the view the Tramore area should be in the Waterford MASP. Waterford City and County Council made submissions on that. I was a member of the council at the time. It was very frustrated it was not included. Obviously, if we are developing a metropolitan area plan, to imagine there is not a population of 11,500 some 7 km out the road, where 75% of the population commutes to the city every day, seems illogical to me.

Obviously, if Senator Cummins makes a submission as part of this consultation to clarify the points he is making, the officials will take those into account.

Will the officials come back to the committee to tell us if they can define the commuting zone, the functional urban area, the criteria for inclusion of an area within a MASP, and clarify the ability of the regional assemblies to modify or input into the defining of the MASPs or those other categories? That would be helpful for all of us.

I will go next to Deputy Leddin.

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I think it should be the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, and the Minister, Deputy O’Brien. This document, when it is agreed, will set the country on a path for the next few decades. It is not a loose thing. It is a hugely important thing and it should be the Minister who owns the document that is before us, notwithstanding the work his team have put into this.

I am with Deputy Ó Broin on this and the consultation over the summer. I do not think we will get the political oversight of this over the summer months. Realistically, this is our last day of term. TDs and Senators will go back to their constituencies. They will not be as engaged and it is very remiss that we will not have that political engagement on such an important document over the summer. I do not think it is acceptable that it will run throughout July and August and into September. I strongly fear we will not have sufficient political engagement and we will ultimately not have a document that has political legitimacy in the end. I want to put that on the record.

Will the officials define balanced regional development? What is their understanding of it?

Going back to the 2018 national planning framework that was published and the principle of balanced regional development, it is provided for within the Planning and Development Act as well in terms of the legislative provision to guide plan-making in particular.

Publishing the NPF in 2018 and retaining this approach to balanced regional development in this revised version is about addressing the imbalance in how and, in particular, where development has been taking place, with a concentration in Dublin and the mid-east area. The balanced regional development piece is to address that concentration to ensure that other parts of the country, particularly those areas in the other two regions and the cities within the Southern Regional Assembly area and the city within the Northern and Western Regional Assembly area, also grow to their potential and offer an alternative and rebalance of the distribution of growth.

There is no rebalance here. If anything, there is a move away from balance from the original 2018 document because the Department is targeting population growth of nearly 300,000 for Dublin city, which is more than all of the regional cities combined. I do not know how that is balance. Essentially, the spirit of the original national planning framework was that the gap in population and economic development between the capital and the regional cities would be narrowed and closed. However, we are seeing a retrenchment in the numbers presented here. Based on these numbers, it will take longer to close that gap. What we are seeing now is not a strategic document or vision - this should be a vision for the shape of the country in ten, 20 or 30 years’ time – but a reaction to where we see demand happening. It is confirmed in the opening statement that it is very much informed by the ESRI analysis about where demand and growth are happening. Instead of saying we want growth to happen elsewhere, acknowledging the NPF of 2018 is failing and changing the policy to get back on track, the Department is conceding the failure of the NPF and essentially doubling down on it.

That is simply not the case. The reality is there was much discussion and consideration of balanced regional development and what that meant in 2017 and 2018 when we were devising the strategy in the first place. We set a course and this is a revision of that strategy. We are not abandoning the strategy; we are updating it.

Not at all. We face a situation where Dublin is so much bigger than everywhere else and is so important to Ireland’s economy and everything else that it also needs to grow. The level of activity there also needs to be protected to a certain extent. It is naïve and unrealistic to suggest we can somehow switch Dublin off and switch other places on.

It is not balanced by any definition of the word. The Department is proposing that a city 1.5 times the size of Cork city will be squeezed into the capital in 15 years’ time. Given all its constraints, Dublin is bursting at the seams. What the Department is proposing to do is quite a bit more difficult than if the strategy were to significantly target growth to the regions and regional cities. That is not what it is doing. There is a fudge in this document-----

There is a fudge in this document because it talks about relative growth in the regional cities rather than absolute numbers, so it looks like the growth is quite significant. However, if we are talking about a vision for the country and where the more than 1 million additional people will live in 2040, we should be talking about absolute numbers and we should have far greater ambition.

We are. If you are citizen of any of the cities in Ireland or large towns other than Dublin, we are talking about very significant growth for your locality. We are incredibly ambitious in suggesting that small- and medium-size cities would grow by 50% in a generation, or less. We looked at the capacity of cities to grow six years ago. We looked at the experience of Galway, which was the fastest growing city for a period, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s. We reckoned that was a good model for pace, although not necessarily for all of the outcomes on the ground. We took a hard look at what the attributes of growth could and should be. It is about concentrations of activity, third level institutions, good transport links, established history and good regional catchment. That firmly suggests that regional cities have enormous potential and great capacity to grow. However, the problem is they are starting from a place much further behind Dublin in terms of scale. Therefore, we have to be realistic about what can be achieved. The strategy is a careful balance of all of that. Looking at the statistics, going back six years, we looked at the previous 20 or 30 years and it was clear that Dublin and the east were outstripping the rest of the country by about 60% or two thirds.

I will not suggest the NPF is entirely responsible – it is a combination of things - but it has certainly played a part. Population growth in the east versus the rest of the country was 55% versus 45%, which is a big improvement on the excess of 60% we were seeing before that. Similarly, jobs growth was even stronger outside of Dublin and the east. It was just over 50% - about 52% - versus 48% in the rest of the country. That gap has been closed to an even greater extent. Partly that was down to things like the impacts of distributed home working, with people being able to work farther away and commute less frequently. However, in addition, the NPF as a strategy influenced bodies like Enterprise Ireland, the regional assemblies and the IDA in how they do their business and approach things. There is a greater emphasis on regional jobs growth. Ireland’s regions offer, as the Deputy suggested, that sort of uncongested pool of talent, particularly around the cities, and established FDI locations in places like Cork and Limerick. A difference is being made.

As I suggested, it has not happened overnight and it will not happen overnight. It will take some years to realise. We are looking at a 16-year horizon in terms of the final three quarters of a strategy that was set six years ago. We have a long way to go. As I said at the outset, the realisation is that it can work and make a difference, but it will take more time than we had anticipated, particularly when dealing with a dominant city-region like Dublin. We have had interest from all over Europe and beyond in the strategy, in particular, in how it is being linked horizontally across government to other Departments and how they do their business, the NDP, capital investment and also how it influences down the hierarchy as well. I am not suggesting this is finished or complete in any way, but it is making a difference.

If this is worthy of the term “strategy”, it is a Dublin growth strategy or greater Dublin area growth strategy but in terms of national strategy planning, it is not a strategy or a vision. It is reactive, responsive and demand-led. It is not saying what kind of country we want in 2040, 2050 and beyond, where we want people to live, where we want economic development or what the best spatial distribution of the population is at all. I am out of time but if there is a second round, I will come back in.

Obviously significant amendments have been applied to chapter 9 in particular regarding the environment, particularly regarding climate action. I might defer to one of the team in terms of specifying the NPOs and the requirements where that might be updated. I do not have that specific NPO. Will the Deputy will allow me to come back to him on that?

In terms of the strategy, there has been significant engagement with our colleagues in the Department of Transport about more sustainable forms of development that would integrate compact settlement and transport so there is an increased focus on transport-orientated development. We have integrated a lot of the work being done in the Department of Transport's climate unit regarding sustainable mobility so all of that will affect the embodied carbon of future development in addition to the NPOs that are specifically addressed in chapter 9.

On the issue of compact growth and city-focused growth, which runs through the document, one of the key challenges in terms of developing more housing and compact growth in cities involves issues around affordability. How is this addressed in the revised NPF? What measures are there to promote more affordability in terms of compact growth and city-focused growth?

