Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Nov 1999

Vol. 161 No. 5

Planning and Development Bill, 1999: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 34.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 139:
In page 48, subsection (4)(c)(i), line 24, to delete "or vibration" and substitute "vibration, fumes or noxious emissions".
–(Senator Coogan).

The reason I tabled this amendment was to extend this section to allow for such matters as vibration to be dealt with. I pointed out the example of a quarry where blasting takes place. Very often the nature of the blast will dictate the amount of vibration. If the blast is compressed then there is a possibility of disturbing or shaking houses that are quite a distance from the quarry. I came across a case recently where a number of householders claimed that structural damage was caused as a result of vibration from such a blast. I made inquiries and was told that if there was a nano-second between each blast and it was spread out, it would not have such an effect. The amendment is aimed at ensuring that people involved in quarrying, or anything that would cause such a disturbance, cannot get away with it if it has an effect on a structure.

I have also included "fumes or noxious emissions" in the amendment because they should also be included in the Bill. The Minister may say it is intended to include them, but I want to ensure that it is thus written into the legislation.

This amendment would permit the planning authority to impose conditions and to require a developer to take measures to reduce or prevent fumes or noxious emissions from a structure or a site comprised in the development or to prevent intrusion of fumes or noxious emissions on to the site. Aside from the difficulty of a definition of fumes or noxious emissions that this amendment would give rise to, pollution matters like this are best dealt with in other codes rather than trying to introduce them in this legislation. As the Senator will see, the emission of any noise or vibration is already covered in section 34(4)(c) where it says "the emission of any noise or vibration". However, if you talk in terms of fumes that does cause difficulties. This is dealt with under integrated pollution control licensing and that becomes a matter for the Environmental Protection Agency. Where it is not controlled by the EPA under the integrated pollution licence, local authorities have the power under the Air Pollution Act, 1987, and the Local Government Water Pollution Acts, 1977 and 1990. Both Acts are designed to control pollution and to mitigate its effects if necessary. While what the Senator is proposing might seem to be advantageous, the general principle in all these things is that you leave these matters to the specialised codes which have been designed to regulate them. For that reason I do not propose to accept this amendment. There is a recipe for all sorts of confusion if you introduce into this Bill something that is more properly dealt with in another Act. On that basis I ask the Senator to withdraw his amendment.

I felt that this was to be integrated legislation and that was the reason I thought it should be included in this Bill but the Minister feels that it is adequately covered. However, the EPA is not always called in except where it is pollution of a substantial nature, whereas if my amendment was included in the Bill, it would cover instances where the EPA would not be brought in and the local authority could make a decision on whether a pollutant had noxious fumes or was offensive to people living in the area. As the Minister is satisfied I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 140 not moved.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 141 and 143 to 160, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 141:

In page 48, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following new paragraph:

"(d)conditions for requiring, in any case in which the development authorised by the permission would damage or alter the conservation value of a designated site, a record of the ecological importance of the site;".

We are looking for records to be kept if there is to be any interference. We want a record of the importance of the site and of its state at the time of interference. I tabled this amendment to assist in the monitoring of the alterations that may take place. We are talking about records and the type of records that are being kept. Amendment No. 145 is also being taken with this amendment. It fleshes out the type of records the Minister has but we want to insert visual records, either measured architectural drawings and/or coloured photographs as considered appropriate. In other words, we are giving this far more substance and updating the type of records that will be kept. All these amendments deal with records. In previous generations, an enormous ledger with copperplate handwriting might have been appropriate but now that we use high definition for geography, it seems appropriate to put that in the Bill. Could the Leas-Chathaoirleach remind me of the list of amendments?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

They are amendments Nos. 141 and 143 to 160, inclusive.

Heavens above. That is a huge swathe. In future, when we are dealing with this type of complicated material, it might be better if we had sub-groups of amendments because this is an enormous amount of material to cover.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Given the number of amendments I will allow a little latitude.

Perhaps we can come back to them.

All these amendments are related. I can give my response and then the Senator can reply.

Before the Minister does that I would like to point out that some of these records deal with maintaining architectural records. I cannot emphasise how valuable that is. I will give one example and then I will sit down because I look forward with interest to the Minister's reply. As the Minister knows because he has been on the street where I live, we are proud of North Great George's Street. The citizens of Dublin are proud of it. It was a major rescue operation. The city authorities who had taken a different view – and I am glad they have changed their minds – did not value it and permitted, encouraged and engaged in demolition at the bottom of the street. We managed to create a detailed architectural survey. When I say detailed I mean that every single brick was accounted for, including its location and structure. The keystones, door surrounds, lintels, fanlights and roof elevations were accounted for. After a number of years when the climate had changed and we had persuaded the Dublin Corporation and the planning people to insist on a full reinstatement of the damaged portion of the street, we were able to supply them with the records. We were able to do that because we knew exactly what had been there. The problem is, with the best goodwill in the world, if you do not have the records to start off with you cannot put things back the way they were from a hazy general recollection.

I am confused about these amendments that have been grouped together. Amendment No. 143 is totally different from the thrust of amendment No. 141. Amendment No. 141 and my amendment No. 141a relate to the keeping of records and to the use of whatever technology is available, for example, video recording and digital camcorders.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If the Senator has specific questions on amendment No. 143 I can arrange for him to discuss it when we reach it. The Minister may deal with most of it when he is replying.

I will come back to amendment No. 143.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I will allow the Senator to do that. I know we have to deal with a large number of amendments.

The reason all these amendments have been taken together is that they all deal with the conditions that may be imposed on planning. Section 34(4) provides a general power to planning authorities to specify conditions when granting planning permission. This is a general power. They can specify whatever conditions they feel are important. However, section 34(4) also specifies 12 separate types of conditions which may be imposed on the granting of a planning permission. That list of 12 conditions is not exhaustive. Anyone who deals with planning as a public representative or in a professional capacity will know that these are not the only 12 conditions a local authority may impose; Members will have seen some of them. These amendments would add another 17 or so specific conditions to this section. Some have merit, some appear bureaucratic and others are less than clear in their intent. The generality of the subsection should stand and additional conditions should not be specified without very good reason. There is nothing to stop any of these conditions, except those not clear in their intent, from being imposed by a local authority. These amendments will not enhance the legislation.

In the past my Department has issued guidelines to planning authorities regarding the attachment of conditions to planning applications. Obviously that approach, rather than including it in primary legislation, makes it more flexible for local authorities. Members should be wary of attempting to include everything in primary legislation, particularly in a case such as this where it can lead to confusion and unnecessary bureaucracy. I will go through all the conditions mentioned if Members so wish. However, rather than getting bogged down in the detail of this, the important point is that the 12 specified are not exhaustive; local authorities are not obliged to have one of these 12 reasons only for objecting to planning permission. Senator Coogan may want to argue on amendment No. 143 and I will not pre-empt him.

We could spend all day looking at the 17 specific conditions proposed to be added to this section. There is nothing to stop local authorities imposing most of them. The list of conditions already contained in the Bill is not exhaustive. There is not much merit in including more conditions.

The Minister's reply was helpful and puts these amendments in context. Some of the conditions are varied. There may be differences in their value. Is the Minister prepared to consider any of them or is he taking the position that they can all be dealt with by the authorities on an ad hoc basis? I am particularly thinking of the importance of amendment No. 146 which specifies the correct re-instatement of any existing interior. Amendment No. 147 deals with the conditions determining the sequence of development in any application and amendment No. 149 requires an applicant to complete an entire development. These amendments are important in terms of housing estates etc. where developers quite frequently, to the considerable disadvantage of citizens, build half a development. They build the houses, do not carry out any ancillary works, disappear and the unfortunate house purchaser is left in the lurch.

Amendment No. 150 proposes conditions determining the hours and days in which a business use may operate in the interest of the environment of an area. Neighbours of businesses would certainly have an interest in this. Amendment No. 152 refers to conditions requiring an applicant to provide measures to mitigate the impact of a development on neighbouring dwellings or structures at the applicant's expense in relation to noise insulation, for example, by double glazing of windows. It is reasonable that the person causing the nuisance should be required to pay for it.

Amendment No. 153 is similar. We had a discussion earlier about the impact of heavy vehicles employed by groups like Coillte on the road infrastructure. A number of Senators on all sides of the House said that if heavy caterpillar vehicles are creating substantial damage to roads and are the property of a commercial enterprise – Coillte will be privatised – why should the already hard-pressed county councils have to fund the repair of these roads from their own resources? This is quite an important amendment.

Amendment No. 153 proposes the insertion of the new paragraph (s) which deals with maintenance. Amendment No. 154 proposes the insertion of the new paragraph (t) providing that the planning authority may by condition require a further application after five years in order to enable it to review the adequacy of conditions, particularly for a development which has a significant impact on the amenities of an area and/or on the public infrastructure of an area. At the moment, once permission is granted it can never by revisited. It is important, particularly in terms of pollution control, that after a period of five years, especially because technology is developing so rapidly, it should be possible to revisit the situation. Unless this clause is already included, I am not sure it can be revisited.

Amendment No. 157 and the new paragraph (w) puts down in black and white what is already standard practice. Perhaps this is what the Minister was thinking of when he said certain conditions are not absolutely necessary. Amendment No. 158 proposes a new paragraph (x) which provides that the planning authority may require by condition the submission by an applicant of a mobility plan to service a development and may require a contribution towards the provision of public transport services or additional public transport infrastructure which would service this development. This gives legislative basis to some of the Minister's ideas.

I am trying to deal with these as rapidly as possible and I have selected a number of amendments which are helpful. I have indicated there may be one or two where standard practice already exists and about which we need not agonise too much. However, I would be interested in the Minister looking at some of the amendments and perhaps doing something on Report Stage. I accept what he said about there being a lot of amendments, about 20, and he is right that they are of unequal importance. I do not wish to press those which state what is already happening because I am happy matters will continue satisfactorily. However, some amendments are more significant.

I accept what the Minister said about the generality of the section. I wish to revisit amendment No. 143, which, as a member of a local authority, is the most important one I have come across, especially given the abuse by builders. Fly by night companies apply under one name, disappear and then reapply under another name. In a later section of the Bill the Minister tries to ensure these people do not reapply, but I do not how that can be done legally. My amendment has a purpose. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that there are about 400 estates which have not been taken over by local authorities because work has not been completed by builders.

Yes, exactly.

I know of one estate where a builder has been building for over 20 years and is still doing so. The name of his company has changed, but he is still building in the same city and we cannot pursue him. Putting a bond in place has not proven successful and efforts must be made to deal with builders – I am not suggesting they are all the same but there is a substantial number of them – who leave the local authority to carry the can. Local authority members get abuse from people in the estate who demand that the work be carried out. The problems can include large potholes, incomplete pathways, ungrassed areas and rubble left behind.

The purpose of amendment No. 143, and Senator O'Meara's amendment which is similar, is to ensure that a developer makes stage development payments for works that must be carried out to ensure the estate can be handed over to the local authority at a later date. The builder would not have to lodge the total amount in one lump sum because this might be an imposition on a small builder or a builder with limited funds. A stage payments system, where after each stage was completed another sum would be lodged for the next phase of work, would not impose a major restriction on a builder. It would also guarantee that, if he disappeared, money would have been put aside to finish the work and the local authority would not have to take the flak because of fly by night builders.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I remind the Senator that amendment No. 145a is in his name and he may wish to address it in due course.

The grouping of the amendments is too comprehensive. I would accept the grouping of amendments Nos. 147 to 159, inclusive, because they relate to the same part of the Bill but the points made by other speakers show the grouping includes a wide diversity of amendments. It does not do the Bill or the amendments any justice to debate them in this fashion. I agree with the comments of other speakers and I understand the Minister's comment that some of the amendments have merit while others are unnecessarily bureaucratic. However, he did not state which ones he considers have merit or which he might return to on Report Stage. I do not want to start a process where each amendment is discussed in meticulous detail but, in fairness to Members, the Minister should indicate which amendments he thinks have merit so that we can return to them on Report Stage. The Bill presents us with an opportunity to include on the Statute Book comprehensive planning legislation. This area is critical at local and national levels and we should not skate over the surface of some important parts of the legislation so we can get through it more quickly.

I agree with Senator Norris's point on the revisiting of planning permission, particularly in relation to applications for large-scale developments to which conditions may be attached. The conditions provide a framework for ensuring that necessary steps are taken, for example, in relation to protecting the environment or people living in the neighbourhood. Although we cannot create an open door in relation to planning permission, there should be some capacity for reviewing the permission given to large developments after perhaps five, seven or ten years.

On the Minister's general remarks on the amendments, planning permission and the discretion and power available to a local authority, some local authorities which have sufficient staff, resources and leadership will use the broad sweep of powers the Minister is providing in the legislation, but others will not. They will stick entirely to the letter of the Bill that is eventually enacted and they will not exercise discretion. They will not use the broad sweep the Minister mentioned and inevitably there will be inconsistency in the approaches taken in different counties.

It may lead to an even larger Bill but it is essential to set out explicitly what we want to achieve, to ensure that it is achieved and that the widest possible range of protections is available. We should also ensure that a local authority exercises the range of powers available to it under the statute. This section, which deals with the conditions governing the awarding of planning permission, is the fundamental part of the legislation. It sets out the framework which local authority planners must use for granting permission. It should be a substantial section and contain much detail. It should give as much guidance as possible and, although the Minister might disagree, it should deal with as many issues as possible. Ultimately, the Bill will be the essential guide book for planners when they are carrying out the wishes of the Oireachtas. I do not suggest that each amendment should be considered individually, but I ask the Minister to indicate which amendments he might agree with in part or that he might return to on Report Stage.

I ask the Minister to ensure that something is done about roadways in housing estates which are becoming a major problem for local authorities. It is no longer sufficient to have only guidelines in this area. It must be addressed in legislation. I am sure all Senators who are members of local authorities can pinpoint estates where roadways have been left in a dire condition. Local authorities do not want to know about them. They say they will only take charge of them if they are brought up to a certain standard. However, often the builder has gone and the householders are not prepared to pay thousands of pounds to have the roads brought up to a certain condition.

I am sure this issue arose during the local elections last June. I am aware of one case in Palmerston, Oranmore which probably has the largest potholes in the world. Guidelines are no longer sufficient to deal with this matter. Something must be done to help local authorities because they are in limbo. They do not know what to do with the estates and have not sufficient funds to carry out work. I ask the Minister to include in this Bill, if that is possible, firm controls with regard to such estates.

