A number of amendments are being taken with amendment No. 62. These amendments deal with whether or not compensation should be paid in cases where a development contravenes a development plan. Amendment No. 62 proposes the insertion of a paragraph which would provide that any development which is in material contravention of a development plan would not be eligible for the payment of planning compensation.
As I see it, the Minister's position under the original Bill has now been modified. It seems the Minister is saying that planning compensation will not be paid if a development contravenes a development plan but with a number of provisos. This is what I am worried about. The first proviso is that if a development complies with the development plan at any time within the five years previously it will be eligible for compensation. There is a further proviso to that which relates to the point in time when a person acquires their interest in the land. While this improves the position under the original Bill, which provided that land acquired after 20 October 1988 would not come under the scope of this Bill in so far as eligibility arising from a refusal because of a contravention of a development plan was concerned, it also leaves it open to some escape.
The principal escape I see is in section 11 (b) which deals with the situation where a person acquired his interest in the land after notice had been published about possible variations of the development plan. I have put down a separate amendment to this which is a fall back if the Minister is not prepared to accept my first amendment which proposes that where a development contravenes a development plan there should not be a payment of compensation. I believe there are very good reasons for this.
The development plan is the principal democratic instrument used to decide on the planning and development of an area. The adoption of a development plan involves the elected representatives of the local authority and the public; it is on public display, it is a procedure which can last in some cases for a number of years and it is where the public come together to decide the planning priorities, and the zoning and development objectives of their area. If a developer can claim compensation because planning permission has been refused which would contravene that development plan that process will be undermined. There are very good reasons why a development plan and the process which leads up to its adoption should be strengthened. There should not be any circumstances in which somebody can claim compensation because a development contravenes a development plan. I have also put down an amendment to the Minister's amendment with which I will deal with after I have heard the Minister's views.