I outlined to Deputy Ó Broin earlier that the intention is to bring forward an updated action plan in terms of Housing for All in October. This will address the revised targets when they are more refined regarding different tenure types, in particular the extended affordability requirements that there are and will be.

To clarify, when I talk about affordability, I am not just talking about tenure type. You can have affordable housing, affordable rent or rent as a tenure type. I am talking about affordability in general. One of the blockages for people in accessing housing in cities in terms of compact growth is affordability. It can be more affordable to access housing such as private tenure housing in less built-up areas out into the countryside and so forth away from cities. The issue of affordability in general and not as a tenure type is a key challenge when it comes to ensuring more compact and city-focused growth. Is that addressed in the revised NPF? Are there any measures or solutions in terms of planning framework policies to boost affordability? I have put forward plenty of them during the debate on the Planning and Development Bill in the Dáil in terms of bringing in things like affordable housing zoning, which works well in other countries, but they have not been accepted. Are there other measures here to address affordability seeing that the kind of measures I have put forward have not been taken on board?

Under the current NPF, we have undertaken extensive work in the past number of years regarding compact settlements and published the guidelines on sustainable residential development and compact settlement in January 2024. Those guidelines were very much prepared in consultation with industry and various stakeholders. Part of the adjustment made with regard to density and housing standards, while intended to promote a compact growth approach, was focused on allowing for flexibility in design in order that there were greater options available, for example, for mid-rise, medium-density housing typologies that would be more affordable to deliver within inner urban areas or at the fringes of city cores so that this would allow for a move away at the right locations from apartment developments, which can be expensive or unviable to deliver in certain locations. Under the umbrella of the NPF, we have already undertaken extensive work within that area and that is certainly being reflected within the policies included in this updated draft revised NPF.

Work was done to address concerns that developers were bringing forward regarding viability and density. Are there any plans to do things to address affordability in particular? Housing is becoming less and less affordable for people to access. It is more of an issue in city areas and it is more of an issue in terms of compact growth. Is there anything in the NPF that seeks to address affordability for households?

Regarding NPO 48, housing need and demand assessment as a tool was introduced in the NPF. I am not sure what the NPO was originally but certainly NPO 48 in the revision reiterates the need for housing need and demand assessment to primarily inform housing policies and strategies and associated land and zoning policies. Clearly, planning for a larger population and a larger set of housing targets will require more sources of housing or means of sourcing housing. Obviously we will have to look at things like vacancy, more zoning of land, bigger targets and how they can be achieved, which will have an impact on the range and choice of opportunities for development.

I am conscious that the programme for Government references the Vienna model of housing. In Vienna, there is specific zoning for not-for-profit housing, which is effectively affordable housing. Are those kind of measures going to be considered as a result because NPO 48 does mention using zoning policies? Will the kind of measures referenced in the programme for Government in terms of the Vienna model of housing be considered?

It needs to be linked to housing strategy. It is not something that planning can unilaterally decide. It obviously has to be integrated with a set of other requirements to ensure that the housing that is delivered is affordable and deal with issues such as who owns the land. It needs a more integrated approach, which the updated Housing for All action plan is intended to address in the autumn.

That would be the place to address it. The strategy says that increasing housing supply remains the principal solution to resolving homelessness. What is the evidence base for that statement? Housing supply is increasing and homelessness is increasing so what is the evidence base for this statement?

However, as housing supply increases, homelessness is increasing. The evidence base from around Europe is that if you improve security for renters and households, you can decrease homelessness because it is the more vulnerable households that become homeless when there is a lack of security. That is what the evidence base says. What is the evidence base for this because we can clearly see that supply is increasing but homelessness is increasing so supply in and of itself without measures around security does not seem to be working in terms of tackling homelessness and in fact homelessness is increasing at the same time as housing supply is increasing? I am all for housing supply increasing but what is the evidence base for saying that this alone will solve the problem?

The inclusion of the homelessness piece largely reflects the position set out in Housing for All. Similar to the affordability piece, the role of the NPF here is to make provision for policy that clearly indicates in terms of targets and projections where development is to take place. In terms of the tenure piece, the breakdown, the particular schemes and measures, there is a whole suite and package that is more appropriately dealt with post the finalisation of this high-level national policy document.

It is both relevant and important to include homelessness within the national planning framework. In terms of scope, however, to specifically address it or set out further detailed measures in that regard, up to now, this has not been done in the revised version that is on display at the moment on the basis that the update to the Housing for All piece will pick up on that later this year.

I thank the witnesses for their attendance. This is a really important process about the provision of overarching policy at the top of the hierarchy. I want to know about the public consultation, which is very important. Public consultation needs to be facilitated and supported. It needs to be advertised and mobilised in a way that is user friendly and that reaches out across the country and engages people. The proposal is that it happens from 10 July to 12 September, which is a big holiday period, as well. We also will have opportunities to enter into the public consultation process. I would like to hear in some detail about the plan in terms of outreach to our communities and engaging with people. In some local authorities we have thousands of people engaging with a county development plan process. I know how to do it but I would like to know how the witnesses are planning to do it. How will the Department connect with people on the ground in communities to show that this is relevant to them? I would like some reassurances on the meaningful way of engaging people with public consultation, also through the planning authorities, local authorities and other local and State agencies. That is critically important. There are many forms and mediums of contacting people but the witnesses might just touch on that. That is the only question I have today.

Yes, I agree with the Senator in terms of the core pillar in participating in the planning process around public consultation. It is also important to reflect on the fact that while the national public consultation launched yesterday, stakeholder engagement has been under way since last year. A number of groups have been established that were designed to give effect to exactly what the Senator set out in terms of engaging with the appropriate organisations.

I will point to the reconvening of the planning advisory forum, which was initially established in relation to the review of the planning and development legislation. In the reconvened forum there are 51 national organisations and bodies providing representation from across the country on a sectoral basis. Rural communities, our immediate stakeholders such as the regional assemblies, the County and City Management Association, CCMA, business interests and environmental groups are represented. There is a broad and wide-ranging representation that reflects the national piece and the engagement. The forum has met on four occasions. It was formerly chaired by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell and is now chaired by the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon. A number of other groups have also been established. The cross-departmental steering groups have been engaging across Government.

The consultation was rolled out online yesterday. Members of the public are now invited to review the documentation and make a submission. A national communications campaign was launched in association with this roll-out. There are advertisements in national and regional newspapers and on national and regional radio. There is also a digital and social media campaign. In this way there is engagement via print, audio and online media. The planning advisory forum will meet again next week to engage with this process. The national consultation and communications campaign will run right up to 12 September.

The Department also engages regularly at official level with our more immediate stakeholders, such as the regional assembly and the CCMA and other bodies and agencies that are under the Department's aegis. We will be endeavouring to ensure that this takes place and continues over the summer period, where possible.

The planning nerds in the room and those watching on TV will gladly read through 200 or 400 pages of planning documents over the next couple of weeks. Many people do not have the time for that and would find it really difficult to get into those documents. Does the Department produce a non-technical summary or an easy-to-read introduction to the document? It would bring people into the process. Everyone has an interest in having good services, good homes, a properly balanced country and a clean environment, etc. Is that type of document available?

Referring back to the 2018 publication, there was a very well established communications strategy for that to engage people and set out in a very accessible way, the role of the NPF. All of this information is still available online. It is a very useful resource for any member of the public to allow him or her to engage with and understand what the role of the NPF is and how it operates and influences within the system. We can certainly take the recommendation and potentially produce an executive summary that would be a more concise document for people to engage with.

I think that would be helpful, if it was the first thing people saw when they clicked on the website or the consultation portal. An introduction would show what the process is all about and what it is hoping to achieve. Beyond that, there could be reams and reams of detail for those who are interested.