I also ask him to consider whether anything can be done now about estates which are currently in limbo and where people are being caused so much heartache by existing problems. Will the Minister consider whether money can be allocated to local authorities to take charge of these estates and bring them up to a proper standard? It is a huge problem which is increasing all the time. If the Minister addressed this problem, he would do a great service for the many people who are caught in a trap with regard to such estates.

Senator McDonagh underlined the point I made earlier and it may be covered by some of the amendments. I agree with Senator O'Meara that it would be most helpful if the Minister indicated which amendments he considers are of greater substance than others. We might find some common ground and be able to accommodate each other in this area.

Amendment No. 146 is important. Although it may appear a small issue, I have direct personal experience of this type of situation. I won a series of legal cases against the woman who is the owner and controller of a property next to mine which is a list one building. However, because different applications have been made and there are different judgments, ultimately she seems to have got away without any proper architectural supervision. She built a skyscraper lavatory up the back of the wall of the building. I forced its demolition but there is a residue of plaster and timber work and they intend to render half the wall. This will look absolutely bizarre on a list one building. They will get away with it because there is nothing to deal with it in the legislation.

It may be a small point and not as significant as the one dealing with housing estates. Senators McDonagh and Coogan emphasised the point I was trying to make that some of these amendments try to get to the heart of absconding developers who do not satisfactorily complete developments. I have no amour propre about the specific wording of the amendments. However, I believe that such a serious social and planning problem, a problem for the county councils, should be specifically addressed in the Bill.

I will consider amendments Nos. 141, 146 and 150 for Report Stage. On Senator Coogan's amendment No. 143, I am not sure of his intention in relation to staged financial deposits, nor is the benefit of staged planning permission clear. Existing planning law allows for the sequencing of development. Is the Senator proposing to grant planning permission for parts of a housing estate?

No. I am talking about where a developer makes an application for, say, 300 houses, he could get the planning permission for the 300 houses but in order to carry out works on them, there should be a staged agreement so that when the work on one section is completed, he would have paid the deposit to cover the work to be undertaken for the next stage. I am referring to general works such as footpaths, roads and so on. The developer would put down a deposit at each stage to ensure that if at any stage the company collapses or if he disappears, finance is put aside so the local authority can carry out the works. I am just proposing this as one option. Perhaps a better system can be achieved.

The existing planning laws allow for this – an overall development may be granted full planning permission but the local authority will decide it must be carried out in phases. Bonds are entered into for the various stages. Local authorities can and have done this.

It is covered by bonds. However, I am talking about financial contributions being made.

I have a difficulty with this proposal even though builders are making substantial profits at present. If they must lodge a sufficiently large amount of cash to act as a bond, a cash bond instead of the present bond system, to cover everything that might go wrong in a phased development of 50 or 100 houses of a phase of 300 houses, it might be very difficult from a construction company point of view. I will look at the wording as it stands to see if I can come up with some wording which would clarify this issue. I believe cash deposits would cause great difficulty.

I am sure the Minister is aware that in spite of the bonds in place at present, developers still disappear and leave estates incomplete. I am trying to ensure that if developers leave, local authorities will have sufficient moneys to complete the development without dipping into their own funds. People who live in these estates blame the local authority because they believe it is responsible for carrying out the work. The local authority will be blamed for the potholes and if the refuse is not collected. I am trying to ensure that the local authorities receive the money to carry out this work. This is just a proposal. I accept the Minister may come up with a better form of wording.

We could get bogged down in this. Section 164 deals with taking in charge of estates and section 147 deals with the past record of builders. These sections include strong deterrents in relation to this type of activity. There will always be difficulties in building sites but it is my experience that the bonding system has worked fairly well since being introduced by local authorities. I accept that we are suffering from the legacy of 20 year old estates. This is the case in all constituencies. However, this happened at a time when local authorities received very low bonds or low cash deposits – they are more realistic at present. Nevertheless, there is a problem but it is more effectively addressed in sections 147 and 164.

In relation to the proposals suggested, amendments Nos. 141, 146 and 150 will be considered for Report Stage. Amendment No. 144 requiring names to be in keeping with the local area is a good idea. This is already included in paragraph (k) in subsection (4). The various references to Gaeltacht areas have been dealt with previously. On the question of requiring visual records of protected structures where affected by development, the Bill already provides for records. How best those records can be kept can be dealt with by way of guidelines rather than writing it into the Bill. On Senator Norris's point, where a protected building is affected, local authorities can require and specify reinstatement. On the sequencing of development, this can be done at present. Planning permission for part of a development may be granted at present.

With regard to amendment No. 149, it is currently an offence for a development not to be built in accordance with the permission. The regulation of business hours can be done and it is quite common in areas for specific types of businesses. The amendment relating to the conditions regulating the use of public infrastructure for particular purposes is not very clear. Local authorities regulate how public roads are used, for example, for quarrying and for forestry. They can regulate the number of trucks per day, their weights and so on, and there is no need for that amendment.

With regard to mitigating the effects on neighbours, at present these conditions can be specified. On the question of requiring a contribution to local authorities for the wear and tear of public infrastructure – Coillte was mentioned in this regard – this is a user charge which is not suitable for planning laws. However, levies may be chargeable under the section which deals with development construction contributions.

That section is more concerned with maintenance.

I have seen the conditions relating to quarries and an annual charge can be introduced.

In relation to further applications being required after five years, local authorities can impose conditions in that regard. However, I am not sure what is intended by the relevant amendment. Does it suggest that we should impose a condition on a local authority to oblige it to apply for retention on a building it has erected after five years, even though planning permission for its construction was obtained? That does not seem logical. Does the amendment also imply that such a building could be demolished after five years?

With regard to requiring further applications to review conditions after five years where permission lasts longer than five years, almost every planning permission operates on an ad infinitum basis. However, where there are particular discharges, licences, etc., the licences must be renewed and reviewed every five years or less. That might cover Senators' concerns in that regard.

To my knowledge monitoring costs are already recoverable by local authorities. Senator Norris referred to conditions regarding subdivision and use and, again, local authorities already have powers in that regard.

Amendment No. 158 refers to submissions of mobility plans and contribution towards the provision of public transport, matters which are dealt with in the building regulations. As already stated, development contributions can be dealt with under section 47. With regard to the sterilisation of land and the record of ecological sites, local authorities are already empowered to specify these in conditions they lay down.

The Minister's comments have been very helpful. Is it correct that he intends to consider amendments Nos. 141, 146 and 150 for Report Stage?

Will he consider bringing forward new wordings for each amendment?

Yes, I will consider bringing forward alternative amendments on Report Stage. We will also reconsider the position regarding amendment No. 143 in the name of Senator Coogan.

Amendment No. 145a should read "to delete 'record including"' and not "to delete 'record"'. The basic thrust of the amendment is that the latest technology should be used in keeping records. If, for example, work was carried out on the inside of this building and damage was done, there would be no way to restore it properly if only a descriptive record existed. However, using the most up to date digital equipment in addition to the original architectural drawings would ensure that a complete record would be kept.

I am familiar with a case where a builder was asked to wait before demolishing part of a wall until the representatives of the relevant authority had viewed it and taken some record of it. They went away and when they returned the builder apologised and said that the JCB operator had reversed into the wall. There was no record of how the wall had looked and it had been completely demolished. The amendment is designed to ensure that cases of that nature do not arise in the future.

I welcome the Minister's comments in respect of the three amendments he proposes to reconsider before Report Stage. I also wish to support Senator Coogan's remarks in respect of amendment No. 145a.

When we took over 35 North Great George's Street, which is now the James Joyce Centre, the ceilings in the two drawingrooms on the first floor, with the exception of the friezes at the top of the walls, had been completely destroyed. However, we were able to reinstate them exactly because we located the original architectural drawings and the 1909 volumes of the original Georgian Society's records contained two photographs of the rooms in question. A combination of the two permitted us to completely reinstate both ceilings.

The keeping of appropriate records suggested in this amendment allows amendment No. 146 to come into play because it is not possible to have a correct reinstatement unless one knows what was already in place. That could include plasterwork, slates, fireplaces, etc. I welcome the Minister's commitment to reconsider this matter.

This amendment has a certain validity. Senator Coogan outlined instances where a visual record would be important.

The Minister provided clarification in respect of the various amendments under discussion and I am glad he has indicated that he will consider amendment No. 143 for Report Stage. Practical difficulties exist in respect of unfinished estates, etc. Problems usually arise on major estates because of non-compliance with the directions laid down in drawings and specifications submitted by architects. Perhaps a system could be introduced where, on a phased basis, the planning authorities, in respect of developments of a certain size, could seek certificates from architects stating that he or she has complied.

At present, if a property is being sold, it is customary for an architect to provide a certificate to state that planning conditions have been complied with. If such conditions are not met, corrections will be required and retention often arises at that stage. In my opinion it would be apt if an architect certifying a property did not recover his or her costs unless he or she had adequate professional indemnity insurance. I am not sure if all architects carry such insurance but perhaps the Minister could investigate the matter further.

If such a system was introduced, it would reassure local authorities because architects would be required to provide certification. In effect, this would be self-certification and, in the event of difficulties, architects and developers could be pursued subsequently in order to recoup the costs of correcting mistakes. The Bill places a significant burden on the staff resources of the planning authorities. Self-certification, etc., would probably remove some of that pressure.

I am glad the Minister stated that he will return to the issue of unfinished estates on Report Stage. Would he be prepared to consider the problems experienced by existing estates? I accept that it is difficult to deal retrospectively with matters of this nature but perhaps the Minister will give consideration to this major problem in the coming days.

With regard to Senator McDonagh's point, in certain instances, the Bill will have retrospective effect in relation to unfinished estates. Once it is passed, any group of residents can apply to a local authority to take over their estate and that authority will be obliged to do so. As a result, local authorities will have to ensure that estates are provided with proper services, such as water, sewerage, roads, etc. I accept that this will cause financial difficulties for some authorities but, to a certain extent, that is their own fault for not pursuing the builders. I take a very hard line in respect of this matter. I am prepared to take a softer approach in respect of estates that are currently experiencing difficulties but, when the Bill is enacted, I will have no sympathy for any local authority which does not ensure that builders complete their work on estates. Local authorities will have an obligation to pursue builders, as they have at the moment, but they have not done it over the years. They will have that power and, if they do not use it, they will pay for it because they will have to do the work the builder has left undone. There is a case to be made for existing estates that have been unfinished for many years.

I have been persuaded by Senator Coogan and Senator Norris that amendment No. 145a would be a good idea. I would like to amend amendment No. 145a.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It can be done now or on Report Stage.

I will amend it now to save us coming back to it. I would like to amend subsection (4)(l)(i), line 26, on page 49, to insert "a written and visual record". It is important to have a written as well as the visual record.

Yes. I would like to clarify a point. I said that I did not intend to delete the word "record"; it was not to substitute the word "record" but to include the others. The Minister's suggestion will overcome both of these problems.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

This is regarding amendment No. 145a?

The amendment to amendment No. 145a will read: “In page 48, line 26, to insert “a written and visual” before “record”.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We will come back to that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendment No. 142 is distinct from the others.

I move amendment No. 142:

In page 48, subsection (4)(f), line 39, to delete "being less than" and substitute "greater".

At the moment subsection (4)(f), line 39 states:

conditions for requiring the satisfactory completion within a specified period, not being less than 2 years. . .

We want to toughen that up by removing "less than" and substituting "greater than" because the work should be completed satisfactorily in a period not greater than two years.

Section 34(4)(f) is a new provision which enables planning authorities to impose a condition on a planning permission for housing development, to require the development to be completed within a certain period from the commencement of the works by the developer. The Bill provides, for practical reasons, that the specified period cannot be less than two years. The Senators will agree that one has to allow the builder the opportunity to get everything done, services laid and installed and so on. The effect of the amendment would be to specify a period of not more than two years and in many cases that would be impractical, particularly for larger developments. While I can understand the Senator's point, this comes back to the point made a few minutes ago about finishing estates.

Exactly.

I understand that aim but it would be impractical, in light of matters we discussed earlier on the phasing of planning permissions and so on, to require every aspect of a development to be finished within two years.

However, the important thing about the new provision section 34(4)(f ) that the Senator wants to amend is that this would permit planning authorities to set a definite finishing date which they do not have the power to do currently. We all know the story of the developer having an estate of 20, 30 or 100 houses and after building 99 of them, claiming that he did not have to put in the full range of services because the estate was not finished. This section gets to the point made by Senator Norris. It sets a definite finishing date and the Bill provides for new and improved powers of enforcement which will enable them to ensure that the date is complied with. I am being more reasonable in the time given than the Senator but we are both on the same lines.

I would like to tease this out a little more because in a way it seems a little more weighted on the side of the developers than of the consumers. This only says we cannot require the completion in less than two years. There should be something that will put pressure on people to complete. We should not have an infinite timescale here, which we seem to have. The Minister said a specific date will have to be set but it could be an unrealistically lengthy one. It does not specify any greater period. I would like more pressure put on developers. This is the same sort of argument we have already had. My colleague, Senator Quinn, looks as if he might say something because I do remember him speaking very passionately about good business practice when we were discussing the production of reports by State bodies. It was the same sort of thing: it will be produced in not less than so many months. Senator Quinn said, "Come on, you have to get them done in a specific time."

My experience, limited though it may be, in commercial, business and legal life is if you set a clear specific target or deadline, then you achieve it but if you do not set it very tightly then you do not achieve it all. At the moment I have part-time employment with a newspaper which came about because, like Rosie Probert, I cannot say no, even to midgets. I ought to get a telephone answering machine that just says yes to everything because that is what I do. I wind up doing the most absurd things. I am amazed at the effect of a deadline. A good tight deadline sometimes is good business practice. The Minister says it can be inserted but there is nothing in the legislation that says it has to be. We are dealing with the requirement that the completion must be done in a period "not less than". I can guarantee it will not be done "in less than" but it is a question of trying to put pressure on them not to take too much time.

Senator Norris made the point I wanted to make. While I accept the Minister's point that the effect of Senator Norris's amendment would be too severe in that one would expect that in many cases it might take a bit longer to put in ancillary works in a development, however, the point the Senator made is a valuable one. I ask the Minister why he feels it necessary to insert into that paragraph "not being less than 2 years from the commencement of any works".

Now that the Minister has explained it, I understand why he believes that figure is necessary. I will read the sentence again: "conditions for requiring the satisfactory completion within a specified period, not being less than 2 years from the commencement of any works". This is understandable and I do not disagree with it. However, what Senator Norris is proposing is a different problem altogether and deals with the non-completion of work. Planning legislation includes the concept of a planning permission withering – it has a life of five or ten years and if it has not been used it withers and dies. It may well be provided for elsewhere in the Bill. I like the concept of withering because it means an individual cannot obtain planning permission and wait until it suits him to build. That is what Senator Norris is trying to achieve but it is achievable in a different way, not necessarily in this section. I would not be surprised if the Minister were to inform me that it is provided for later in the legislation. It may well be that Senator Norris's concerns have already been met but I am not sure.

