I had not finished dealing with the cases that were raised by Opposition Deputies on this Bill. Another Opposition Deputy who raised a case and sought to utilise it in furtherance of this campaign was Deputy Ryan. In order to deal with the case which Deputy Ryan raised, it is first of all necessary to define some of the terms which have apparently confused the Deputy. Otherwise he would hardly have made some of the statements he did make.
The first thing I want to do is to explain what the term "outline permission" means. This term was introduced for the first time in the 1963 Act. Section 25 of the Planning Act, 1963, gave the Minister power to make permission regulations which, inter alia, could make provision for “applications expressed to be outline applications for permissions for development subject to the subsequent approval of the planning authority” and provision was made accordingly in the Permission Regulations, 1964, which defined an “outline permission” as meaning a permission for development subject to the subsequent approval of the planning authority.
The grant of an outline permission determines the principle of the land use to which it relates. An application which is for an outline permission need only be accompanied by plans and particulars which are necessary to identify the land to which the application relates and to enable the planning authority to determine the siting lay-out or other proposals for development in respect of which a decision is sought, for example, a block plan for a single house or a lay-out plan for housing development showing road lay-out, proposed sewer connections, and so on, but containing no structural details or details of house design, floor plans, elevations or sections.
When a planning authority receive an application which is not specifically expressed to be an application for an outline permission and they consider that the plans and particulars submitted are sufficient only for the purpose of an outline permission, they are empowered, if they see fit, to grant an outline permission for the development even if the applicant did not specifically state that it was outline permission only that he was seeking.
Another term is the term "approval". Approval follows on the grant of an outline permission. As I have said, once an outline permission has been granted, the land use is determined but detailed plans have then to be submitted to the planning authority for an approval and an approval has to be granted either by them or by the Minister on appeal before actual work can start.
The term "permission" can better be described as "full permission". This applies in a case where full details of the proposed development are submitted and permission is sought, that is, without going through the preliminary process of looking for outline permission, the proposer decides that he does not consider it necessary to seek an outline permission first and goes ahead and has detailed plans prepared from the very beginning.
The terms "permission in principle" or "approval in principle" have no legal standing. When the 1934 and 1939 Town and Regional Planning Acts were in operation, some planning authorities had a habit of informing intending developers who made preliminary inquiries as to whether they were likely to receive permission for the development proposed by them that there would be no objection or that there would be objection, as the case might be, to the development. This was, in fact, an irregular practice which had no legal standing. No formal decision was made under the 1934 and 1939 Acts. Third parties were afforded no right of appeal and in the event of the planning authority indicating that they would have objection to the development the prospective developer himself would still have had to go through the machinery of looking for the permission and being formally refused before he could appeal to the Minister.
This practice had given rise to considerable difficulty in cases where planning policy had changed between the time the planning authority indicated that there was no objection to a development and the lodgment of plans with the formal application for planning permission and the case that Deputy Ryan raised is a good example of this. I may say that this practice has now ceased under the new Act.
Deputy Ryan tried to suggest that this appeal case in which consideration of the appeal was delayed was held up either because of incompetence in my Department or, as he described it, downright corruption, throwing in an allegation that the appeal was probably deliberately delayed in the interests of one of the parties to it who was described as being a friend of mine, though, I may say quite definitely, I do not know anybody connected with this case except Deputy Ryan. His allegations are, as he knows, completely without foundation and he definitely knows this since his firm are, in fact, acting for one of the applicants.
The appeal in question relates to a site at Old Long Hill, Kilmacanogue. I understand that in August, 1963, Wicklow County Council, in response to an inquiry from the owner, stated that they had no objection in principle to the use of the site for the purpose of building a single-storey house. They informed the owner of the site that it would be necessary for him to submit detailed plans for approval. No formal decision was made under the 1934 and 1939 Acts which were in operation at that time and, therefore, no planning permission whatever attaches to this site. The indication that was given to the owner at that time was a purely informal thing which has no binding power, no legal standing whatever, as I have already explained, but the owner apparently assumed from this that he had, in fact, got outline permission for the development of the site and, apparently, he later contracted to sell the site to another party who agreed to purchase on the understanding that there was a valid outline permission attached to the site.
The purchaser submitted an application then for permission—a term I have already explained—for the erection of a bungalow on the site. On 3rd February, 1967, permission was refused by the planning authority on the grounds that the site is situated at a high contour level in a scenic area and the erection of a suburban type residence on it would be out of character and would seriously injure the amenities of the area. The owner of the site, not the purchaser, lodged an appeal against this refusal, and he stated that he was really interested in the outline permission which he understood had been granted in 1963 and which the later decision appeared to revoke. The purchaser also lodged an appeal against the refusal of permission on the grounds that the site was screened from the road and that a house in that location would not interfere with the amenities of the area.