On page 58 of the amendments' document I want to pick up on Deputy Leddin's line of questioning so that I understand it. Table 4.1 on page 58 contains the amended population-growth targets by region. Two things jump out when I look at the tracked changes. While the range for population growth in Dublin city and the suburbs remains as it was at 20% to 25%, in Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford, there is no range. It is downgraded slightly to a 40% increase from the previous 50% to 60%. Then when we look at the projected population growth in terms of numbers of people, Dublin is just above what had previously been the top range, so it is 296,000 from 293,000 previously. However, the four other cities are at the bottom or outside what was the previous lower range of population growth. I am really interested to know why. I am not making a comment as to whether I think that it right or wrong but it stands out to me. Perhaps someone could explain both the percentage change for the four other cities and the changes to the numbers. It is a higher number for Dublin and it is at the bottom or below the bottom range for the others. That is my first question and I have three or four others.

If only we could have had such a tracked-changes document for the planning Bill. It would have made everyone's life so much easier.

The percentage range is to reflect the level of growth that has taken place between 2016 and 2022. The baseline has actually changed. In terms of retaining the 50% growth and the 50:50 regional balance, what emerges for the other four cities are those figures that sit outside the range. I will ask my colleague, Mr. Fulcher, to come in on this.

The performance of the regional cities in the last intercensal period from 2016 varied quite a lot.

There was quite strong growth in Waterford, for instance, which grew by approximately 10%, while Cork and Galway were on the lower end of that range at about 7%. Limerick was at 8% or 9%. It is about tracking that baseline as it changes from the 2016 census to the 2022 census. When we track forward, that 40% or 50% share changes a little.

In that context, I will mention that in addition to the pro rata growth for those cities, in the revised NPF, there is a focus on or a signalling of the need to consider improved institutional and governance arrangements for the cities. This is so the strategic moves that are needed to meet the ambitious growth targets that were set originally, and we are moving towards over the period of the NPF, can be achieved and there is better co-ordination. That is one of our key learnings from the initial six years of implementation. We have watched the cities grow and seen the progress we have made, but we have also seen where opportunities are not being taken up. We had the OECD do some research on that last year, which very much pointed to the value of improving institutional and governance arrangements to have a more co-ordinated approach at that regional city level so the ambitions set under the strategy can be achieved.

That is made clear. I will move to page 65 of the Department's amendment document, where a very interesting change is outlined. It will be remembered that what was national policy objective 10a was the creation of a national regeneration and development agency. In the language of the original NPF, NPO 10a clearly meant an active land management agency. In fact, at that stage, Mr. Hogan will remember the idea of transforming that into a residential developer was not the thinking within the Department. Niall Cussen rightly wanted, in line with the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, the ESRI and others, a very strong, active land management agency.

Removing NPO 10a and replacing it with NPO 21 is not really reflective of, "We said we were going to do something and we have done it." It is a very significant shift. There is no longer an objective that is about active land management. There is simply a removal of that and a statement of the purpose of the LDA, which is primarily a residential developer. Given the struggles the LDA has with active land management, and without making a comment about that because this is a high-level strategic document, are we not losing something by not having that high-level objective of active land management, which was the original intention of NPO 10a? I suspect that when Mr. Cussen and the team were drafting that, they never thought there would be a residential developer. They wanted the proposed agency to deal with land. Is something not being sacrificed in the changing from objective 10a to objective 21?

It is important to point out that the LDA Act allows that function for the LDA. It is very clearly set out. It has not changed. The purpose of addressing it in the NPF is simply that things have moved on. The LDA is established. We have the LDA Act. The future direction or emphasis of the agency can be considered in the context of the LDA as an existing entity rather than dealt with in a document like this. It is as simple as that.

I will challenge Mr. Hogan in one sense. I say this in good faith. NPO 10a referenced co-ordinating and securing the best use of public lands. It was not limited to housing because it was wider. That is not in NPO 21. Mr. Hogan is correct that the LDA, as per the LDA Act, has two functions. One is active land management and the other is residential development. The wording of NPO 21, however, emphasises residential development. I am not looking to have a debate about the LDA. The Act is there and this document has to reflect it. The very important bit of 10a, and the innovation of that element of it, notwithstanding the very clunky name given to it at the time, was the best strategic use of land, especially public land. That is not in national policy objective 21. That is kind of interesting.

As Mr. Hogan set out, the rationale behind that was to update the reality that it is in force and there is supporting legislation for the LDA. In addition, a number of tools and measures for land activation are under way that has negated the need to address that very specifically in respect of the residential zoned land tax, RZLT, piece, and what is proposed in the Bill as regards the urban development zones and land-value sharing. Quite a suite of measures underpin some of the land activation piece. We can certainly revisit this if there is something critical.

Those elements are activation measures. Active land management is more than that. There can be lots of individual activation measures but the idea of NPO 10a was to state that we needed a State entity that would be involved in active land management.

I will raise two very quick matters that probably will not get answers. On pages 102 and 103 and the language around homelessness, we could have a situation where supply increases and homelessness increases. Increasing supply does not, in and of itself, tackle homelessness, if it is not the right kind of supply. It is interesting to note that the housing need and demand assessment, HNDA, language on page 103 is obviously reflective of the reality, but the word "centralised" has been inserted. No longer are we are thinking of the housing needs demand assessment as a tool that does not just have a centralised State-wide element but could have more granular localised elements, rather, it is saying that this is the Department's thing. The Department sets it and everybody else has to live with that. That seems a shame. I know it is reflective of the reality but it seems to be a shame in terms of that language. I ask for a brief comment. Unfortunately, I am out of time.

It just reflects the model on which the HNDA is based. It was originally something that we modelled on the way the Scottish did it. Again, it was a co-ordination mechanism at the outset but one clearly allowing for local application. Maybe the word "centralised" might come across, depending on how you want to interpret it, as heavy-handed but it is really just to allow for co-ordination and local interpretation and application.

The two land activation measures were mentioned. It is important to point out that the zoned land tax was legislated for but was then parked for a year. I really hope and push for that to come in and be activated in the finance Bill this year because it is an important measure.

The committee has done its work on land-value sharing. We have sent back our pre-legislative scrutiny report and recommendations on that. I am unsure as to when we will see that Bill published. It is important, if we are talking about land activation measures, that we do not just talk about it but actually implement those measures and legislation in that regard.

I thank the officials for their contributions so far. I am looking at page 9 where the current problems and issues are outlined, which this document aims to address. It states; "Cities like Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford [are] growing but not at the pace or scale required to function as realistic alternatives to Dublin." What I am looking at is a document that is not in any way trying to address that. The overall expected population growth is 920,000. Of that, the aim is to put 500,000 people into the five cities. Overall, only 4% of the population increase will be put into Galway, which is the only city in the northern and western region.

Why is that important? It is important because it defines what future governments will invest in. For instance, we need a much enhanced rail network, compact growth in the city and more houses in Galway. In the last 12 months, 420 houses were built. All of this infrastructure requires governments to take the strategic objectives for the region seriously. What I see in this document is the complete opposite to that.

Mr. Hogan mentioned engagement with regional assemblies. The Northern and Western Regional Assembly is incredibly frustrated at the lack of investment in our region. I do not see anything in this document to address that. I have a concern about that. I do not understand why the Department has not tried to address the very issue it raises at the start of the document. I believe the future counterparts of the witnesses and our own future counterparts will be sitting here having a conversation in 2040 and that those future representatives of the Department will say that it is not realistic to think about having an alternative to Dublin because of all of the decisions made over the last 15 years.