I agree with the Minister that often a builder cannot complete his work for a variety of reasons, such as weather conditions, shortage of labour or if an appeal has been lodged which delays the development by three or four months and has nothing to do with him. Why is the period two years? I understand the general thrust of Senator Norris's remarks because this refers to the completion of estates and vagabond and will o' the wisp developers, and at the same time we want to ensure that we are not overly harsh on the developers. I am satisfied that two years is reasonable but I want to know the reasoning behind that figure.

It should be remembered that it would be in the interest of local authorities, because of the provisions I outlined earlier, to set a finishing date for each planning application for two or more houses. Members should take cognisance of the fact that local authorities and their members have suffered a great deal as a result of unfinished developments that dragged on and on. This is a new condition where they can specify a finishing date. The reason I will not accept "a specified period not being greater than two years" is that it could be totally unreasonable in the case of planning permission for 200 or 500 houses. Difficulties could be encountered, such as those outlined by Senator Coogan, in regard to delays in getting the project off the ground and so on. We cannot be prescriptive.

With regard to most of the conditions which were referred to earlier the local authority will make a value judgment when it has a planning application before it on a reasonable period for the completion of 20 houses. Two years might be reasonable for a self-contained development of 20 houses in an estate but it cannot be less than that because it would not be reasonable for developments involving 300 or 400 houses. What Members are trying to achieve is adequately dealt with in section 34(5).

Local authorities make judgments about what is the most suitable period without including the two year provision.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 143 to 145, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 145a:

In page 49, subsection (4)(l)(i), line 26, to delete "record" and substitute "visual record (either measured architectural drawings or colour photographs and/or audio-visual aids as considered appropriate)".

Government amendment to amendment No. 145a:

In page 49, subsection (4)(l)(i), line 26, before "visual record" to insert " a written and".

Amendment to amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 145a, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 146 to 160, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 161:

In page 49, between lines 34 and 35 after "determination." to insert the following subsection:

"(6)(a)In the event of the imposition of planning conditions requiring the applicant to agree the details of a condition with the planning authority the applicant shall be obliged to notify the public as required under section 33 in order to facilitate public consultation.

(b)Should the details relate to the construction or operation of shared infrastructure with neighbouring property owners the local planning authority shall be obliged to notify these neighbouring property owners and anybody who previously made submissions or observations to the local planning authority who shall have one month in which to make observations or submissions to the planning authority before a decision is made on the acceptability of the proposal by the applicant.

(c)The planning authority shall require that all conditions requiring agreement between the applicant and the authority shall be determined in writing and a copy thereof placed on the public file in the local planning office to facilitate public information and enforcement.".

The amendment involves the inclusion of a new subsection comprising three elements. Section 34(6)(a) refers to the public's right to know and would oblige the applicant to notify the public of the planning conditions attached. Section 34(6)(b) deals with affected neighbours and their right to know and would require the planning authorities to facilitate them in this regard while section 34(6)(c) would necessitate that conditions requiring agreement between the applicant and the authority should be determined in writing and a copy placed on the public file, therefore, providing public accessibility.

The amendment is about the right to know under clear, specific headings – the public's right to know, the responsibility lying with the applicants; the affected neighbours right to know, the responsibility lying with the planning authority; and laying a file containing all the information in the planning office and making it accessible to the public.

Through the Bill I am trying to streamline the planning process, not foul it up completely with bureaucracy. If such conditions are imposed by a local authority, currently a person has the right to appeal them and seek greater clarification. That is a sufficient right and I do not accept the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 163 to 165, inclusive, are related to amendment No. 162 and they may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 162:

In page 49, subsection (6)(a)(i), line 44, after "area" to insert "and the notice shall specifically state which part of the Development Plan would be materially contravened by granting this permission".

These amendments deal with making information available to the public. Amendment No. 162 indicates that the notice would state where the development plan would be materially contravened if permission were granted. This information is useful to the public. Amendment No. 163 would require the applicant to erect a site notice containing the information specified in the newspaper notice required or issued by the planning authority. The information on site should be the same as that required in the newspaper publication.

Amendment No. 164 seeks to add "and should the development concerned be situated in a zoned amenity area or related to a protected structure or situated in an architectural conservation area the notice shall be sent to the prescribed bodies as part of the consultation process". In other words, those most centrally concerned with the protection of our environment should, as a matter of course, be given information on the matter.

Amendment No. 165 in my name and that of my colleagues seeks to extend from three weeks to eight weeks the period for making submissions on a material contravention. Although this amendment is grouped with the other amendments I wish to draw attention to it for the reason that a material contravention can, in some cases, be a substantial issue and a longer period than three weeks may be required, particularly by a prescribed group such as that mentioned by Senator Norris, to respond. If it is a material contravention to a development plan it could be a substantial rezoning and time would be required by a individual or community group, or a group prescribed under the Bill, to make a submission. I appeal for a change from 21 days to eight weeks and I hope the Minister will look favourably on this amendment.

All four amendments relate to the notification procedure for a material contravention. Amendment No. 162 would require a material contravention notice to state which part of the development plan it is proposed to contravene. I see merit in that amendment and we will come back on Report Stage with an amendment. Some minor changes will have to be made to it. Amendment No. 163 would require a site notice to be erected containing the information specified in the newspaper notice. While I understand the reasoning behind this amendment I am not sure how practical it would be. There is only a three week period for making submissions to the planning authority after the authority places the notice in the newspaper. A site notice for the permission will, in any case, have been erected at the site. The notice for permission for the material contravention will have been erected in respect of the application. Any person who made application or submission regarding the application will have been notified separately. The provision of an additional site notice would not add much to the process but would certainly add to the enforcement procedures. Members are aware what happens with material contraventions. In general a planning application is submitted in the normal way, a site notice is erected and a notice is put in the newspaper. As the application is being processed the manager decides it is in contravention of the development plan but feels it should be granted. It is then the material contravention process kicks in. In a sense there are two parallel processes and that is what we have to keep in mind. The site notice sought under this amendment would not be a good idea and would add to the complexity of the situation and to the enforcement procedures.

Amendment No. 164 would require the contravention notice to be sent to the prescribed bodies where the development is in a zoned amenity area. That is catered for in that the original planning application would have been notified to the prescribed bodies. Material contraventions arise when a prescribed body or individual says this land is zoned incorrectly and that it has a problem with it. Once they have made a submission on the application they will be required to be notified of the material contravention under subsection (6)(a)(ii). Therefore, the proposed amendment would not materially add to the notification process because they will already have been notified and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Amendment No. 165 seeks to provide eight weeks for making submissions in relation to the material contravention. The current period in which to make submissions is 21 days and it has always been 21 days. Following on from my previous point and the application having been submitted for six or seven weeks prior to the material contravention question, all of that should be taken into account. The current period of 21 days is sufficient. It is long standing and I do not see any merit in changing it at this time. Such a change would not be in the interests of efficient decision making.

I will accept amendment No. 162 but the point being made in relation to the other three amendments is that they are catered for already.

I very much welcome the fact that the Minister is accepting amendment No. 162 but I understand he will come back with a slightly different form of words. Is that right?

It is just something technical. I do not want to be—

That is fine.

We can accept it as it is if we change Development Plan to lower case.

In that case I would be very happy. That is fine. Thank you very much.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed?

Yes. On amendment No. 163 I understand the Minister is saying, as he did in the case of amendment No. 161, and I did not struggle very vigorously—

On amendment No. 162 I also want to delete "part" and substitute "objective".

Thank you. We have been doing good work here over the past two days and we have improved the Bill. I will not push amendment No. 163. The Minister will note I did not struggle too vigorously in regard to amendment No. 161 and I sympathise with him when he says he wants to cut out bureaucracy and allow a situation where proper development can go ahead if that is possible. However, with regard to amendment No. 164, I am only partially satisfied because the Minister says it is already catered for in those circumstances where the prescribed bodies have made representations, objections and so on, but there may be situations where the prescribed bodies have not made representations and, in those instances, they will not receive the notification, as I understand it. It is precisely to cover that gap that this amendment was put down.

If a prescribed body is informed that a development is going to take place in a particular area that is zoned for amenity purposes or whatever and they make no submission in relation it, it means they would have no objection to the development in that area and that they are not worried about the material contravention.

Could it not be an oversight, particularly if there were a number of these things? I am thinking in terms of a fail safe mechanism. We are all human and these things can happen.

The only other thing I would say is that there will be public notices in place and if they have—

Their wits about them.

—their wits about them – we cannot spoonfeed people.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

I will not press the amendment but with the best will in the world there are cases when things are overlooked in the first instance. It does not add very greatly to any bureaucracy because, as the Minister said, it is almost 100 per cent certain that they will get these things anyway. I do not believe it would make too much difference. Given the spirit of co-operation in the House, as we approach our agreed lunch time, perhaps the Minister will look at this. I am sure he is right in the vast majority of cases.

Sitting suspended at 1.02 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

Before the sos I was appealing to the Minister to reconsider this matter on the basis that, although in the majority of circumstances this matter is covered, one could envisage cases where the prescribed bodies had not put down an objection to the planning application merely through human error or oversight. We seek to make it mandatory that they are sent notices to cover this unusual circumstance. It would be only a small bureaucratic burden because in almost all cases such notices go out anyway and it would not give rise to much expense. Even though it may be very largely redundant there could be special circumstances in which it could be useful.

That point is dealt with in the Bill. Public notifications and notifications to the prescribed bodies are fairly extensive. Public notification will take place. I am concerned that we would add to the bureaucracy already involved in the planning system. We cannot continue at the rate we are going trying to cover by way of legislation every possible omission and human error. The prescribed body will receive notification of the initial application and will have an opportunity to make its views known. If, through inadvertence or human error, they forget to make an application or submission at that stage they will have the opportunity of making such application or submission when the notice is put into the newspaper. I do not know of any instance where a prescribed body missed out in such a manner.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 163 to 165, inclusive, not moved.

Amendment Nos. 165a and 354a are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 165a:

In page 50, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following new subsection:

"(7)Notwithstanding section 4 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955—

(a) the notice specified in subsection (2) of that section shall, in the case of a resolution under that section relating to a decision of a planning authority under this section or section 41, be signed—

(i)if the land concerned is situated in a single local electoral area, by not less than 3 members of the local authority concerned, being members consisting of or including not less than three-quarters of the total number of the members who stand elected to the authority for that area, or where the number so obtained is not a whole number, the whole number next below the number so obtained shall be sufficient, and

(ii)if the land concerned is situated in more than one local electoral area, by not less than three-quarters, as respects each such area, of the total number of the members of the authority who stand elected for that area, or where the number so obtained is not a whole number, the whole number next below the number so obtained shall be sufficient, and

(b)it shall be necessary for the passing of a resolution under that section relating to a decision referred to in paragraph (a) that the number of the members voting in favour of the resolution is not less than three-quarters of the total number of members of the authority, or where the number so obtained is not a whole number, the whole number next below the number so obtained shall be sufficient.".

This amendment forms part of the consolidation of planning law. The Local Government Act, 1991, introduced restrictions on local authority members' powers to direct a manager to make planning decisions by using section 4 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955. Section 44 of the Local Government Act, 1991, provided that the powers under the 1955 Act could only be used in planning decisions where three quarters of the members of an electoral area signed the notice of motion and where three quarters of the whole council voted for the proposal. As this is, in effect, part of the core planning law it should be incorporated into this Bill.

Amendment No. 345a provides for the repeal of sections 44 and 45 of the Local Government Act, 1991. This amendment does not introduce any substantive change, although the language of the 1991 provision has been clarified somewhat. My principle aim is to consolidate all planning laws for the convenience of all users of the planning system. This amendment transfers this provision into the planning laws rather than local government laws.

I support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Government Amendment No. 166:
In page 50, lines 34 to 50 and in page 51, lines 1 to 21, to delete subsections (7) and (8) and substitute the following new subsections:
"(7)(a)Subject to paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), where—
(i)an application is made to a planning authority in accordance with the permission regulations for permission under this section, and
(ii)any requirements of those regulations relating to the application are complied with, a planning authority shall make its decision on the application within the period of 8 weeks beginning on the date of receipt by the planning authority of the application.
(b)Where a planning authority, within 8 weeks of the receipt of a planning application, serves notice in accordance with the permission regulations requiring the applicant to give to the authority further information or to produce evidence in respect of the application the authority shall make its decision on the application within 4 weeks of the notice being complied with, provided that the total period is not less than 8 weeks.
(c)Where, in the case of an application accompanied by an environmental impact statement, a planning authority serves a notice referred to in paragraph (b), the authority shall make its decision within 8 weeks of the notice being complied with.
(d)Where a notice referred to in subsection (6) is published in relation to the application the authority shall make its decision within the period of 8 weeks beginning on the day on which the notice is first published.
(e)Where a planning authority fails to make a decision within the period specified in paragraph (a), (b) (c) or (d) a decision by the planning authority to grant the permission shall be regarded as having been given on the last day of that period.
(8)Where, within the period of 8 weeks beginning on the date of receipt by the planning authority of the application, the applicant for a permission under this section gives to the planning authority in writing his or her consent to the extension of the period for making a decision under subsection (7), the period for making the decision shall be extended for the period consented to by the applicant.".

We are trying to restate in simpler language the time periods for making decisions on planning applications. These subsections state that a decision must be made within eight weeks unless a request for further information is made or the applicant consents to an extension of time. However, the existing language is very complex and this amendment seeks to put it in clearer English. One important change is that consent for an extension of time can only be given within the eight week period from the making of the application and cannot be given after a request for further information has been made. That is in line with the general tightening up of time limits for decision making.

During the seminars of consultation on the Bill a number of people expressed concern that the requirement to make a decision within four weeks after a request for further information was made was too short in the case of EIA applications particularly where consultation is required under EU law with prescribed bodies. I recognise that in complex EIA cases planners must have enough time to make a considered decision and evaluate the information they receive. They must have enough time to have the necessary consultations. This amendment will replace the provision of a four week period with an eight week one for making decisions where additional information is sought in respect of applications requiring an EIA. I believe this further time is essential in these limited and complex cases. In all other cases, the local authority will have only four weeks from the receipt of further information in which to make its decision.

