Hugh Byrne
Question:8 Mr. H. Byrne asked the Minister for the Environment if he will consider changes in the Planning and Development Acts in relation to penalties for unauthorised developments. [2353/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Planning and Development Acts.
The offence of carrying out development without permission, or in contravention of permission, already carries stringent penalties. A person convicted on indictment is liable to a fine not exceeding £1 million or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine and imprisonment. Where an offence is tried summarily a maximum fine of £1,000 and a maximum term of imprisonment of six months applies. These penalties, with the other enforcement measures available to planning authorities, constitute an effective deterrent to contraventions of planning law and I have no proposals to change them.
I thank the Minister for his response. My concern relates to people involved in small developments who cannot afford a fine of £1 million. When a person proceeds with a development without planning permission the local authority serves him with a notice. If he continues with the development and is sent a court summons he then applies for planning permission and retention for the building. It seems that the courts are not prepared to regard this as an offence, that when the person submits his application for planning permission the court decides to wait and see how the matter proceeds under the planning process. Will the Minister give consideration to the imposition of a fine for unauthorised developments so that a person who proceeds with a development without planning permission will be automatically dealt with in the courts and will have to pay a fine? My information is that nobody has been fined for unauthorised developments.
Section 28 of the 1963 Planning Act allows planning permission to be granted for the retention of developments carried out without permission. I have argued in favour of this in my local authority in the case of a factory which extended six feet beyond the planning permission. There is clearly a requirement for some flexibility in cases where the exact letter of the planning permission was not complied with, but it must come back to the local authority. To deter people from resorting to this in the first instance — building and then seeking retention — the fee for retention is one and a half times the normal planning fee. Of course, it is open to the local authority to deny planning and the planning retention application. If this happens, the same penalties, which are of a fairly severe nature, for unauthorised development apply.
Will the Minister agree to again look at this issue? There are cowboys — I am talking about the smaller operator — who will proceed with a development without planning permission, thus putting the local authority in an impossible position. Will the Minister review this issue at a later stage?
Yes.
Ba maith liom comhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis an Aire agus leis na hAire Stáit. I think everyone accepts that innocent people can breach the planning laws. However, some people commit major breaches of the law by, for example, building a house without planning permission. When they are served with a notice by the local authority it is possible for them to lodge an application for retention of the building. In the normal course, a decision has to be given within eight weeks. However, it is possible to string out the decision, so to speak, by ignoring a request for further information and as a result——
Questions, please.
Will the Minister take steps to ensure that people cannot string out the retention procedure merely for the purpose of flouting the planning laws?
When a local authority applies to the High Court for an injunction against an unauthorised development, the High Court acts very speedily in granting such an injunction. If an unauthorised development is not removed forthwith the person will be in contempt of court and very severe penalties, including imprisonment, may be imposed. This is not a minor matter and the courts have dealt with it in a severe and clear way.