Another concern of mine is that the Department is saying that approximately 50% of the 920,000 additional people will go into the cities while the very opening strategy is to encourage compact growth. It is not compact growth if only 50% of the growth is in the cities. I am not entirely sure where the rest is to be. It seems to fly in the face of what the Department says is its objective.

I would like Mr. Hogan to go over it again but in response to my question, which is about the north west. The Department's document says that only 4% of the overall number is to go into Galway but it fails to answer why that is the case. If it is because there has not been investment to date, what does Mr. Hogan think is going to define whether there will be investment in the next 15 years to allow us to grow and to function as an economy for our entire region?

It certainly does not represent deficits as a constraint on future development. If anything, it recognises that future development needs investment and that any existing constraints require catch-up investment. We are very clear on that. At the outset, I mentioned the continued alignment with the national development plan. That is really strong. The national investment office in the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform is our parallel entity in that spending Department. It monitors the levels of public investment going into each of the regions very closely and publishes documentation on that every year. We can only look at what it is saying is being invested nationally. It has a project tracker on its website through which you can look at the projects in the north west, the value of those projects and how they compare to other parts of the country. National planning objective 6 recognises the special position of the north west in not having major cities north of Galway. As a result, we call out regional centres like Letterkenny, Sligo and Athlone as key locations for investment. In this, we largely focus on the fact that they are well-established large towns of scale with third level education that function as regional catchments. We have specifically called out those towns for further investment. There is an opportunity there. The strategy intends to set out ambitious objectives for the cities as regards what they can achieve but also further objectives for regional centres within the regions, particularly the north west. As I have said, that is being followed through with our colleagues in the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform.

The Department is saying two core things here. It is saying that it is a problem that we are doing all of our development in Dublin and yet, in this document, it is still putting three out of every five people who are going into cities into Dublin. That is what it is doing. The second thing that has not been addressed is the issue of compact growth. Again, the Department is putting half of the population outside of the five cities while still talking about compact growth as an objective.

Living in Galway, as I do, the people live on one side of the city and the businesses are all on the other. As a country, we have put them there because we designed it in that way. There is now a problem with it. It is incredibly difficult to reverse out of that but I still believe that, with investment, we can. These are the kinds of decisions that are made through these strategy documents. We have put the people there and we have put the businesses in the other places. I am also looking at the draft all-island rail review, which says that, with real investment in rail infrastructure, you could have 700,000 people living within 5 km of a train station. That is the kind of investment that allows us to grow but it cannot allow us to grow if we do not have that kind of vision.

This sets out the framework for national development. Galway has been incredibly successful in recent history. We did some research at the outset of the process back in 2018 and it came across as the most popular place in Ireland for people to live if they had the choice. Galway is very attractive as a place for people to live. We set a target or a level of ambition for the city's growth that we believe is achievable. That target cascades down through the planning system into the regional assembly strategy and the city and county growth strategies. It is up to the city and the county to respond and plan ambitiously for that. As to the structures we are working with, the LDA was mentioned. We have also given a lot of support to Galway through the urban regeneration and development fund, which requires only 25% matched funding for urban development projects. That sort of follow-through, along with investment in capital projects, is intended to realise that potential and allow the city to grow. However, it also comes down to the local authority's plans. We cannot reach into that process to the extent of telling people exactly what to do. It is up to the community, the councillors and the executive in the local authority to plan for Galway city.

I absolutely agree with Mr. Hogan on all of that. That is why I am saying how critical all of this is. When the Department shares a vision as to what it wants Galway to look like and the kind of increase of population it is planning for, it defines the kind of investment that is made, the kinds of decisions that are made by councillors and the kinds of decisions that are made as to the funding structures. I am genuinely concerned that the exact same mistakes are being made again. For instance, we need investment in the Atlantic corridor and I do not see anything in this document that will bring that about when we are talking about only 4% of the population the document is trying to cater for going into the only city in the northern and western region. We are probably going to have to agree to disagree.

We have been looking at the regional cities in terms of the ambitious targets we set for them in 2018 and the need to focus on how best to deliver those as opposed to burdening them further with additional targets. We have examined the opportunities for strategic development through a transport-oriented development, TOD, review. There are opportunities within Galway. We have also examined the institutional governance arrangements and structures that are in place and, as I mentioned in response to previous queries, how best to equip the cities. This has been one of our key lessons from the previous census results. Galway grew by 7% in the 2016-22 period, which was below the national growth rate. The focus might need to be on how to turn that tide and ensure that Galway grows at the level envisaged by the NPF as opposed to adding extra numbers. We feel that this is where focus is needed under the next phase of the NPF.

None of the cities, including Dublin, is coping well with the population increases and demands. The draft NPF sets out that we will give greater weight to Dublin to cope than we will to other cities. That is what I am reading in this draft. I am reflecting to the witnesses my frustration as someone from the west at not seeing the same kind of infrastructural follow-on from this document as there would be for Dublin. There is only a certain amount of money in the pocket.

I will let Deputies Leddin and Ó Broin and Senator O’Reilly contribute again in the third round.

I will ask a couple of questions based on what we have discussed so far. We spoke about the figure for unmet or pent-up demand. The Housing Commission reported on its estimation of that. Has the Department carried out a study on the level and range of pent-up demand?

On foot of the publication of the ESRI’s updated research on 2 July, which has informed this revision and its projections, work is under way within the Department, led by colleagues in the housing division and including ourselves in the planning division, to review that particular exercise so that we are in a position to finalise a figure that would inform the update of the Housing for All targets later in the year.

That is fine. The more research we have, the better as far as I am concerned. The Housing Commission’s report was one thing. The ESRI’s report on structural demand was another. They both inform us and provide the evidence we need.

Regarding transport-oriented development, does the Department have a definition of “TOD”? As Mr. Hogan well knows, I have been trying to submit one to the planning Bill. Is there a Government-approved definition of “TOD”?

I do not have the definition to hand, but we are operating with the definition that was included in the NESC’s report on opportunities for TOD that was prepared in 2019. We are undertaking our work with the Department of Transport and the working group, which includes the LDA and the NTA, to review opportunities across the five cities based on that definition.

In one school of thought, transport-oriented development is about high-capacity and high-frequency public transport. In my view, TOD is a little more than that. It is about being able to walk, cycle or take a bus, tram or whatever it might be. Even the car. Cars are necessary in some situations. In the Department’s view, is TOD of a large scale – for example, the four-track railway station at Adamstown is a large transport project – or is it also development in towns and villages such that, regardless of their size or location, everyone can get around easily?

There is a distinction between transport-oriented development and sustainable mobility and transport-led development. Based on the definition in the NESC report, TOD is a form of development focused on high-capacity transport that is designed to ensure people can quickly access transport and where there is high-intensity, mixed-used forms of development around the transport node as distinct from developing communities around sustainable mobility principles.

A distinction is applied, but one of the updates to the revision will specifically reflect the sustainable mobility piece, which builds on work that is under way with the Department of Transport and reflects that Department’s strategies and priorities. It also follows on from the publication of the section 28 guidelines on sustainable residential development and compact settlements.

Those were good answers.

I believe it was mentioned that the planning advisory forum combined 51 contributors. Is the list of contributors available?

The Minister, Deputy O'Brien, commissioned three independent experts with expertise in the areas of planning, economics and the environment. That report was published last September and was made available online. I am happy to name the three members. They are Professor Frances Ruane, Ms Laura Burke and Mr. Brendan O’Sullivan.