Amendment No. 167 which has been tabled by Senators O'Meara, Costello and Ryan is an alternative amendment, the effect of which would be to change the present law of a default grant of permission to one of a default refusal of permission when the planning authorities do not make their decisions within eight weeks as required by this Bill. I have thought long and hard about this provision as it was obviously a serious part of the review. Nobody likes planning permissions to be granted by default. However, because of the serious nature of granting permissions by default, planning authorities take the utmost care to ensure they decide on an application and that a decision is made in the time required.

This provision keeps them on their toes and for that reason default permissions rarely arise in practice. I am not aware of any but I am sure it has happened. If a default refusal was introduced it is likely the system would become more lax and planning authorities would become more relaxed in their time limits. This would ultimately be to the detriment of the system and I ask the Senators to accept my amendment rather than the one they put forward.

The amendment is a big improvement on what was there previously. What has been drawn to my attention is that there is no minimum time period. That might be important in case people think that something could be slipped through overnight. Perhaps the Minister will explain how this can be avoided.

That will be dealt with in regulations. The Senator is right. There was a court case, I think in Dún Laoghaire, which established that there needed to be a minimum time but it will be dealt with in regulations. There was another court case where planning permission was granted literally within seven or ten days of the application being made and it was taken to the High Court. There is case law on that and it is reflected and catered for in the regulations under the Bill.

I thank the Minister for that reassurance, but if on further consideration I find that is not satisfactory, may I introduce an amendment on Report Stage?

The Senator may, if she wishes, bring forward an amendment on Report Stage.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 167 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 168 and 169 are related and will be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 168:

In page 51, subsection (10)(a), line 35, after "appeal" to insert "and this grant will apply only to the original applicant".

I am not sure if it is appropriate at this stage to refer to what was discussed earlier whereby an applicant is deemed not to have carried out some works in the past and likely not to carry out works in the future. In a later section of the Bill a local authority will have the right to refuse planning permission to that person. If a further application is made and there has been no change in the name – the original application could have been in the name of a person who is bona fide, who has or has not carried out work before – no judgment can be made. I want to ensure, if the application applies to the same person, that by some subterfuge you do not get the person who would have been refused the original application.

The Senator's original intent, and what he said at the outset, is catered for in later sections of the Bill which deal with people who do not comply with planning permissions and so on. The effect of this amendment would be a complete and total change in the principles underlying planning and development law. To go this route – although the Senator will be aware that Meath used it very early on and I think Galway also – an occupancy condition can be imposed in unusual cases, for example, where planning permission in respect of a house is granted as an exception to the general planning policy for a rural area.

I know of one or two cases where conditions applied to who should occupy a house but they were challenged. What often happens is that after some time the local authority takes its eye off what is happening and the person who reapplies is different from the original applicant. That has happened and continues to happen.

I accept that.

The reason I tabled the amendment at this stage was in the hope of preventing that happening. If the Minister is satisfied that the later section in the Bill will preclude anybody from doing this I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 169 not moved.

I move amendment No. 170:

In page 52, subsection (11)(a), line 14, after "person" to insert "or company".

This amendment ensures that the word "company" is used. I know it is used earlier and subsequently in the Bill. I thought it appropriate that, for clarity, it be included at this stage also.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 171:

In page 52, subsection (11)(b), line 29, to delete "that are of a substantial nature".

This is to prevent a two tier situation. If there are infringements and failures to comply with planning applications I do not see why it should be left to a subjective view as to what is of a substantial nature. If there are planning requirements they should be met. I do not see why we should have this rather vague provision that they have to be of a substantial nature. Presumably, most infringements would be of a reasonably substantial nature and perhaps the Minister can explain it to me. Perhaps there is something I have not seen.

The simple explanation is the Constitution. We took a long look at how we might address the question of people not complying with planning permissions, not finishing estates and so on. We looked at various mechanisms, including those where local authorities would have the power to refuse planning permission on the basis of previous records. In all the legal advice we received, it was pointed out continually that depriving somebody of planning permission, which he could have otherwise obtained, could have the effect of preventing somebody from earning their livelihood. As the Senator will appreciate, that is a serious matter constitutionally. For that reason, a decision such as the one we are discussing should only happen in the most serious of cases. The advice I have been given – I think the Senator will accept it – is that it is only when somebody substantially breaches the planning code that he should be liable to this penalty. In other cases, the planning authority has greatly improved powers for enforcement. It is basically down to the person's constitutional right to earn a living and he cannot lightly be deprived of that. That is why the matter is brought before the courts to make such decisions; they are deemed to be acting in a constitutional manner at all times. For that reason I ask the Senator to withdraw his amendment.

I wish to ask one or two questions and then I will withdraw my amendment. What constitutes a substantial infringement? Are there areas of margin about which the Minister would be worried? Precisely who makes the decision as to whether it is substantial or not? Is it the planning authority manager? I will be withdrawing the amendment.

Initially I suppose the local authority will come to a conclusion based on a past record that what has happened previously constitutes a serious breach. When the local authority has reached that decision, it will state its case to the High Court, which will either confirm or revoke that particular decision. It is the High Court which makes the decision but the local authority will make the initial decision to refuse the planning permission because of the past history of the applicant. The court will have to confirm that decision.

The Minister has answered my question. I am also a little worried about the uniformity of standards but presumably there will be a certain uniformity in that process. I suppose it cannot be guaranteed but one would hope there would be. I have worries about sensitive policies but I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 172 is in the name of Senator Norris. Amendments Nos. 174, 176 and 178 are cognate. Amendments Nos. 173, 175, 177 and 179 are cognate. Amendments Nos. 172 to 179, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 172:

In page 52, subsection (11)(d), line 36, after "the" to insert "District, Circuit or".

We are rattling through this. All these amendments address the same issue. One answer from the Minister will do for all just as one contribution from me will do.

The idea behind this is that on the question of architecture in sections 63 and 64 one goes to the District Court. I wonder why one must go to the High Court in this case. There is ease of access to the District Court. It is less problematic and it is less expensive getting to the District Court than to the High Court. Is there a specific reason for this? If not, can the Minister permit use of the Circuit Court or District Court?

My answer is the same in this case.

Is it to do with constitutionality?

Yes. An issue which would be almost similar to this is where one would be striking a person off a professional register. One cannot do that in the District Court or the Circuit Court. It must be done in the High Court because of the constitutional implications. The same applies here.

I presume the Minister will give me the same answer in relation to amendment No. 173, where we are attempting to insert Circuit Court instead of the High Court for the obvious reason that it is cheaper.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 173 to 180, inclusive, not moved.
Section 34, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 35.

I move amendment No. 181:

In page 54, subsection (3)(a), lines 6 to 8, to delete ", or such longer period, not exceeding 5 years, as may be specified by the planning authority".

Section 35(3)(a) states:

Where outline permission has been granted by a planning authority, the subsequent application for permission must be made not later than 3 years beginning on the date of the grant of the outline permission. . . . .

That seems to be perfectly satisfactory without adding the additional qualification "or such longer period, not exceeding 5 years, as may be specified". Why would they need a longer period, not exceeding five years?

The only reason they might need a longer period is if it was a more complex planning application for a complex project, for example. This just allows a little extra flexibility. That is the reason it is limited to five years. The local authority would decide whether it would be three or five years.

I am not rigid about it. I can see more advantages in allowing for a discretionary extra two years rather than just applying the cut-off after three years. If the Senator did not press his amendment, I would appreciate it. Allowing it to continue for a further two years if the local authority so decides will not make a huge difference one way or the other.

I take it the decision is still in the hands of the authority. Is that correct?

In that case, I will not press it. However, I think they have enough time because they will have been granted the outline permission already and then they will have three years, which is a considerable amount of time and I am not convinced they want it. If it still remains at the discretion of the local authority, then presumably they will be able to make up their minds. Therefore, in response to the Minister's wish, I will not press the amendment.

I concur with what the Minister is proposing but I see some difficulty if a local authority makes a decision for one person that his or her subsequent application must be made within three years and another person nearby comes along and gets an extension. It will create difficulties for the local authority in justifying why it made a decision against another application and it will actually create even more work.

The three year period should not be specified in the Bill and the reasoning behind that is simple. While the Minister spoke about large developments which may take time to develop for various reasons, I often hear of cases where a single application is submitted but is pushed back for family or economic reasons, the likes of which I am sure the Minister will be aware, such as a late marriage. A five year period was always adequate to allow a person to make a full submission for planning permission. I cannot see the justification for this and it may create difficulties for local authorities over different decisions being made side by side.

On the last point, we are all keen in this House to give local authorities as much flexibility as possible and this just gives them that flexibility. I accept what Senator Coogan said. We do not have any great argument about it one way or the other. The period is five years as it stands and the Bill provides for making it three years or, at the discretion of, or by agreement with, the local authority, extending it to five years.

I would not press the issue but I see some difficulties which may arise.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 182:
In page 54, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(c) Sections 39, 40 and 41 shall not apply to the grant of an outline permission.".

Amendment No. 182 will clarify that sections 39, 40 and 41 do not apply to outline permissions. Sections 39, 40 and 41 are the provisions which give the general time limit of five years to planning permissions and permit the authority to grant a permission for a longer time or to extend the life of a permission in certain limited circumstances. This section already provides that a grant of outline permission only lasts for three years unless a longer period up to five years is specified. The outline permission will expire unless an application is made for full permission. This amendment will ensure that no argument could be made that the life of the outlining permission can be extended. It is just to clarify the difference between the outline and the full planning permissions.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 183 is in the name of Senator Norris. Amendment No. 184 is related. Therefore, amendments Nos. 183 and 184 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 183:

In page 54, subsection (4), to delete lines 17 and 18, and substitute "only on the basis that the authority is satisfied that the details of the proposed application for the subsequent grant of permission is exactly the same in every detail as previously permitted in the grant of outline permission".

This amendment would delete from subsection (4) lines 17 and 18, stating: "provided that the authority is satisfied that the proposed development is within the terms of the outline permission." After all, an outline permission necessitates very flimsy submissions, not the exact detail. I am suggesting that lines 17 and 18 should be deleted and replaced with a phrase that ties it up far more in terms of the planning permission, as follows: "only on the basis that the authority is satisfied that the details of the proposed application for the subsequent grant of permission is exactly the same in every detail as previously permitted in the grant of outline permission". In other words, it provides that one cannot put in for a catch-all, vague development and then submit a specific proposal, which may be noxious in some detail, yet the planning authority – having had no opportunity to consider those details – is obliged to grant permission.

Section 34(11)(a) states:

Where, having regard to–

(i)any information furnished pursuant to regulations made under section 33(2)(j), or

(ii)any information available to the planning authority concerning development car ried out by a person to whom this section applies, pursuant to a permission (in this paragraph and paragraph (b) referred to as a "previous permission") granted to the applicant or to any other person under this Part or Part IV of the Act of 1963,

This comes back to the point I made earlier of ensuring that the applicant is a person of a substantial nature. It is very simple.

Section 35(4) provides that a planning authority shall not refuse to grant permission on an application for permission on the basis of any matter decided when the outline permission was granted. That is the section as it stands. The Senator's amendment would provide that a planning authority shall not refuse to grant permission where the details of the application are the same in every respect as the details submitted in the outline application. The amendment does not make any real sense to me because an outline application, by its very nature, does not contain the same detail as a normal planning application. The amendment, in effect, would render this provision useless and on that basis I cannot accept it. As the Senator said, it might be the intention of somebody to submit a major outline planning application, but he would not be able to obtain full permission without the details being known. However, that is already catered for in the Bill. An outline planning permission can be relatively simple and straightforward. The Bill provides that where an outline application is submitted and decisions are made on the height or size of the building, provided a person sticks by those dimensions in the subsequent full planning application, they cannot be objected to.

I will withdraw the amendment. It is a bit tight, but I just wanted to make sure that there was some relationship between outline permission and full planning permission.

There has to be because there is a tie up in that section. In relation to the Senator's second point concerning amendment No. 184, I would like to clarify the matter. The Senator is concerned about the past history of a developer. Even if he has obtained outline planning permission it would still be open to the local authority to use section 34(11) to prevent him from building. Therefore, the matter is covered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 184 not moved.

I move amendment No. 185:

In page 54, lines 19 to 23, to delete subsection (5).

It seems rather undemocratic that no appeal can be brought under section 36 against a decision. Section 35(5) states:

No appeal may be brought to the Board under section 36 against a decision of a planning authority to grant permission consequent on the grant of outline permission in respect of any aspect of the proposed development which was decided in the grant of outline permission.

There is absolutely no appeal whatever. On the face of it at least, that seems to be a direct abrogation of democratic rights.

Section 35(5) provides that any matter decided at outline permission stage shall not form the basis of an appeal to the board. The amendment before the House would delete that provision. The whole benefit of having an outline permission system is that it is established in principle that a certain land use is acceptable in a certain area. Of course, a decision to grant outline permission can be appealed at the time it is made. There is nothing to prevent that. We are saying that the same procedure applies for the outline permission and it can be appealed to An Bord Pleanála. When that decision is finalised, that is the permission. When somebody seeks permission at a later stage, one cannot re-appeal matters that have already been decided. Because of the way it is worded, I realise it may appear that a person has no appeal at the outline permission stage, but they do. Once those issues are decided there is no point in rehashing them a second time.

I am grateful for the Minister's helpful explanation, but it still leaves the problem of the detail, against which nobody has a right of appeal.

No. To put it at its simplest, if somebody applies for outline permission and they look for a two-storey house of 2,000 square feet and that is appealed all the way to An Bord Pleanála and granted, then when the person comes in for what we normally call full permission, a third party can appeal any new information that is there. They could appeal the entrance, exit, where it is positioned on the site or whatever else, but not the fact that a two-storey dwelling is going up.

I am happy with the Minister's explanation. I was not sure whether, if they applied for a two-storey dwelling and obtained outline planning permission, and then decided to cover it in those awful architectural warts – plastic granite bricks – one would have a hope of objecting to it.

You could.

That is fine.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 35, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 36.

Amendments Nos. 186, 187, 188, 190 and 312g are related and may be discussed together.

I think we could do with some visual aids. I move amendment No. 186:

In page 54, subsection (1), lines 27 to 34, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:

"(a)An applicant for permission and any other person may, at any time before the expiration of the appropriate period, appeal to the Board against a decision of a planning authority under section 34.".

This comes back to the payment of a fee.

One of the effects of deleting that paragraph and putting this in is to reopen the whole question of the fee, but in a rather interesting and new way, about which I have had some discussion with the Minister already. Section 36(1)(a) refers to ". . . any person who made submissions or observations in writing . . . "– they will have done it already and they will have paid for this privilege. A fee is involved. Am I not right? I am right. Now we will require another fee. Let us have a bit of democracy. How many fees do we want? There may be multiple planning applications on the same site. I have discussed this problem with the Minister.