The owner of the site subsequently wrote to my Department on a number of occasions saying that what he really was interested in was to establish that an outline permission attached to the site and that he was not particularly concerned that the prospective purchaser's application had been turned down. He was advised that it was open to him to apply to the planning authority for outline permission and that the appeal before me related to the permission sought by the prospective purchaser and that it was not possible to change the application to which the appeal related into an application for outline permission as was suggested by him. He was advised that the proper course for him to take would be to apply to the planning authority for outline permission if that was what he wanted. That was in April, 1967, two months after these two appeals in respect of the site had been lodged.
In June, 1967, the owner was asked whether he had taken any action on the basis of the advice given to him, but he did not reply. On the 5th April, 1967, both he and the other appellant, that is, the prospective purchaser of the site, who had made no inquiry whatever about the case and had taken no action about it since he had lodged his appeal in February, 1967, were informed that consideration of the appeal was being deferred pending a further communication from either of them. The purchaser was asked to confirm that he had no longer any interest in the case as had been assumed by the owner of the site when he did not reply. I think that in view of the fact that he did not reply, it was reasonable to assume that the claim made by the owner of the site did represent the actual state of affairs.
It was not until 27th November, 1967, that Deputy Ryan's firm, Messrs Ryan and Wallace, Solicitors, wrote on the purchaser's behalf stating that they were most anxious that the appeal should proceed. That was almost five months after the letter had gone out to him from the Department. The solicitors' attention was drawn by letter of 29th November, 1967, to the letter that had issued to their client on 5th July, 1967, and the purchaser was also told by letter of 4th December, 1967, that he had been informed the previous July that consideration of the case was being deferred. Deputy Ryan's firm then wrote saying that their client had no recollection of receiving the letter to which my Department had referred. They asked how the Department had come to the conclusion that he was no longer interested in the case when he had given no such indication himself. They were informed on 8th December, 1967, that the owner of the site had made it clear that he was not greatly concerned with the purchaser's application but wanted to get outline permission for the site. The solicitors replied on 14th December, 1967, to the effect that their client was very definitely still interested in the appeal; they wanted to buy the site but that the owner refused to take the deposit until the appeal was determined.
On receipt of this letter which clarified the position, steps were taken to have the appeal processed and it is now ready for decision. I think it is quite obvious that any difficulties or delays that arose in this connection as far as the purchaser of the site is concerned are attributable to his own neglect in not pursuing the appeal. He was quite clearly informed in July, 1967, that it was intended to defer consideration of the appeal unless either he or the owner indicated that he required that it should be determined. It is not an unusual thing for appellants to decide not to go ahead with their appeals, but in this case the prospective purchaser of the site took no action until late in November, 1967, when my Department first heard from Deputy Ryan's firm about the case. It is manifestly ridiculous for Deputy Ryan to suggest that the delay in this case was due to incompetence in my Department, and there is certainly no basis whatever for the suggestion that the case was deliberately delayed to suit the interest of the owner of the site, who is somebody that I have no knowledge whatever of. It can be clearly shown that this is the position and that this is another case that has been deliberately distorted by the Opposition Deputies in pursuance of a definite campaign.
There was a number of other cases raised by different Deputies, but in order to present the balanced picture everybody would desire to have presented, perhaps I might just deal with another case in which the decision of the planning authority was reversed by one of my predecessors, Deputy P. O'Donnell. This, as I mentioned briefly before, is a case with which a number of Deputies will have become familiar if they have taken any part in the by-election campaign in the Wicklow area. It is the case of an appeal which was submitted on the 22nd April, 1955, against the refusal of permission for the erection of a garage and filling station at Hollybrook, Bray, County Wicklow. The reasons that were given for the refusal by the planning authority in this case were, first of all, that the site proposed to be used for the erection of the garage and filling station was in a rural and residential district, the amenities of which would be injuriously affected by the erection of the proposed building; and, secondly, the proposed structure would obstruct the clear view necessary to road users at the main road junction adjoining it,
This again is a case that had quite a considerable history. The first appeal submitted to the Department was decided when the Minister, by order dated 15th June, 1953, confirmed the refusal by the planning authority of permission to carry out this development at this particular place. I think Deputy Smith was Minister at this particular time. Amended plans were submitted in January, 1954, and the proposal was again refused on the same grounds as previously, and on 30th March, 1954, the council's refusal of permission was upheld by the Minister on appeal. I think the Minister at that particular date was Deputy P. O'Donnell. Further revised plans were submitted in September, 1954, and permission was again refused by the council and the refusal was upheld by the Minister, who again at this time was Deputy P. O'Donnell. The refusal of permission was upheld by an order dated 22nd December, 1954. Once again revised plans were submitted and these were appealed on 22nd April, 1955, and although there was no fundamental change in them—the situation in which the development was proposed was still the same and the Minister was the same Minister who had rejected two previous appeals in respect of the same development for the same site—he suddenly came to the decision that this should be allowed and the appeal was allowed on 1st July, 1955, some two months after it had been submitted.
I have been attacked because I allowed an appeal that had been refused by my predecessor but here is a case in which an appeal had been refused three times already and twice by Deputy P. O'Donnell himself, and on this occasion although there was no substantial change——