The recent ESRI report considered 12 different factors, including whether obsolescence rates would be high or low and whether migration would be base line, high or low. It spoke about internal migration as well. This is a matter that needs to be considered. Is there a draw to Dublin from the regions among people who want to move to Dublin? Is that draw being created because the investment is going into Dublin? If we get back to balanced investment, we might reduce internal migration and people will be happy to live within the regions. Under the national development plan, it was smart to say what the investment package and planning framework would be and that the two elements would work together hand in hand. If we were to look at the NDP spend since 2018, to estimate where the investment had gone into the regions and to examine whether we have achieved the objectives of the national planning framework, I expect we would see a lag. The investment takes time. We cannot spend money for a year and expect the population to balance out immediately. Has such a study been undertaken? I believe Mr. Hogan referred to one. I am interested in seeing whether there is evidence that shows investing achieves that balance. How long do we wait to see whether a balance is achieved?

I will start the answer to the question, as I am sure colleagues will wish to contribute as well.

It is not simply a question of investment. The main driver of growth anywhere is probably employment. Jobs-led growth will drive regional growth. We are keen to communicate that and have communicated it significantly within our enterprise agencies, including the IDA. They understand that, as does everyone else. Employment has to be matched by investment. The two are interdependent.

Another phenomenon has been observed occurring as a result of economic cycles – the ESRI has noted and advised us of this – whereby, when the economy is doing well, people tend to move out of Dublin because it is more expensive and prices are rising, and when the economy is not doing so well, people tend to move into Dublin because that is where there are more opportunities for employment and property and so on become more affordable. The ESRI has used this pattern over time to influence its estimate of internal migration.

However, it will always be influenced by things like employment available as well. There is also a phenomenon-----

It is a package. It is hard to isolate any particular factor. What we are looking at is combined patterns, or a package of measures and information. We know that the essential ingredients for regional growth are scale, opportunity, diversity of employment, particularly third level institutions and the employment associated with that, which is why I cited Galway. This applies to the other cities too. If graduates from Athlone, Galway, Limerick or wherever can be retained in the city and the immediate region, that tends to drive employment because there is a pool of skill, graduates and talented people who can be employed, which is important but, in turn, requires housing development and investment in infrastructural support. There is no one magic bullet or one precise metric. It all has to work together.

The other things that are necessary for a city to grow include power, utilities, water and transport. There is a very large focus on the east coast in terms of renewable energy development. Is that a factor in this as well? For example, the national grid throughout the country needs to be upgraded. Are the stages of upgrading the national grid fed into this as well? It should be proper planning that drives utilities, and not the other way around. Is that the case in this context?

I suppose the scope of the NPF to include the renewable energy capacity allocations is entirely related to the commitment that is set out in the Climate Action Plan 2024. It sets out those allocations on the basis of a number of factors. I will specifically talk about the wind and solar piece for that but it is related to the question the Cathaoirleach asked.

Absolutely, the capacity of the grid is a consideration in terms of those particular allocations and how they have been set out - the piece around the just transition. Then there is also the reality of it. It has to be reasonable in terms of the targets we have that need to be met and are required to be met by 2030. Where is the capacity to deliver that to 2030, thereafter and beyond. We have worked with colleagues in the Department of the environment, specifically, who have policy responsibility for the renewable side to arrive at the inclusion of these capacity allocations but it is informed by the infrastructure piece that supports that and would deliver it in addition to some of the other considerations, particularly around what is already energised and operational within the system and on the grid. Capacity is a significant consideration as part of that and it has been factored in to this particular piece.

I am pleased to see renewable energy being part of this. We have not had one mention of climate in this room even though it is the number one consideration. Apportioning the onshore portions to places will not happen without the wind guidelines being in place. The same may be said of housing growth. When one looks at the comments of the OPR in its 2022 report, there is concern about the proportion of one-off housing as opposed to schemes or compact growth. Unless we have those guidelines in place, we will have a difficulty with this. Will they be published?

It is important to go back to what was set out in the opening statement in terms of the role of the NPF at the apex of the policy hierarchy. It is what establishes national policy to inform plan-making at the regional and the local level. In terms of the sequence of what needs to happen now, the priority is for the NPF to be finalised and to be in situ in order to give that signal right across the board, not only to the regional and local authorities but also across the other policy measures that have to come in regarding the section 28 guidelines. The Cathaoirleach is correct. A number of them are under way and are well advanced. Subsequent to this being approved, they will become the focus.

At Deputy Leddin's suggestion, we will be inviting the Ministers in. We can put that question in September to the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon. I put it to the Minister of State during the Housing for All update.

I have Deputy Leddin down first in the third round followed by Deputy Ó Broin and Senator Pauline O'Reilly.

Everything I have heard so far confirms my belief that this is really a demand-led strategy rather than an overall vision for the country. We are setting ourselves up for a very unfortunate political legacy, if it goes through as is. I look forward to the Ministers answering to that in September when they come in. This Government has done fantastic work. However, I do not see that good work reflected in this document. As I said, it is not setting the vision for the country. Essentially, it is a plan for growth of Dublin and the GDA.

Interestingly, the Cathaoirleach mentioned the climate targets and the renewable energy targets. It is quite disproportionate. The regions will have the vast majority of the renewable energy development, as per this plan. We are walking into a difficult political situation because essentially the power that is produced by that renewable energy will largely flow to the capital and there is a strong political argument for the growth to happen far more substantially in the regions because it is the regions that will host the renewable energy development. That is an important point to make and we should be thinking about it. We are walking into a situation here where essentially we are adding fuel to the growth of Dublin and the regions of Ireland will be providing the resources for that growth.

I am concerned about the NESC definition that is used for transport-oriented development. There is a number of definitions that NESC uses. That should be looked at and a submission should be made in that regard.

I see no reference in the document to car dependency. It is incredible that our apex document for planning in this country does not include one mention of car dependency. Car dependency is driven, if the committee will pardon the pun, by bad planning. There is no attempt in the timeframe of the strategy, if one can call it that as it is not worth the name, to address car dependency and that should be looked at as we seek to agree a final review of the national planning framework.

In Table 2.1, on page 22, the targets for compact growth are set out for the eastern and midlands region, for the southern region, and for the northern and western region, as "30% all new housing elsewhere, within existing urban footprints". That means 70% of the housing not in cities will be either on greenfield sites at the edge of urban settlements or in one-off developments. Is that not what that says?

Okay.

I have many questions.

On that, it is a case of striking a balance in terms of what is already covered by the national marine planning framework and the policy documents that inform the preparation of the DMAPs. However, I reiterate that the DMAP in question is obviously a new one that has come on stream as part of the new planning legislation for the marine area. It is a matter of the interaction between the terrestrial and the marine. The case study was included on the basis that it was recent and a useful example to demonstrate that. There is no reason we cannot take a look at emphasising or further referencing the preparation of other DMAPs, but it is obviously for and within the remit of the marine planning-----

It really should be referred to as the critical planning document.

A couple of the witnesses' statements need to be addressed in my remaining time. Senator O'Reilly picked up on the fact that people will go where they want. Of course they will, but this document will strongly influence things. The idea that the document is not critical or that it is loose or a high-level thing is incorrect as it will have an incredible role in shaping this country. It is so important. That there are only three, four or five Oireachtas Members speaking about it on the last day of the term as we go to public consultation, with no Minister answering on it, is incredible and utterly remarkable.

There was a reference to burdening regional cities with additional targets. Additional targets are not a burden for regional cities. Additional targets, coupled with strong policies, will lead to very significant investment. It is not a burden for regional cities to have ambitious targets. If anything, there is capacity in the regional cities for very significant growth. We should not be talking about the relative growth of cities; we should be talking about how we want this country to develop in the longer term and about absolute numbers. We should be referring to where we want the demand to be, not referring to where we see the demand emerging and then allowing that to inform our high-level planning document accordingly.