Yesterday we comforted ourselves with the thought that the fee was only £20. What about organisations involved in a great number of these cases at £20 a shot? This fee could tax the resources of an individual or group. I told the Minister that an eminent authority – I am glad to say he is not from Trinity College, Dublin, because I know it exercises the inferiority complexes of some of my colleagues if I mention that place – from University College Dublin, Professor Kevin B. Nowlan, said that the imposition of this type of fee was a disaster and would cripple some of these organisations. An additional fee will be imposed here. How many times will people be expected to pay this fee?

We were bulldozed and flattened yesterday by the superiority of numbers. We had only one vote but we lost it. The Minister said he was absolutely resolute. I dare not use the word "adamantine" because I understand from the Order of Business that my friends do not know what it means and they required an explanation, but the Minister was adamant at least if he was not adamantine. He insisted, we had a vote and his side won. However, this is a more troubling matter. I see the Cathaoirleach leaning forward and, perhaps, he is about to warn me about repetition. Therefore, I will not repeat myself. I hope the case I have made will appeal to the Minister.

Section 36 is about an appeal to the board and it is one of the most critical in the Bill. It is my understanding that section 36(1)(a) means that only persons that have made submissions or observations in writing on the original application can take an appeal. Is that right?

That is one of the most fundamentally undemocratic things we could do. It is only if one has made an observation or a submission on the original planning application that one can go to An Bord Pleanála, whereas anyone can go to An Bord Pleanála at present. Unless a person makes an observation on the planning application from the outset they have no right to go to An Bord Pleanála.

I know where this approach is coming from. This matter has been discussed in more than one public forum recently and also in the past. The fact that any third party or anyone can make an objection to An Bord Pleanála means that we are holding up developments and planning applications for major developments that we want to go ahead. It is wrong that one person may, by sending in an appeal to An Bord Pleanála at the last minute and perhaps who has no direct connection with the planning application, hold up the planning process for months on end. We need to end this. It seems that in trying to achieve something we are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In doing so we are creating an undemocratic scenario which will totally exclude a large number of people.

The effect will be to generate far more submissions and observations in the first instance because people will want to maintain their right to appeal. In other words, they will make submissions and observations in the first instance in order to ensure they have that right at the second instance. Amendment No. 186 is important and I hope we will be able to tease it out. I also hope the Minister will take our views on board.

I agree with Senator O'Meara's comments. I also agree with Senator Norris's concern about the multiple fee applications. I asked a question yesterday but I did not get an answer about the position in 1984 when fees were charged with applications. This scheme proved to be functionally and financially disastrous and was withdrawn after a number of months. Have the Minister or his officials been able to find out anything about the 1984 scheme?

I concur with what Senator O'Meara said. I made the same point in an earlier debate. The Minister indicated that the cost of the initial submission would be between £15 and £20. If a person does not understand the application or fears it may expand later on or may impinge upon them, they will make an appeal at the earlier stage because the cost of the initial submission is small and it will allow them to lodge an appeal later on. We will encourage people to write in rather than discourage them.

With regard to my amendment, consider the case of an individual who produces a plan, shows it to his neighbour and the neighbour is satisfied that it does not impinge up him and makes no appeal against it. The application goes into the local authority and the local authority applies conditions to it. Those conditions must accord with the development plan but perhaps some of those conditions now affect the original applicant. The result is that the applicant is disbarred from making an appeal to An Bord Pleanála on that basis.

Where a person has not made an appeal and where they are directly affected – perhaps there is a better legal term than "directly affected"– but where they are quantitatively and directly affected by the application a person should have the right to make an appeal at the appeal stage, even if they have not made it at the initial stage.

I see the motivation behind this section. Many vexatious objections are made for a variety of reasons – often many of them have nothing to do with planning. The Minister alluded to people looking to extract moneys in order to withdraw their objections. This is an abysmal problem and should be addressed in the Bill, to make it illegal.

It is criminal.

It is not illegal.

Is it not?

It is not. I was amazed to discover this in a case with which I was familiar. The applicants had an objection and the objectors clearly made it known that compensation could overcome the objection. I approached one of the Minister's predecessor and he advised me that the best thing to do was to settle with them. I was appalled. There should be a provision in the Bill to make that type of approach illegal. The difficulty would be to balance that with other rights. In taking action to address vexatious objections I am concerned that we may be encouraging people to lodge an objection with the planning authority at an early stage in order to cover themselves.

Senator Coogan mentioned another aspect with regard to conditions being imposed. A person may examine a planning application and be happy with it but if a condition is attached which impinges significantly on them, they will be at a disadvantage if they have not objected.

Another aspect to do with public notices occurred to me when I was going through the Bill and perhaps it could be examined. There are cases where people are unaware that an application has been made. If we are to debar people from objecting if they have not made a formal objection to a planning application at the initial stage, we should seek to make the knowledge of the application as available as possible. We should strengthen the provisions on public notices and site notices to minimise the risk of people not being aware of an application.

These are fundamental elements of the Bill. I presume the Bill has been cleared by the Attorney General's office but I wonder whether there is a legal implication whereby somebody could make a subsequent challenge.

I am extremely grateful to my colleagues for filling in the outline of my argument. I concentrated my first contribution on the question of the fee because I saw this as a golden opportunity to get in this angle. Of course, there is the much wider aspect of excluding citizens from a right of appeal. I will not rehearse the circumstances but I think they would be quite frustrating.

I am absolutely appalled at what Senator Walsh said. I had no idea that planning law was being used to extort money from people. If this is true, it certainly should be a matter for criminal law. It is analogous to blackmail and it should be stopped. Someone in Government, perhaps the Minister or the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, should address the issue because it is absolutely intolerable that this kind of blackmail should be sustained. I have never heard of it but obviously my colleagues have. It is disgraceful and is the kind of thing that frustrates the efforts of people like me who wish to bring as much openness and democracy as possible into planning legislation. I can well understand the Minister, the Government, county councillors and developers wanting to clear their way through this if that is what they are subject to.

We have heard the word "vexatious" being used with regard to objections. I took that largely to mean little old ladies who did not want to be overlooked in their bathroom or whatever and were holding up a development. This gives a new twist to it. I still think our amendment is wisely worded. I do not think it will open the door to the vexatious claims mentioned by Senator Walsh. If it does, we ought to address that properly. It should in all circumstances be legal. People who want to be difficult will always find the means to be difficult. They are not restricted to the conservation lobby, which is sometimes troublesome, nor to eccentric old ladies, old gentlemen or whatever—

The Senator is being very sexist.

Or even eccentric fellows of Trinity College, Dublin.

Yes, absolutely, a disgusting bunch among whom I do not number myself.

Consider, for example, the Carlton site on O'Connell Street. The application was not held up by An Taisce, the Georgian Society or little old people of any sex whatever, but by sheer spite and commercial rivalry. One developer is hacking away at another, has lost all the appeals and is now going for a judicial review. When there is that level of malice in a case, no amount of restricting the rights of ordinary citizens will achieve anything. This is developers at each others' throats. They are the Tyrannosauri rex in terms of development and are doing a huge amount of damage.

A good case has been made for this amendment on a number of grounds. We will leave it open to the Minister if he wishes to rephrase it or take up some of the ideas. I appeal to him to talk to his colleagues, if it is not directly within his province, and to root out this abominable practice of using the planning legislation to blackmail businesses, individuals etc. I was unaware of this – how naive I was. Now it is out in the open, let us do something about it.

We can say with reasonable certainty that Senator Norris's Tyrannosauri rex would be involved in the initial stages of the process, as well as the latter stages. The Bill as drafted is correct because it does not only deal with objections but submissions and observations – it is a much wider class than those who make objections. If the local authority is to make a reasonable decision, people should be encouraged to make their observations and objections at that stage in the process and not, as happens, to wait until the last day, after the permission has been granted or refused, to go to An Bord Pleanála. One of the classic examples of this – I do not deny the right was there – is the Kildare town bypass, which is regarded as good from the point of view society as a whole. There is a potential environmental impact which was thrashed out over days at a public inquiry. One person, on the last day, can resort to blocking it.

I am sure the Minister will confirm that he is trying to ensure some balance in the system so there is an onus on people to make their observations known at the stage when a planning authority needs to be aware of them so it can make a reasonable judgment. It must have regard to observations and submissions in making its decision, whereas previously it did not. If we are to achieve the targets set out in the national development plan in terms of our required infrastructure, some reason must be introduced to the system. That does not deny anyone their democratic rights to object subsequently to An Bord Pleanála or, in the case of a point of law, to go to the High Court.

We have had an interesting discussion on this and we had an even longer one on it yesterday when I finished by saying Senators were not going to change my mind and I was not going to change theirs – the same applies today.

There is a new element – the multiple fee.

I know there is a new element. I will address the amendments first and then the points made by Senators. Amendments Nos. 186, 187 and 190 are alternatives to each other. Under amendment No. 186, any applicant and any other person can appeal a decision of the planning authority to the board. Under amendments Nos. 187 and 188, an applicant and any other person can appeal to the board if they have paid the appropriate fee. Under Senator Coogan's amendment No. 190, any person who is directly affected by a development can appeal it, even if he or she has not made a submission on the application. Amendment No. 312g applies the same principle, that is, any person is entitled to appeal a decision to make a planning scheme in a strategic development zone even if he or she has not participated in the initial decision making process.

As I said on Second Stage and yesterday, this Bill has made important changes to the rights of third parties in the planning process. For the first time, their right to make submissions and to have them considered is set out in planning law. Planning authorities are the final decision making body for 90 per cent of planning applications and rightly so. It is critical that people who have something to contribute, and as Senator Dardis said, not just those who want to object, do so at that stage because most decisions are not appealed. My point was made by Senators Coogan and Walsh.

I am being portrayed, although not by those two Senators, as trying to prevent people from making submissions and observations to the planning process. Those accusing me of this propose that I should abolish the fee, which was also suggested by Senators Coogan, Walsh and Norris. I am being asked to reconsider this because more people will now make sure they have made a submission so they will have the right to appeal and extra work will be placed on local authorities. I do not mind that. The more people who participate at local level where decisions should be made, the better it is for the system. As I said yesterday, £20 is not a huge sum to pay for that right and privilege. I have said enough on fees.

It is the second £20 fee.

The An Bord Pleanála fee is £100.

If one applies for planning permission for a house, one pays the local authority £47. If one does not like the decision made by the local authority, one must pay a fee to An Bord Pleanála to appeal it. That is not unusual.

As an applicant, one has an active interest in it. What about somebody who is threatened by a possible development?

Somebody who feels threatened obviously has an active interest in the subject. The local authority and An Bord Pleanála must administer the planning laws and try to ensure that everybody gets a fair hearing. It is not unreasonable that a person should contribute even a small amount towards the cost of administering the system. People should bear in mind that the Irish planning system is the most open in Europe. Some European countries do not allow any third party appeals. Such fees do not arise there because people do not have the right to make a third party appeal. Concerns may be expressed but people should bear in mind the overall balance of the Bill and the rights which are being preserved and enhanced. The small number of negative aspects are balanced by the many positive parts of the Bill.

Senators Coogan and Walsh cited a number of examples in relation to the appeals system. I accept it is harsh that a person can be happy with a planning application after he or she has viewed it, but the local authority can subsequently attach conditions to it that changes the overall proposal. It has not proved possible to draft an amendment that would cover that situation. We are considering the matter but I cannot make any promises on it even in the context of Report Stage. A person who is substantially affected by a decision may not have a right of appeal to An Bord Pleanála, but there is a judicial route which he or she can follow. I accept it is not ideal and that it is a problem in the section, but the fee will give people the right to appeal and to be kept informed of what is happening. As I said yesterday, I do not intend to change this provision.

Senator Norris expressed surprise in relation to people abusing the planning system.

Extortion.

Extortion and blackmail are taking place on a grand scale. One may ask why it is not dealt with under criminal law, but that is only useful if people are willing to stand up and report it. No developer or builder will stand up and say it because he knows that the next time he lodges an application for planning permission, even if there is no extortion, the people involved in the racket can arrange for objections to be lodged to hold up the development and any future developments in which he might be involved.

It is happening on a grand scale throughout the country and I have been approached by builders in Dublin and a developer in Meath. I have also heard it from construction industry sources in Galway, Cork and Kilkenny. It is the same story of people lodging objections and making appeals to An Bord Pleanála at the last minute. The developer receives a telephone call within a week or ten days and is told that if he pays a certain amount, the objection will be withdrawn. This is taking place and it is an abuse of the system. It is nothing other than extortion and blackmail. As I said on Second Stage and as the Senator noted, I have never heard an accusation that any conservation bodies, organisations or NGOs were involved in that type of activity.

The tighter we make the system, the better it will be for everybody. People talk about democracy, but what is democracy? Is it allowing the tyranny of the individual over society? I do not agree. My view is that it is trying to maintain the balance between the national interest and the common good and the rights of the individual. An individual's rights should be protected, but he or she should not overrule the common good. The idea is to strike the right balance. I do not suggest that the current planning laws or this Bill have the correct balance, but it is the best attempt that can be made at present.

The Minister said some interesting and shocking things. I must be the most naive person in the House because all my colleagues indicated that they knew about this, but I did not know anything about it. We should not give up; this problem is not insoluble. I presume some type of computer trace is being placed on the people involved. It is similar to what Dublin Corporation faced regarding compensation claims. If there is a constellation of the same people making these types of objections, we should expose them.

There are no journalists in the House but where are the investigative reporters when it comes to this problem? Why are people not writing articles exposing this type of blackmail? I read many newspapers, but I have never seen an article about this problem? Why in the property supplements is there not a large piece about it? Why are these people not exposed and named? I suppose the editors are afraid of libel.

I wish to return to the issue of fees and then I will leave it. The Minster said the fee gives a right to appeal, but that is not the case. There is nothing innate in the payment of a fee that gives a right to appeal. That will be the case under this legislation but there is no automatic organic relationship between the payment of a fee and any right. We will make a decision about this in the legislation.

As the Bill stands, if a person does not make a submission and pay the fee, he or she will not have any right to appeal.

That relates to this legislation, but I was trying to demonstrate that the Minister was using it as a grand general proposition that payment of a fee entitles one to an appeal. That is the case in the Bill as it stands, but we are trying to alter that, although unsuccessfully to date.

I used the word "active" earlier and perhaps my point was badly expressed and I did not explain properly what I meant. My point is that there is a difference between somebody who is seeking permission for a development from which they will benefit, such as a commercial development, and somebody who is doing nothing except sitting in the little house next door. They are not active in that sense. They are passively threatened by the development by virtue of their existence. I do not understand philosophically why somebody who has been sitting in a little house all the time and is then threatened by a development should have to pay a fee to object to it. Why should they have to pay a fee for staying where they are, not making any material change and preserving themselves?

I would be glad if the Minister provided me with information now or later because I want to get at the reasons behind the obsession with the fee. It has been remarked to me that this is the result of a developer's lobby. I do not know whether this is true. I see the Minister shrugging resignedly. I am not making accusations in this regard; after all developers have a legitimate right to lobby. Can the Minister quantify the likely yield from this? We ought to know. It is being presented to us that this is necessary in order to feed the machine. Can we have some idea about how much it is likely to yield? I am disappointed that the notion of the multiplier effect has not softened the Minister. If one makes a submission and pays a fee, why should one have to pay again? I do not understand this. It seems wrong. It is like going to the theatre and being charged for another ticket during the interval.

It is like going to the pub; if one buys the first pint, one does not get every subsequent pint free.

One is not getting an extra pint here, one just has the right to appeal.

I am shocked that Senator Norris did not hear about this before. It was referred to during the Second Stage debate.

Unfortunately, I was ill.

Sorry, the Senator was not present. I will explain briefly how it operates. A substantial building is taking place. An objection is lodged, the builder has borrowed money and he is losing workers during this time. He receives a phone call saying, "I have lodged my objections. The objections have cost me a lot of money because I had to get advice from A, Y and Z." The builder now understands what is being said to him, that he must cover the costs to the other person, which are substantial. I know this has happened in Galway and also in other areas. One individual, in fact, described himself to me as a professional objector.

The point was made earlier that there should be some arrangement for people to make an objection.

This is what the Minister is trying to do. I am not trying to create an image that the country is full of little old ladies who do not know what is going on around them and a building springs up beside them. However, this happens. My amendment proposes that at the stage of appeal to An Bord Pleanála, only a person directly affected, in other words, where the consequences of the development will affect that person financially or visually, should have the right to appeal. I am excluding the others. I accept that professional groups such as An Taisce and the Heritage Council will be making submissions at the beginning. They will be observing planning applications and considering them in detail. However, individuals who are not au fait with the system may not. I am suggesting that those who have not lodged an appeal originally should have the right to appeal, on paper, at the second stage if they are directly impinged upon by the proposed development.

There are three issues involved. I have no objection to a fee for making observations. This may have a positive effect in terms of trying to control what Members abhor. However, it is not always easy to apply the law. In some instances I have sought legal advice in relation to objections. These people are quite clever in their approach. Obviously there is a good reason from their point of view for lodging an objection. They may claim the development will affect them in a small way. The advice I received was that I would not have a case in law that would stand up.

I do not know how this matter can be dealt with but it is becoming an increasing phenomenon. This is highly undesirable and is bringing the whole system into disrepute. It is certainly holding up development. I urge the Minister to see what steps might be taken to outlaw this practice. One must distinguish between the genuine person who is affected by a development and who may for their own reasons decide to accept compensation as a quid pro quo and the person of sets out deliberately to extract money from a developer. I do now know how this might be achieved. Perhaps there could be some way of screening objections because most of them are time related. Often the motivation for lodging objections is to delay the developer. Unfortunately, the developer cannot run with the appeal because of the timelag involved, therefore he needs a determination. It is often cheaper for a developer to determine the matter because he is aware of what he will lose given the extended time involved or what he will save by determining the matter in the first place. It would be helpful if a way could be found to determine these vexatious objections.

The same names keep recurring. This gives a pretty good clue.

That is correct. In relation to the amendments, I have sympathy with the person directly affected. The Minister said he would consider this amendment on Report Stage. Perhaps this could be done without excluding the beneficial proposals in the section.

In relation to professional objectors referred to by Senator Coogan, this section will not prevent that practice. The professional objector will make it his business to lodge the objection early so that he can play a card at An Bord Pleanála level. Clearly the section will not deal with that problem.

These are the people who will get their objections in early.

That is exactly what will happen. The Minister spoke about individual rights versus the common good. Is the common good served by limiting the possibility of third party appeals to a small group, in effect creating an elite of people who can appeal to An Bord Pleanála, i.e., those who have made a submission, observation or objection in the first instance? The unfairness this will generate is not in the common good – quite the opposite. I refer to the very good example given by Senator Coogan of a person who lodges a planning application, goes around to his or her neighbour who may be directly affected and clears it with them. Everything is then fine, problems are sorted out at application level, something is included which has the agreement of the community but the conditions placed on the decision by the local authority include an issue with which the community has a problem. However, because these people have not, for a very good reason and in good faith, lodged an objection in the first instance, they are then precluded from making an objection to An Bord Pleanála. This cannot be right.

The Minister is correct that the vast majority of planning applications do not go to An Bord Pleanála. Smaller house type applications are generally passed by a local authority, so this issue does not arise. However, the Bill as currently drafted generates unfairness in the planning law. I agree with Senator Walsh that those directly affected should continue to retain the right of objection. I do not know how this can be drafted but it appears to me that the common good will not be served by the Bill as currently drafted. It would be better served by the inclusion of our amendment. I appeal to the Minister to take on board our views in this matter.

People will think long and hard about lodging an objection to a neighbour's development, for example, because that is not seen as being the done thing unless a person has a major problem with such a development. As the Minister is aware, the vast majority of people who are carrying out work to their homes will not try to injure their neighbours. Lodging an objection will send out a particular signal in that regard.

It appears that the Bill, as drafted, is attempting to break down the unwritten rule to which I refer and it is generating a greater possibility that people will object at the first instance which, in turn, will give them the right to appeal to An Bord Pleanála. As an example, let us consider the case of a hotel which is doing quite well and the owners decide to add an extension. One or two people might feel somewhat put out by that prospect but they might wait to see what conditions the local authority, which employs professional planners, attaches to the development. Those people would still retain the right to appeal to An Bord Pleanála and they would decide not to object at first instance because they would place their trust in the planners.

Objections of that nature tend to send out a signal that people oppose development and the expansion of the tourism industry. The same people might be concerned about the effects a development might have on the local natural and built environments but they usually decide to leave it to the planning authority to make the decision on their behalf. In many ways, that is what we want people to do. However, that practice will cease because people will automatically lodge objections at first instance in order to retain the right to object to the third party.

This is a very regressive move in terms of the existing planning laws and we will regret it in the long term. I appeal to the Minister to take on board the arguments we have put forward. As already stated, there are backlogs in the system and a number of vexatious objections have been lodged and the larger issues of extortion and corruption are not and cannot be dealt with in the context of this section. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister not to create an unfair situation where, so to speak, there will be an objecting elite.

It is always difficult to reply to a debate when people keep shifting the goalposts. When we began our discussion on this section, Members condemned me for introducing the fee because it was going to prevent people from applying. Now, it appears I am being condemned because everyone—

I never mentioned the fee.

—will lodge objections or make observations. I will not repeat what I said earlier because there has already been enough repetition in the debate. However, there are a number of points I wish to address.

With regard to a person who has not shown the slightest interest in making a submission or offering an observation to a local authority in respect of a planning permission which is going to affect them – they may wish to lodge an objection or merely offer their opinion – I do not believe we are doing anything wrong by saying they have no right to appeal to An Bord Pleanála if they fail to make such a submission or offer such an observation.

There was a classic example of this in west Cork where an application for planning permission for a multi-channel television mast was in place for ten years. A new mast had to be erected and a new application for planning permission was lodged. Everyone in the locality was in favour of the erection of the mast and permission was granted by the local authority. However, a person from Mayo appealed the decision to An Bord Pleanála and it upheld that appeal. Is it correct that we should allow such behaviour to continue? I do not believe it should.

Despite what Senator O'Meara stated, in my view people have the right to make submissions to their local authorities and I encourage them to do so. People are not obliged to write to their local authority and state that they object to the construction of an extension to a hotel. They can write to the authority and state that it has an application for planning permission before it in respect of a hotel beside which they live and that they want a number of points taken into consideration when it is making its decision. They should then make their case about problems caused by noise, car parking, etc. They will then have the right to appeal to An Bord Pleanála if their concerns are not met.

Everybody should be interested in what is going to be built next door to their home. I do not believe it is unreasonable, for a small administrative fee, they should make their views known, object or make a submission if they wish to do so or even write a letter in support of a development. Rather than restricting people's democratic rights, we may encourage them to become more interested and take more responsibility for what is happening in their area. At present, everybody expects someone else, usually their local public representative, to act and speak on their behalf while they hide in a corner and pretend they have no objections. There is a need for greater openness in this area.

With regard to professional objectors, section 123 probably deals more adequately with these people. The section provides that the board may dismiss an appeal if it is vexatious or if it is made with the intention of delaying development or extracting money. However, Senator Walsh made a valid point when he stated that many people are now in a position to cite an entire range of reasons an application for planning permission should not be granted. In my opinion, these individuals study previous applications for planning permission and put together reasonable objections on foot of what they learn. It is very difficult for the board to decipher whether their appeals are genuine.

I would be interested in seeing, first, the board dismissing an appeal on the basis that it was vexatious and, second, whether the courts upheld its decision. If An Bord Pleanála take such action at some stage, we will never discover what will happen.

We have had a long discussion on these amendments and I gave an indication to Senator Coogan that we will continue to consider the situation to which he referred where decisions made by local authorities may alter applications for planning permission in some way and adversely affect someone. Other than that I am not prepared to accept any of the amendments.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

No one wants to stifle the debate but we must be careful about repetition. The Chair wishes matters to proceed in a constructive manner.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 187 to 190, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 191:

In page 54, subsection (1)(d), line 51, to delete "four weeks" and substitute "one month".

I am not pressing the amendment but the Minister has obviously taken on board the point I am making, namely, that we should work in either weeks or months. The Minister has chosen to use weeks but it might have been better to use months. However, that is his prerogative. It might be better if people knew they had a calendar month to reply – for example, from 3 September to 3 October – rather than giving them four weeks which would mean that they would have to reply by the end of the month. It is better in one currency. I inform the Minister that a space rocket crashed into the surface of Mars recently because they were working with two different measurements.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am sure the Minister will take note of that.

It is wise to use one measurement.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 192:

In page 54, after line 52, to insert the following new paragraph:

"(e) while an appeal is awaiting determination by the Board an applicant shall not submit a further planning application to a local planning authority in the interest of a transparent and proper planning procedure.".

This is to prevent fusillades of planning applications, where one supersedes another and another and another and one never knows quite where one is. People are often caught unawares by this. If an appeal is being determined, they are not expecting that a subsequent application will be put in. It is a real sleight of hand. The quickness of the hand deceives the—

The mind, the eye.

Why did the Senator say "mind" in the first place?

I did not.

She did. Her objection is overruled and she will have to pay a fee. This is fairly straightforward and I hope the Minister will agree it would give greater transparency and openness to the planning permission process if people were prevented from doing this. After all, if they are serious about the initial application, and it is being adjudged, why should they put in another?

As the Senator said, this amendment would prohibit a person from making a further application for development to a planning authority while the board was making its decision. There is evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, in at least two cases recently in a part of Dublin where some people attempted to avoid third party objections to their development by making a second and identical application while an appeal was before the board. This was what the Senator was talking about. In one of the cases, the decision was made by the local authority in favour the first time it was appealed. The second notice went up very quickly and the person did not notice that it was a new notice.

Exactly.

By the time they got the decision from the board, which was a refusal, the second planning application had been decided by the local authority.

Exactly.

I have great sympathy for people exercising their lawful rights who find out afterwards that effectively they had been tricked by a developer or by somebody building a house.

The amendment is not the solution because on occasion, people can quite lawfully have concurrent applications on the same site, for example, the phasing of developments. To prevent this could delay development without good reason. If we stated that no identical or even similar application should be made for the same site, it might be quite easy then for a person to alter something very slightly and make the minor changes to the application and get around that restriction.

We examined this and discussed it with officials. A better way to deal with the problem, which has occurred only very occasionally but maybe more often in the recent past than prior to that, is to ensure that site notices are sufficiently clear and contain enough information to let people know that a new application has been lodged.

Could I ask the Minister a question? I do not mean to interrupt rudely but it would help in teasing it out. Did we decide already that we were to colour code them?

That would be helpful.

Senator Coogan had an amendment down yesterday relating to this. We are examining the regulations as to how we could do this. Some of the ways would be to colour code them or change the sizes. We are discussing the different things that we can do with the site notices. Senator Walsh suggested, as have people outside the House, that when a planning application is lodged, everything should be standardised and the local authority should have these signs available for the site. They just fill in the details on receipt of the application and the planning reference number is put on them so that people have ease of access. We will examine all of those measures in the context of the regulations.

Including penalties?

Including penalties, yes. Currently the major penalty if the site notices are not there is that the person's application is delayed but I am not sure whether there could be a penalty other than a delay for a lack of a site notice. The penalty at the moment is simply that that planning application is delayed if it is discovered that the site notice is not there.

It goes back to them.

It goes back again to them. All these things are better dealt with by regulations because, as we all know, if this was made law somebody would find a way around it. Then it takes so long to change the law for something so relatively "minor". One would wait until the next planning Bill came up. It is better to have a regulation for it so that it can be changed. Senator Coogan suggested colour coding, which was mentioned by other Senators, or we could consider changing the size or the location on the site if that is feasible and still making it visible. We will examine all of those measures for the regulations.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 193 to 196, inclusive, are related and are to be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 193:

In page 55, subsection (2), lines 1 to 5 to delete paragraph (a).

It seems odd that in this paragraph the board should be in a position to impose a development even if it is in direct contravention of the regional planning decisions. We talked earlier about trying to make sure that local authorities were not interfered with in their decisions. Surely this is a huge interference with their decision if the board can just decide that such a development should go ahead and nothing can be done about it. I ask the Minister to think seriously about this permission to the board which is of enormous significance. I suggest that the amendment be accepted.

I have suggested amendment No. 196 which states:

In page 55, between lines 13 and 14, after "plan." to insert the following new paragraph:

"(c)The Board may only materially contravene a development plan, local area plan, an area of special amenity or a landscape conservation plan if three quarters of the members of the entire Board vote in favour of such a decision and the result of such a vote shall be recorded in the Board's decision and placed on the planning file which shall be accessible to the public within 3 working days of such a decision.".

This is the kind of thing we require the council to do. If it is fair for the council it should be fair for the board. After all, if the board really is going to make so serious a decision as to materially contravene a plan, presumably it is not much to expect them to turn up and vote on this. Are members of An Bord Pleanála paid?