Mr. Hogan said the biggest driver of growth is employment and then went on to say it is very difficult to say what the biggest driver of growth is. Infrastructure is one of the critical drivers of growth. Infrastructural spending is influenced very strongly by documents like the one we are discussing. If there is a low target that does not justify investment in infrastructure, we will not get the growth in the places in question. That is the importance of ambitious targets, coupled with strong policies, which in turn inform investment decisions. I know Mr. Hogan will say our targets are ambitious because they are relative to current populations but in real terms, they are not ambitious targets for the growth of the regional cities. What will not arise will be the policies to drive growth and investment.

There seems to be a case being made for unlimited growth or no concept of growth. I am not quite sure which. The reality is that we have worked very hard with colleagues to align the planning strategy with the capital envelope, particularly for State agencies. If we were to seek to be credible in saying to them that we believe there should be no limit on the regional cities and that they can do what they like, with enormous ambition-----

There should be targets for growth that in turn justify the infrastructural investment that would lead to that growth. If there is a modest target for growth, then you do not justify it. I see that in Limerick all the time. When we try to deal with State agencies, they say there are no projections for a specified level of housing provision or infrastructural investment and that they are therefore not going to do what is asked of them. We have to have targets that justify infrastructural investment that will drive growth to where we want it and where we want the demand to be. That is not reflected in this document.

There are various groups that have sought to undermine the NPF or suggest it is not fit for purpose but from the opposite perspective of the Deputy. What they have suggested is that the regional cities are not delivering, cannot deliver and will not deliver, notwithstanding that we have worked really hard to ensure very ambitious targets over a relatively short space of time, backed by State investment through the national development plan, as tracked by the national investment office in the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform.

To be clear, that table is not indicative; as it is actually part of national policy objective 75 it has the legal weight of that policy objective.

That raises a couple of interesting questions. Again, this is not to argue against the targets that are there. It relates to the Cathaoirleach's legitimate question regarding the onshore wind regulations. In some ways, the document seems to be setting out what the distribution will be, albeit by region. That creates a legally binding obligation on the local authorities to respond. Can that be done in the absence of the section 28 guidelines or will those guidelines be required to ensure the targets for the energise capacity, particularly for the north-west and southern regions, are met? I am interested to know how the two will relate to each other.

The table sets out the allocation for the three regions. Sequentially, the next step is for each of the regional assemblies to prepare their regional renewable energy strategies. Work on that is under way, led by the Department of the environment. Further detail will be set out in regard to the translation of the targets at a regional level and how they will be applied within each of the regions. Thereafter, it is a requirement for the city and county development plans to pick up on that and ensure there is consistency with the targets.

Yes. There is a compendium of parts. The NPF is part of it, as are the regional renewable energy strategies the regions are preparing and the section 28 wind energy guidelines. There is a significant amount of technical detail included within all of that. Work is well advanced in this particular area.

The supporting documentation to the revision includes a number of environmental assessments, as the Cathaoirleach referenced. One of them is the strategic environmental assessment environmental report, more commonly known as the SEA environmental report. In examining the alternatives to arrive at a preferred alternative, it sets out some of the core considerations that have fed into this particular distribution. I already mentioned timely deliverability as one factor, that is, the capacity to actually achieve a target by 2030. Another factor is grid connection availability in terms of the infrastructure and servicing of requirements to deliver it. The just transition requirement to achieve a regional balance is also a factor. That goes back to the point made by Deputy Leddin earlier. It is about looking to have equitable distribution across the regions. Some regions are already contributing a substantial amount to the grid. It is a matter of trying to redress that balance.

The energise capacity for the eastern and midland region is 284 MW, which is a very small amount out of the total of 4,667 MW. This is just a query. It is not a criticism. Why is the eastern and midland region target for the energise capacity so low, as set out in the column I am referring to, compared with the targets for the other two regions? Is it reflective of a higher existing level of energise capacity in that region?

Sure. What is significant about this policy objective is that, in respect of onshore wind, it takes the macro targets from the climate action plan and says the regional distribution of those targets should be as per the table provided. There is nothing comparable anywhere for offshore wind. Am I correct in that?

However, at a State-wide level, there has been no attempt to set out what the spatial distribution should be in respect of offshore wind. I just want to understand the situation. In regard to onshore wind, there is a setting out of the regional distribution. With offshore, decisions on regional distribution are being left to the DMAP process, with the requirement that the sum of the distribution adds up to what is required under the climate action plan. Is that correct?

The target is that at least 40% of all new homes nationally are to be within the built-up footprint of existing settlements. That is national policy objective No. 7. National policy objective No. 8 is that at least half of those will be in the cities, with 30% outside of the cities. Those figures are based on the fact we are looking at a ratio of 50:50 between cities and not-cities. That is where the 40% comes from.

I think it is from the All-Ireland Research Observatory, AIRO, which does it on behalf of the regional assemblies. A change we are looking to implement in the national planning framework this time around is to review the use of the CSO settlement boundary as the geography to define compact growth because it is unsatisfactory to a certain extent. This is because at every census, the CSO redraws the settlement boundary to accommodate the growth of the settlement. It is an inexorably increasing boundary. It is not entirely useful for driving compact growth policy. If one looks at how the boundary is described in the footnote to the document, we are looking to use the Ordnance Survey Ireland-based mapping geography to try to create a more compact boundary around settlements and ask local authorities to use that for compact growth housing targets when they do city and county plans. Using the metric from the last national planning framework, it appears to be achieved but we know in reality that we need to make improvements to the geography we use for that.

A specific case which Mr. Hogan will know well is what has been happening in Dublin city and county over the past number of years. Clearly, the vast majority of new residential development has been on the county side of the M50. Adamstown SDZ and Clonburris are examples. That counts as compact growth because it is within existing settlements and plans. Comparatively speaking, very little has been built within the urban core of Dublin, particularly inside the canals. There may be a little more in the area between the canals and the M50 and a significant amount from the M50 out into the commuter belt. Almost all of that would qualify as compact growth under the CSO definition which Mr. Fulcher outlined but there is a view that this growth is not as compact as we would like because we would like a lot more of it within the urban cores. Is that a concern? How will the revision Mr. Fulcher spoke about address that in how we understand what is happening? As we saw with censuses, depopulation in the urban core of Dublin continues at quite an alarming rate in the residential populations. People might move out to where we are in the suburbs, the north of the constituency or the east of Meath or Kildare. It looks like the compact growth requirement is being met but actually there is still a significant amount of suburban sprawl and involuntary commuting because of the lack of compact growth, for example, in the centre of Dublin.

My point is slightly different. There is a reason for setting targets and it is why targets are there. Targets guide Government policy because this is a high-level strategic document. Based on the definition of compact growth within the national planning framework from its outset, Dublin, for example, meets that target. When we look at exactly where the growth is and whether it is as compact as we would like, particularly in terms of the climate action plan, 15-minute cities and reducing commuter times or greater utilisation of existing infrastructure, it is a bit lopsided. Of course, just because there is a target does not mean it will happen but if there is no target, it is less likely to happen because it will not drive policy. Was that looked at in the revision, given we are not getting the desired level of compact growth in urban cores? I suspect the same is the case in Waterford and I know it is the same in Cork city. Is another way of thinking about it or another metric needed for targeting compact growth within the cores of urban centres?

It is the first day of the consultation, as I understand, so we are all reading through the document and the various amendments and so on as we go. Is there any reference to the western rail corridor, light rail for regional cities or double-tracking of rail lines to regional cities in the document? I cannot find anything about those in the document. Will the witnesses clarify that?