If they are paid to turn up, they should turn up. They should vote and should be required to vote by a substantial majority, otherwise for what are they getting their money? Let us have them voting, please.

I have done something very simple, which is to change two words. The consequence of those changes are dramatic, which I realise. I would not have done it unless I had the strong belief that what is happening here and what happened in the past is that An Bord Pleanála has become the planning authority and it does not have that right. A community makes a decision and meets local councillors who design the county development plan and filter its opinion through the SPCs. The Minister referred earlier to the community versus the individual but this involves the community versus a number of individuals. A development plan is put in place after months of work. Councillors spend many hours meeting community groups and individuals and take on board their comments and recommendations. There will be more of that in future.

Having made a decision, over which they have agonised for a long time, about what is best for their local authority area, An Bord Pleanála, at the stroke of a pen, can totally ignore the plan, disrupt it or throw it out. I am not averse to the concept of a majority decision by the board but it could make a decision against the development plan where its own inspector has reached a different decision – I will come back to this later. While the amendment involves two simple words, the effect should be dramatic. An Bord Pleanála should not be the final authority in regard to development plans. It is not its right and it does not come under its remit.

I support Senator Coogan. Currently, the board has this power but it must be reviewed again and the opportunity should be taken in amendment No. 194 to essentially return the power to the architects of the development plan and the community, where it belongs. The origins and history of An Bord Pleanála need to be examined. An independent board was set up for various reasons, which there is no point in rehearsing. The Minister will agree, in the context of the debate on area plans and development plans, etc., that times have changed. He has been involved in and influenced that change. That must be recognised and there is nothing more appalling than to come across a decision by An Bord Pleanála which totally, utterly and completely overturns the unanimously expressed wishes of a community. For example, two years ago in Nenagh, the entire urban district council voted unanimously on behalf of the community three times in favour of a development only for it to be overturned by the board. Its decision was absolutely unbelievable and, of course, nothing could be done about it. However, it completely overturned the expressed wishes of the community.

I agree with Senator Coogan that, as members of local authorities, we put a great deal of work into development plans. The Minister wants the entire community to be involved and this will happen even more in future but An Bord Pleanála's ability to overturn and materially contravene decisions must be examined. Serious consideration should be given to prioritising the development plan and reducing the power of the board to overturn decisions.

I strongly support the previous speakers. Similar to the other 29 members of Galway County Council I spend months on end attending meetings in regard to the county development plan and it is wrong and disappointing that at the end of the day An Bord Pleanála has a right to undo decisions made by us. It should respect the expertise of the architects of county development plans and it has taken away greatly from the work of local authority members. It is almost an insult to them. I sincerely hope the Minister will accept Senator Coogan's amendment.

I started out with the same views as Members in regard to An Bord Pleanála contravening development plans, but I listened to a great number of people during the consultation phases and read the submissions made on the Bill after the conference in Dublin. In ten years the amendment will be acceptable because development plans will not be allowed to expire as a result of the timetable that has been included in the legislation. There will always be a problem with development plans in that confusing and conflicting objectives are stated in them but that is not as serious a problem as plans expiring. It is important currently that the board should still retain the right in certain circumstances to contravene development plans because the plans in many cases are allowed to expire.

An Bord Pleanála is a national planning body and it can and should take a broader view on some occasions, which is not easy when it is involved in a local controversy. I have gone as far as I can in this regard because provision is made in the legislation for the board to explain why it has contravened development plans. In 1997, to put this in context, approximately 12 out of 4,500 decisions made by the board contravened development plans and in all cases the local authority had refused planning permission. Most of the decisions were non-controversial. The board does not use this power widely, but it should retain it.

Amendment No. 196 would only allow the board to contravene a development plan, a local area plan, an area of special amenity or landscape conservation area where three-quarters of the members vote in favour and a decision on the vote should be recorded. The board, since its inception in 1977, has often had to make decisions on complex and, indeed, controversial projects. That has always been done on the basis of a majority decision and there is no reason to change that. However, I am prepared to amend section 96 to require the provision of a record of the number of board members voting for and against all decisions and for it to be maintained. That will not just apply in cases of material contravention. It will add greater transparency to the process and should meet some concerns expressed by Senators.

Senator Norris inquired about the voting record of board members. An Bord Pleanála is one body which is not under-worked. It is under tremendous pressure. The quorum for the board is three so that any three members can make a decision on any project. Generally speaking, for the very large, controversial and complex projects practically the entire board will—

Will the Minister remind me what is the number on the entire board?

I will have to remind myself – I think it is ten.

It is a small quorum, three out of ten.

Absolutely, but there were even more controversial decisions when Ministers made them and, thank God, it now lies with An Bord Pleánála.

In regard to what the Minister said – that in ten years' time this matter might be resolved – we are legislating for the future so it is appropriate that we do it now rather than react in ten years' time. Under the provisions of the Bill, local authorities will now have to take into account what regional authorities develop ment plans are there. That is one slight erosion of local authorities' rights. If the Bill goes through, they will also have to allow An Bord Pleánála to have the dominant role in planning matters because it can overrule decisions. Whether the development plan is two years out of date or in date, it does not matter, it can still overrule it. Not every development plan is out of date, although ours ran an extra year. We always try to get it done on time, and most local authorities do. I do not regard that as an excuse for allowing An Bord Pleánála to be the decision makers particularly when, as Senator Norris said, three members, as against a total community, can made the decision. That is not true democracy. I am afraid I will be pressing this issue.

Given that the Minister has some sympathy with what is being said, will he bring forward an amendment to limit the circumstances in which the board can overturn the development plan, for example, in the event of it being out of date? If that was inserted by way of amendment it would have a short shelf life because once the Bill goes through the situation corrects itself. In the meantime an amendment, such as that suggested, would meet our concerns and, I think, the Minister's concerns, and would limit the powers of the board to a particular set of circumstances and achieve a considerable level of fairness which everybody would welcome.

I suggest the Minister include, before paragraph (b), the words "for ten years from the enactment of this legislation" and then we would all be happy.

Less than ten years.

The Minister has said it will take ten years. In ten years it will not be needed.

Or only in the event of the development plan being out of date.

Hopefully it will not be needed and most local authorities will move towards having an up to date development plan. I will have a look at what Senator O'Meara has said – that we should confine this to places where, perhaps, the development plan has not been renewed or is out of date and where there are conflicting or confusing provisions in the Bill. I will look at that to see whether it can be included. Senator Coogan said it was not democratic. We had the democratic system where the Minister, who was democratically elected and responsible to the people, made the final decision on appeal.

Democratic with a small "d".

It does not matter. At that time the Minister was obliged, and was probably inundated with representations from all the democratically elected members of the local authority plus the Oireachtas Members, to make the final decision. We decided in our wisdom 20 years ago that this was a bad idea and that we needed an independent body to make a decision on the basis of independent and objective planning criteria. We cannot have it both ways and I am not attacking the Senator.

I do not disagree with the concept of the board.

It is typical of Irish people that we all look for this independence, to move the decision making process away from politicians and not allow them have anything to do with it. That is fine until the decision goes against us and then everyone is up in arms asking where are the democratically elected representatives. This is an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is amendment No. 193 being pressed?

In view of what the Minister has said – that he will look at this area again – I am not pressing it. We will submit an amendment on Report Stage if there is no satisfaction.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 194:

In page 55, subsection (2)(a), line 2, to delete "even" and substitute "except".

Question put: "That the word proposed to be deleted stand."

Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Cregan, John.Dardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Finneran, Michael.Fitzgerald, Liam.Fitzgerald, Tom.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Gibbons, Jim.Glynn, Camillus.

Kett, Tony.Kiely, Rory.Lanigan, Mick.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Mooney, Paschal.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.Walsh, Jim.

Níl

Caffrey, Ernie.Coghlan, Paul.Connor, John.Coogan, Fintan.Cosgrave, Liam T.Costello, Joe.Doyle, Joe.Hayes, Tom.Henry, Mary.

Jackman, Mary.Manning, Maurice.McDonagh, Jarlath.Norris, David.O'Dowd, Fergus.Ridge, Thérèse.Ross, Shane.Ryan, Brendan.Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.

Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Gibbons; Níl, Senators Ridge and Taylor-Quinn.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 195 and 196 not moved.

I move amendment No. 197:

In page 55, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following new paragraph:

(d)In the event of the Board refusing permission for a proposed development on the basis it would materially contravene a provision of a development plan, a local area plan, an area of special amenity or of a landscape conservation area, an applicant may not re-apply for permission for the same development until the local planning authority has adopted a new development plan in the relevant area in the interest of the proper planning and sustainable land use of an area.".

This amendment, which seems reasonable, seeks to insert a new paragraph into the Bill. If planning permission is refused on the basis that an application would contravene the plan, then that position cannot really alter unless or until the plan is altered or a new one is produced because it would continue to conflict with the development plan.

The amendment would prevent an applicant from reapplying for permission for the same development where permission was refused on the basis that it would materially contravene a development plan, local area plan or special amenity area order, etc., unless a new plan or order was made. I understand the reasoning behind the amendment but it would be extremely difficult to enforce because with even a minor modification to an application it could be held not to be the same application. While I do not have a huge difficulty in principle with the amendment as it stands, it would not be workable or enforceable. I ask the Senator to withdraw the amendment.

I would like to tease out this matter a little more. Suppose an objection is made to the application and it is upheld and permission is refused, why should the applicant have to continue fighting the case? The planning authority will then receive another fee. It is endless. I know there could be difficulties in this area. The Minister has explained that somebody with a little dexterity could change the application. Let us put them to that trouble. Why should they get away without any difficulty at all? To materially contravene a development plan is a serious matter. I do not think we should just throw up our hands. I would be very much inclined to risk including this provision. Part of my motivation stems from the point of view of the individual or group who objects to the application. They are being forced to fight on and pay more fees. If this provision had only the effect of not extracting a further few quid from these people, it would be something.

This provision can be got round simply by making a minor alteration to the application, such as the relocation of a gate or entrance, etc. It would not resolve the difficulty the Senator is trying to cater for. We would be adding to the bureaucracy without meeting the Senator's intent. A person has a right to apply for planning permission and others have the right to object to it. Senator Norris appears to have a fixation about fees.

I certainly do.

The person who continues to apply pays even higher fees.

It is a pity about them. The Minister said I have a fixation about fees but I think he has the fixation with fees.

I will not care if the Senator does not care.

Of course he will not because if I do not mention them again he will have got away with them. If somebody who makes an objection has it upheld, for example, or permission is refused because attention is drawn to the fact that the development is materially contravening the development plan, which is a serious matter, if that point is won in principle, why should people have to keep on and on fighting?

I will leave it at that. I know the Minister has some degree of sympathy and his unwillingness is largely due to the fact that it is technically difficult because people are so ingenious in finding ways around it. He said in an earlier contribution when we were looking at a parallel matter that even if "a similar plan" is included it depends on the degree of similarity. I would be inclined to risk it. Perhaps the Minister could think of some form of words or try "the same or similar plan" and just leave it for a few years to see what case history develops.

I will not hold up progress on the Bill over this point, but it is important and I make no apologies for drawing attention to the question of fees because we have the multiplier effect. Every time I see this I will come back to it because the record will show that, although this is an excellent Bill in many ways, there is a little thorn in it which is very regrettable and it keeps cropping up. I did not insert it in the Bill but I am drawing attention to it every time it arises, in particular, every time it does so in terms of a multiplier effect. We will see it again before the day is out.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 198:

In page 55, subsection (4), lines 27 to 30, to delete paragraph (b).

Paragraph (b) reads: "The Board may dismiss any appeal made under paragraph (a) where it considers the body concerned was not entitled to be sent notice of the planning application in accordance with the permission regulations." This is one of the maddest provisions I have ever come across, if I am reading it correctly. For Heaven's sake, what kind of standards have we got? If the appeal is well founded, if the reasons are cogent, what difference does it make? The Minister talked earlier about bureaucracy and this is bureaucracy gone completely haywire.

If the Minister for Defence was told that there was an atom bomb on its way over – I do not know where it would come from these days – from Korea, I suppose, would he say: "Oh well, we only heard this in the Irish Independent. The Minister for Defence said nothing about it, so we will not do anything.” It is absolute nonsense. It is a variation of shooting the messenger – it is shooting oneself because one does not like the messenger. If the appeal is well grounded, what difference does its source make?

I do not know whether we are talking at cross purposes. Subsection (4) provides that a prescribed body, which should have been notified of a planning appeal but was not, may still appeal to the board even though it has not made a submission on the application. The rights of a prescribed body to appeal are written in here. If, through inadvertence or anything else, it was not originally notified of the planning application it will have a right to appeal to the board. Paragraph (b) clarifies that the board can dismiss the appeal if the prescribed body was not entitled to be notified. That is to keep it consistent with the other parts of the Bill where citizens are entitled to appeal to An Bord Pleanála provided they have made their views known to the local authority. The provision merely clarifies that where a planning authority has fallen down in its duty to notify a particular statutory consultee the body's right to make an appeal will not be affected. It is a positive affirmation—

In paragraph (a).

—of the role of the statutory consultees.

Paragraph (b) is a safeguard against the abuse of this provision which merely clarifies that the board may dismiss an appeal where the body in question was not entitled to be notified. It is to safeguard against a situation where an application to a local authority is granted or otherwise and then somebody gets the bright idea that he will use some local organisation, that might be a prescribed body, to launch an appeal at An Bord Pleanála stage when he is not entitled to do that.

Let us take for an example a planning application where it appears to a planning authority that a development would detract from the appearance of any building of artistic, architectural or historical interest, the prescribed bodies which would be notified are An Comhairle Ealaíon, Bord Fáilte, the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, the National Monuments Advisory Council and An Taisce. In such a case, a regional fisheries board, which is a prescribed body in relation to a development that might give rise to appreciable discharges of polluting matters to waters, would not be entitled to be notified and, in the unlikely event that it was to avail of section 36(4)(a) to appeal such a decision, An Bord Pleanála could dismiss the appeal on the basis that it was not entitled to be notified of this proposal in the first place. It is merely a safeguard against people using prescribed bodies for appeals where they have no right to do so. I ask the Senator to withdraw the amendment.

I did not realise the Minister was such a conspiracy theorist. Will people use the fisheries board to object to painting an 18th century building pink or so on?

I guarantee that within 12 months of this Bill being enacted it would happen.

Maybe the Minister is right. I have already shown that I am very naive over the business of extorting money. I will not push the matter because I know the Minister wants to move on. We, on this side of the House, also have some targets in mind in terms of progress on the Bill.