I will explain where I am going with this point. On page 41, the document states, "To grow to its potential Galway needs to address recent legacy issues arising from urban sprawl and reliance on private cars..." I saw numerous references throughout the document to specific roads, for instance, the N17. I have no issue with that but surely they are also in a transport plan. However, the Department decided to pull those out and mention them specifically and not pull out projects that are specific to public transport, such as the potential for double tracking, the western rail corridor and the kind of growth we are quite passionate about for our regional cities, which would allow us to have more economic development. For me, as somebody who wants to see the best investment in our cities, that is a glaring omission. Specific roads are mentioned while it is also stated that there is a reliance on private cars in a negative way. To make a balanced document, specific things should be pointed to that could be done regarding public transport.

There are general points about public transport, with which we can all agree, but it looks like a tick-box exercise when specific roads are pointed out that are also part of a transport plan, yet they are pulled out and put into the document. That makes it a slightly political document, if I may say so.

It is an established project that is happening. It becomes more of a tick-box if we just list everything that is happening anyway.

We are very happy to do that. That is not a particular issue if it is already happening. There is a balance to be struck. The status of different projects varies. There are different levels of statutory approval but also financial approval. There is a particular issue for us here, in that if we get into naming specific projects that have yet to be approved in any sense, we do not want to be seen to be jumping the gun on environmental assessment and other such issues.

I will just add to that response. There is a balance to be struck between the role of the framework versus the role of the national development plan. Language is included in there to try to ensure that in terms of the environmental assessment piece, it is not an exhaustive list in terms of any projects that are mentioned. There is a specific caveat in regard to that on page 1 where the vision is set out. It is a balance between what has already been through a planning process, specifically through environmental assessment, and where a commitment has been made versus some of the other longer-term pieces. Projects are mentioned in this document that do not have planning permission. I will leave it there.

I will go next. A lot of the conversation we are having involves different views and opinions on planning, growth, how investment reflects on employment and, in turn, how that creates a population that desires to live in a place. That suggests to me that planning is not an exact science. It is our best attempt to look at the most sustainable way to grow an area. We must factor in things like what people's preferences are as well and their desires to live in a certain way in a given place but we must also factor in what a lot of developers want to build because we know there is a reason three-bedroom semi-detached houses on greenfield sites are desirable for developers to build. It is because there is a market for that and they can keep doing it out of the box every single day and build them easily. It is when we start to go back into high density and compact growth that it becomes more expensive and more open to conflict as well. There is not that much objection if you try to build 150 houses on a greenfield site on the edge of a town, but if you try to put that into a footprint within an area where people are already living, you start to get conflicts and it is made more difficult. That is the challenge we face here. From a national perspective and in terms of the high-level objectives we set out, such as climate, we must be stronger in this document and say that what people prefer and what developers want may not be for the common good.

Our land is a finite resource, as is our water supply. All of those things that make living possible in areas are finite and we cannot continue to sprawl. We are seeing Dublin sprawl. That brings me back to Deputy Ó Broin's point that if you take the entire greater Dublin area as one built-up footprint, it is Louth, Kildare, Meath and north Wicklow that are bulging rather than within the inner part of the M50. How do we wield the stick at a national level to say that is where the growth must happen, not where the developer wants it to happen? I do not know which party is the party of home ownership, but it says that home ownership is the ultimate objective here. However, we know there are different types of tenure, like the cost rental that we introduced. When we met our Green Party colleagues in Vienna to try to formulate cost rental into the Affordable Housing Bill, I asked how long someone generally stays in cost rental units before they buy somewhere. The response was to ask what I meant and why would somebody buy a property when they have a long-term secure, affordable tenancy. It is very difficult. I do not envy the witnesses the challenge of trying to put this together. Most of us have tried to do local area plans and county development plans, and I was on the regional planning assembly. It is difficult to manage the conflicting desires and objectives. I can see the challenge on a national level.

I have a question on the housing targets. Let us just say we take it as being 50,000. When we were doing assessments in this committee on the emissions contribution of building 50,000 homes by conventional methods, we saw that their construction would considerably overshoot our emissions targets. It is probably not for this document but is in the housing strategy, Housing for All, that we should set a target for the 50,000 houses and that, for example, 20% would be achieved through repurposing derelict or vacant properties using low-carbon technologies? Is it within that document that we would set it out and get into the nuts and bolts of the number of houses, the types of tenure, the types of design and that we would specify that one- and two-bedroom homes are so badly needed? Where will that detail be provided to go with this plan?

It is probably best dealt with in a housing strategy document. There are objectives in Housing for All with regard to vacancy and bringing units back into reuse. We have not proven the concept to such an extent that we could rely on it in a planning document on a national scale. There is probably scope to do things like that in individual cities or towns where there is proactive ambition. That could be encouraged and we would certainly support it, but it would be premature for us to issue a national target at this point without the proven track record and level of delivery. I see it as being possible for sure in a future iteration of the NPF but it needs to be proven first in smaller-scale areas in order to understand it better. It is a direction that we are keen to move towards.

I mentioned the concept of housing from all sources. There is an assumption that it is either all greenfield or it must be half brownfield or whatever else. However, there is a full range of sources that includes repurposing existing buildings and sites, addressing vacancy, bringing about changes of use, and even subdivision. There is a lot to be considered further in all of that.

But where is that document? When we talk about the planning Bill, the housing strategy is done at local authority level, but there must be a higher level housing strategy document that goes hand in hand with it. Is that something to be done under Housing for All?

We must challenge those who provide housing to build housing, and we must say what we need and what we want. It is not about what they want to build or what they think they can sell, which, in a way, the State has subvented. There are supports at one end, such as the shared equity scheme for the purchaser or in Project Tosaigh where developers are provided with assistance to get stalled projects going. The State is working at both ends - with developers and purchasers. We must be stronger on it because I am concerned.

A figure of 40% was given for the built-up footprint, which means 60% will be outside of that. Naturally it is easier to build the 60% that is outside, so that is where we will get the development and the 40% will not happen. At what point when we are reassessing this do we say we have all the growth in the 60% area and we are not getting any in the 40% area? That leads into climate issues and affects the provision of public transport as well where the development is no longer compact.

On page 25 of the revision document we have included a paragraph to state that in order to understand compact growth trends development in cities and towns must be monitored in a consistent way. We are getting some data from the regional development monitor but we feel we need to start looking at all areas in a more consistent way to understand more what is happening. We have committed to a new approach to monitoring urban growth whereby it will be focused on the built-up footprint of existing settlements, comprising areas subject to existing urban land use and the additional land take associated with development outside the built footprint, and it is being developed to track and compare urban development trends in the main urban settlements. We have started some work on this.

We have slightly tweaked the national policy objectives. While leaving the targets the same, we have referred to ensuring compact and sequential patterns of growth. We have provided more detail on this in the 2024 settlement guidelines, with regard to the sequence of how development should occur. We have also changed the footnote to the three national policy objectives that refer to the 30%, 40% and 50%. As Mr. Fulcher said, this is to move away from the CSO definition of a boundary to focus more on the built footprint as defined by urban land uses, while having more compact growth outside of this. While we have not changed the targets we have changed the emphasis and focus, and we have committed in the draft revised document to develop tools to monitor better how it is happening. Before we start changing targets we need to look at how the implementation of the activation measures mentioned earlier are working and understand them better. We need to keep watching and looking at this and tweaking it, which is what the relevant section of the revision document states.

This is a long-term strategy and we are six years into it. It is understood the expectations are great because of the ambitions of the targets that have been set. Our review indicates the state of play at present. There has been only one census since the national planning framework was published in 2018 and one cycle of development plans. It is very much early days with regard to it washing through the system, through the regional spatial and economic strategies which have been adopted, and through the 31 city and county development plans which, by and large, had been adopted and finalised by last year. It is very much early days. On this basis, it is about ensuring the principles remain valid with regard to what the national planning framework sets out to achieve and change.

I want to make a point on the monitoring. I agree that it needs to be monitored constantly. We do not want to go too far off track before we realise we have done so and then try to pull it back in or work out why it went that way. We are pointing out some reasons we think it is going that way. The regional assemblies were to be reported to every two years but there was an attempt to push this out to every four years. This is the ideal avenue for monitoring. The regional assemblies are made up of councillors who represent the areas and they have very competent planning teams. I believe the reports are now going to be made every three years. When we were discussing the planning Bill I argued that we need to monitor and watch this consistently. We had a gap of ten years when nothing happened. The national spatial strategy either never took off or took off in the wrong direction completely.

We are including this additional wording as a safeguard to ensure development is directly adjacent to the footprint and that it is in compact form. We have added more detail to the national policy objective in the compact settlement guidelines. There are priorities for different types of settlement and these will add another layer of detail to it.

This is a significant change. National policy objective No. 7 will no longer be that 40% of all new homes have to be in existing settlements. They will either have to be in the existing settlements or immediate contiguous to those settlements but outside the current boundaries of the built-up footprint.

I might come in on this. The amendment to this particular national policy objective to include the wording with regard to ensuring compact and sequential patterns of growth is to address the issue that Mr. Fulcher set out earlier with regard to the CSO definition of built-up areas and the boundary change that applies to this. Certain settlements can have a fairly extended and extensive boundary to their settlement. The principle of sequentially development would mean regardless of the size of the boundary and the built-up area, the requirement is-----

I will take real-world examples of Newcastle, Rathcoole and other such areas. Not everybody here knows them as well as I do but they will get my logic. If there is urban settlement and residentially-zoned land within the existing county development plan, the 40% must be in land within the existing built-up area or immediately beside it within the boundary and not the next bit out within the boundary. Perhaps I am not explaining myself very well.

I want to ensure I am clear on this. I know national policy objectives Nos. 8 and 9 have not changed and that 40% of the new homes are to be within the built-up footprint of existing settlements. Objectives Nos. 8 and 9 are separate. Objective No. 8 refers to delivering 50% of all new homes that are targeted in the five cities and suburbs of Dublin and the others, but not all of that 50% will be in the 40% under objective No. 7. Is that correct? Some of them will constitute the 40% and some of them will be outside the 40%.

I get that but I am trying to understand it. Let us say the Taoiseach gets his way and there are 50,000 homes a year, as outlined. Of those homes that are being delivered in the cities, 50% have to be in the cities and suburbs, while 30% have to be in all of the other targeted settlements. That means 20% are not within any of those settlements. One would assume those are one-off houses. Approximately 20% of all new houses built in the past five or six years have been one-off houses. According to the latest IGEES report, these have been in rural areas predominantly. I am struggling to understand how 50%, 30% and 20% gives us the 40% in objective 7. It may be that I do not understand it.

Objective No. 7 is a general national target that 40% would be within existing built-up areas. We propose a higher target for cities than we do for other settlements, however, on the basis that cities have a larger footprint and are likely to offer more opportunity in terms of brown-field sites and in-fill land.

It is a small thing but that could be read both ways in terms of its phrasing. I know it is not a change; they are the existing ones. It is almost like when you read the 50% and then the 30%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% and then you are adding the 20% for the one-offs. Ms Kenny is saying that is not how to read those percentages, however?

That discussion was very interesting. I remember being baffled when I looked at this in 2018. It is disappointing that, six years later, it is still so unclear. If clarity can be provided as we develop the final draft, that will be very welcome.

To go back to Senator Pauline O'Reilly's line of questioning on how specific projects were identified, in the context of roads and public transport and general commentary with respect to Limerick, key future growth enablers for Limerick are listed on page 46 of the document. Specific road projects are called out there but no specific rail projects are called out, despite the fact that the Limerick-Shannon metropolitan area transport strategy contains significant rail projects. Does the Department believe rail is not a significant future growth enabler for Limerick? I would argue that it absolutely is. If we build a rail connection from Shannon Airport to the national railway network as envisaged in the draft strategic rail review, it would not be particularly expensive as it is costed at approximately €100 to €200 million at 2021 prices. That would very significantly drive growth in the Shannon-Limerick axis. I do not understand why rail is not specifically called out here. There is greater growth potential with rail investment than there is with road investment. One of key future growth enablers listed is, “Enhanced regional connectivity through improved average journey times by road to Cork and Waterford.” I do not know why rail is left out of that. Why not state that improved average journey times by rail are a key future growth enabler between Limerick and other cities?

In terms of the cities themselves, by mentioning the metropolitan transport strategies we felt we were referring to something very clear and concrete in terms of their detail, and they will be reviewed at appropriate times. There are a range of bodies involved. As regards the rail project for Limerick which the Deputy specifically mentioned, the issue of projects having strategic environmental assessment was mentioned earlier, but the fact that the national strategic rail review is still at a draft stage was not mentioned specifically. It contains proposals for Limerick and all of the cities. If that is finalised by the time we are finalising this document, that will be very helpful and allow us to integrate more elements of it.

It certainly will not draw people in and of itself, but my argument, which is supported by evidence internationally, is that provision of rail infrastructure does drive growth very significantly.

We have seen that in Dublin and in the greater Dublin area in the last 40 years. I think October is the 40th anniversary of the opening of the DART. That has driven growth between Howth and Greystones. The Luas has driven growth along the green and red lines and connecting them did so too. These projects work. They induce demand.

There were so many arguments against those projects. It was considered, going right back, that they were not good investments. The leading economists at the time were saying the projections were not there and they argued against the projects. Brave politicians pushed through with them despite those arguments and the politicians were actually right as the projects induced the development and growth.

The working group that was formed to look at transport-orientated development has undertaken extensive reviews across all the cities. We have only published one report to date, which is the Dublin report, but work has advanced on the wider eastern region, Cork and also the other cities. We will be in a position to publish the other reports shortly. The research is done and we are finalising the reporting on that.

I ask because we have a new directly elected Mayor of Limerick with a mandate for the development of the city, county and region. The mayor has a very strong ambition and vision for transport-orientated development and I would strongly argue another engagement needs to happen with the new Mayor of Limerick before the report is finalised.

Thanks very much. Will I get my picture taken and get to sign it, like a Minister?

I thank the officials for their engagement on this. There has been a massive amount of work done by Mr. Hogan's team as they tried to do this and the planning Bill at the same time. We appreciate that. The end of the public consultation is 24 September. Is that right?

The consultation period will have finished by the time we meet the officials again. It will probably be the third week of September. I am not sure of the dates yet. We will invite the Minister to attend that meeting as well. What is the timeline for the Department to weave the comments from the public consultation into the framework, where necessary, and publish? Am I right that the draft is approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas? It is the final draft. That will include any amendments from the consultation. Will Mr. Hogan hazard a guess at a date on that?

It will depend on the nature of the submissions we get, the extent of them and whether they all arrive at the last minute, which tends to be the case for public consultation exercises. Realistically, it will be October before we can bring anything back. That is probably the best estimate we can give at this point.

I might add something for the Chair's consideration. I agree with him on not running any extension of the consultation deadline beyond September because we are then into the budget cycle, etc. I think it was Deputy Leddin who suggested it, but running the consultation until the end of September, or close to it, would be very wise. Not everybody has the same calendar as Oireachtas Members. The deadline of 12 September is very challenging. I am not looking to extend it - the opposite is the case. It is ultimately a decision for the Government, but given that August is a hard time to get folks connected and organised, I urge that an extension of a week or two be considered.

It will then go before the Houses of the Oireachtas for approval.

I thank the Department officials for their time. We really appreciate it. I am aware they are not all going on holidays now, and nor are we, but I wish them a good break over the summer. They have put in a hell of a lot of work over the last two years and longer with this committee and we thank them for that.