My principle still stands – if the appeal is well grounded it would not cause me a bother if it came from the fisheries board, if the substance of the appeal proved to be genuine. I notice that it says "may", so presumably it could be entertained if it was felt, however surprisingly, the fisheries board was sensitive to the colour pink and was right on an occasion. Therefore, I will leave it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 36 stand part of the Bill."

The Minister referred earlier to the fact that in the good old days appeals used to go to the Minister and I know his late constituency colleague was involved in a few, some of which might have given rise to talk.

We were not in the same party.

I appreciate that. At least if an appeal is made to the Minister at least we would know who the person is.

I was interested to hear the Minister say earlier that at times the quorum on the board of An Bord Pleanála is three and, hopefully, more than that on important matters. Are most of the appeals to An Bord Pleanála being processed within the time allowed? Obviously, as the Minister said, there are frivolous appeals where a quick read of the report would indicate that the decision should be overturned or accepted and there are others where there is a need for additional time and oral hearings. Will the Minister make a quick comment in this regard? Earlier the Minister mentioned that An Bord Pleanála was under a certain amount of pressure and I subscribe to that view. Obviously some of these are frivolous appeals but others are more important. From the time a planning application is lodged, one knows it will be forwarded to the board no matter which side gets the verdict at local authority level.

Although I do not know whether another question I want to ask the Minister is appropriate here, it has to do with appeals to the board and, as we are not sure how long we are sitting, I suppose I had better ask it while I can. God forbid that one would utter the word guillotine.

If it is relevant to the section, of course the Senator may ask it.

It is relevant to an appeal to the board. My question has to do with where an inspector emphatically recommends granting or refusing an application, as the case may be, and the board makes a decision to the contrary. To what percentage of cases does this apply? To digress briefly, recently an application in Monkstown went through the planning process and the council voted against it. The members of the council stated that they had many concerns about it but the planning officials granted planning permission and the decision was appealed to An Bord Pleanála. The inspector recommended refusal but the board approved the decision. My fellow southside colleague, Councillor Willie Dockrell, to whom Senator Coogan referred briefly because of points he made to him which are the subject of another amendment, was concerned in that regard. In this case the inspector who did the research recommended emphatically that the appeal be refused and stated clearly that there were problems in that it partly contravened a development plan. Are there figures available about such cases? If the recommendation of an inspector, who was doing the spade work, was suddenly overturned by the board, I am sure that would concern the Minister also. That is where I would be slightly concerned that the quorum on the board is three out of ten. I am not suggesting anything inappropriate occurred in that case but it caused a great deal of concern.

There seems to be no provision in the Bill to make the old section 4 motion watertight in legal terms. The section 4 motion got buried in a legal quagmire and it seems to be in limbo. It was the only nugget of real power local authorities had in the context of planning. As the Minister will be aware, the position is that county managers refuse to accept section 4 motions from members on the basis of a High Court decision. That seems to have been left in limbo. I can see no provision in the Bill for restoring to section 4 the status it had previously.

The question of abuse does not arise because if a decision is totally out of kilter with planning laws, An Bord Pleanála is there as a last resort. Most local authorities did not abuse section 4. It was never abused in Mayo. It was a real nugget of power and authority which local councillors had. As the Minister will be aware, now they are reduced to making comments on planning applications and the whole day is spent by councillors commenting, usually in the negative, before the local authority. Does the Minister intend restoring section 4 motions to the status they enjoyed prior to their getting bogged down in the legal quagmire?

Acting Chairman

The relevance of section 4 to section 36 of the Bill is very tenuous indeed.

We dealt with section 4. This morning on an earlier section I mentioned that the provisions of the Local Government Bill were being transferred into the Planning and Development Bill. As regards what Senator Caffrey said, the provisions of section 4 do not allow the members of a local authority to make a decision willy nilly in relation to planning. If the members take the executive power from the manager in regard to an individual planning application, which is what they do under section 4, they must have regard to the same things to which the manager must have regard. At various times I have seen reports of discussions at councils where councillors spoke at great length about the necessity to grant a planning permission so that the person could be the next door neighbour to elderly parents, one of whom was sick and the other was a person with disabilities, who were fearful for their security, etc. Those are not planning and development reasons and the manager is perfectly within his or her rights at the end of a discussion like that, even if the section 4 motion is passed by the requisite number of councillors, not to sign an order on that basis and to refuse the planning if he feels that matters other than matters of planning and development weighed heavily in the consideration of the councillors. I will not pretend to be a legal expert but, even as a councillor, I have had these experiences over the years. Section 4 motions are dealt with in the earlier part of this planning Bill. The same rules apply as applied before as regards the "three-quarters" provision.

On the two queries of Senator Cosgrave, at present the level of appeals going through in the prescribed time has increased to 60 per cent. The situation is obviously improving but it is nowhere near our target, which would be about 90 per cent. It dipped to as low as 42 per cent, as I recall, but that is why we have provided for extra members of the board and extra staff for the board. There were various other provisions made also. I would expect that figure to continue to rise.

On Senator Cosgrave's second question, inspectors' reports are overturned in about 10 per cent of cases which go before the board.

Acting Chairman

Senator Cosgrave, I must point out to you that Part VI of the Bill, which contains 50 sections, deals in detail with An Bord Pleanála.

Given today's Order of Business, we may not reach that.

Acting Chairman

We have no choice but to reach it at some stage.

We do not know that, Sir.

We are continuing thereafter.

I am just going on what exactly was said here.

Acting Chairman

The Chair is giving Members tremendous latitude in respect of how they are dealing with this.

I am glad to hear the Minister say that the number of appeals being dealt with in the time is increasing. The Minister would probably agree that more inspectors or extra back-up staff need to be appointed. In some cases the inspector must go out on a field trip, although obviously in others the decision can probably be made after reading the file. Does the Minister have any proposals in that regard? He mentioned extra staff and we would welcome that. The planners in Dún Laoghaire told me they are dealing with extra applications for extensions and other matters, although I have forgotten the exact percentage increase. Will the Minister confirm that extra staff will be appointed and say whether they are to be inspectors or other back-up staff?

I was interested to hear the figure of 10 per cent. The board has turned down applications twice in my area recently – once when the whole community was in favour of something and on another occasion when it was against it. That leads one to question the authenticity and independence of the board. Enough question marks have appeared over the planning process in recent years and we do not want An Bord Pleanála being another focus for concern. Will inspectors be part of the extra staff?

Acting Chairman

May I repeat that in Part VI, Chapter II of the Bill, there are 15 sections relating to organisation and staffing? That is the appropriate place to discuss these issues.

The answer to the question is yes. It will include extra inspectors.

I am sorry to have to raise that matter, Acting Chairman, but if you want a vote we can deal with it in that way.

Acting Chairman

Is the section agreed to?

I am just asking a question, as I am entitled to. Given what was said earlier, we do not know whether the proceedings will be concluded at a certain stage or not. That is why it may be necessary to deal with certain questions now. I do not want to get into a row with you.

Acting Chairman

You know very well, Senator Cosgrave, that it is the Chair's responsibility to ensure that the debate sticks to the relevant section.

Yes, but it is also the Chair's responsibility to be fair to Members, to ensure that appropriate questions can be asked throughout the debate and that it will not be curtailed.

Acting Chairman

I hope you are not suggesting that the Chair would not do that.

On the Order of Business this morning it was not exactly clear at what stage matters would be concluded. In light of that, I have asked questions which I am entitled to ask. If you do not feel I am entitled to, you are entitled to say so.

Acting Chairman

Thank you very much.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 37.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 199, 200 and 203 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 199:

In page 56, lines 1 to 3, to delete subsection (2).

This amendment concerns the availability of documents, specifically maps, which relate to planning applications. We had a discussion about maps and copyright last week and it was stated that not all maps are subject to copyright. This is the same issue. It is important that maps and photographs should be available. If the concern is copyright, it can be dealt with. The supply of a copy does not necessarily involve an infringement of copyright. The Minister should take a broader view of this matter, rather than a narrow one.

It is exactly what we talked about before and it will be resolved by the copyright Bill, but we have to wait for the legislation. We will be able to get copies of anything that goes on a public register. The matter will be resolved but the proper place to resolve it is in the copyright legislation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 200 not moved.

I move amendment No. 201:

In page 56, subsection (3), line 10, after "authority." to insert "After 5 years the planning authority shall agree future arrangements for safe-keeping and public access to these files with the Director of the National Archives.".

This amendment concerns safe-keeping and public access. We had a discussion on this matter earlier and, as I recall, the Minister felt that much of this documentation would have more impact in its local area. I was making a case for some degree of centralisation of the archives. It is really a question of safe-keeping and maximising public access. I am now aware of the Minister's views on the importance of having these documents available locally, but I have tabled the amendment.

As the Senator said, under section 65 of the Local Government Act, 1994, it is a function of a local authority to maintain and care for its records and to make arrangements for a local archive. Planning and planning applications are of particular interest to a local area. The Senator's amendment is catered for under section 65 at a local level, so I would ask him to withdraw the amendment.

I do not wish to delay the business of the House, but this involves the Director of the National Archives in advising, as much as anything else. It is not suggesting that anything should be centralised. However, the Minister has said that this matter has been looked after, so I will not be tedious because we have much work to get through. I am somewhat reassured by what the Minister had to say.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 not moved.
Section 37 agreed to.
SECTION 38.

I move amendment No. 204:

In page 56, subsection (1), line 30, after "therein", to insert "but without prejudice to the provisions of this Act in section 43 with respect to the revocation and modifications of permissions granted thereunder".

This concerns the grant of permission surviving. Rather curiously, there is a word used, "enure", with which I am unfamiliar. Perhaps the Minister, with his advisers, could explain it further. I assumed it was a printing error and that the word "endure" was meant, but I was told that enure is a form of legalese. I would be interested to know a bit more about this word.

The amendment seeks to introduce a proviso to subsection (1) which states that planning permission attaches to the land and may benefit any person with an interest in that land. In relation to an earlier amendment, I mentioned that it was incorporated without change from the 1963 Act. The Senator's amendment would provide that this is subject to the power of the planning authority to revoke or modify a permission under section 43—

—but that amendment is not necessary. It appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what the provision is for, namely to clarify that this planning permission is not just a personal licence to the person rather than the property. Any permission granted is automatically subject to the other provisions and requirements of the Bill.

So it is unnecessary.

It is unnecessary.

Is "enure" a proper word? I thought it was meant to be "endure".

Acting Chairman

That can be clarified on Report Stage.

I am told that it is a long-standing legal term.

Meaning, more or less, endure?

On a point of information, may we know what it means?

It means that it attaches to the land.

I thank the Minister very much. That is very interesting.

What is the position concerning a person who takes the application up a second time, after permission has already been enured to the land? Does this allow another individual, whose bona fides may be questionable, to have full planning permission? We discussed this matter earlier and it also arises later in the Bill. For example, can an individual, who may have commenced building a housing estate but not completed it, get somebody else to make the application for his next building? That application then applies to the land and he can walk in afterwards and say, "Here I go again."

We are trying to deal with that in later sections. As I said earlier, I take the point made by the Senator. When we get to that part of the Bill we might be able to clarify this further. I know what the Senator is saying about another person applying for planning permission and then someone who could effectively be disbarred by the High Court moving in afterwards. That is something we will try to deal with at a later stage in the Bill.

Would it not be more appropriate to deal with it at this stage? If this remains it will contradict later provisions. If someone takes a case to court they can do so under this provision rather than the later provision.

I agree with Senator Coogan. He has given a very good illustrative example. I understood the Minister to say that this problem was already addressed in some manner that we had not spotted. As a result of what Senator Coogan has said, I am not quite as convinced as I was that it has been addressed. It would be very worrying.

We have already dealt with it in section 34(11), pages 52 and 53. Section 34(11)(a) reads "Where having regard to . . . . " and this is subsection finishes on page 53. Section 34(11)(g) reads:

In this section "a person to whom this section applies" means

(i)the applicant for the permission concerned,

(ii)a partnership of which the applicant is or was a member and which, during the membership of that applicant, . . . . ..

Surely that refers to the original application. There is a loophole in this provision whereby the individual can come back. Would it not be appropriate that that be revisited in this section in order to ensure that an individual whose bona fides are questioned cannot step into the land under his wife's name or his first cousin's name?

There is little point in putting what is effectively the same thing into two sections of the Bill. It is not necessary to do that. If the Senator reads all of section 34, particularly section 34(11)(g) on page 53, he will see that it covers all of the points he raised.

I cannot see that at all. Senator Coogan is correct about this. However, there is a problem with this approach because, in the light of the useful example given by Senator Coogan, we are looking at the control of the behaviour of a developer rather than the control of planning. This Bill seems to address planning only. Regrettable as it may be, if someone of notoriously ill repute kept within the planning guidelines and completed a bona fide development, then the Bill would have succeeded in its object in that limited instance. I am not sure that we can use the Bill to regulate the behaviour of someone retrospectively. Admirable though Senator Coogan's ideas are, regrettably – and I regret this more than anyone else in this House – there is not a certificate of good character required for entry into the building professions.

Or the Senate.

You might not have too many Members in it.

Everyone, including the Minister, has the same intention. We all want to ensure that someone who has had a bad track record can be conditioned by the planning process for the future. It seems that someone may have already got planning permission and subsequently it is passed on to someone else whom the planning authority might have grave concerns about because of their track record. There seems to be a loophole in the current plan and perhaps the Minister might examine how we could copperfasten it on Report Stage.

I can do what Senator Walsh suggests. I accept that asking people to read pages 52 and 53 is difficult. I tried to read them as people were talking. I take the point that is being made in relation to this section. Members are concerned that a way around this provision might be that someone of extreme good character, like Senators Coogan and Norris, could apply for planning permission and, when they have it, hand over or sell the land to someone who was previously disbarred. I am told that this is covered in section 34(11)(g) but I will make doubly sure and revert to Members.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 38 stand part of the Bill."

If the Minister discovers that it is not as copperfastened as we would like it to be, I suggest a simple solution. The planning authority could maintain a register of developers who have been in substantial contravention of planning permissions or development of estates. If land passed with a permission to someone on the register they might then be obliged to re-apply for planning permission if that land is to be developed by them. Perhaps this is too cumbersome. I am looking for some way to protect the system.

I would accept that, except for one proviso. A company might change its name.

Directors.

The list should be made up of the names of directors. I would be more satisfied with a list of names, not companies.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 39.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 205:

In page 57, subsection (2)(a)(iii), line 20, to delete "or" and substitute ", provided such ancillary works are completed within the life of the permission or within one year of the expiration of the relevant permission, or".

I tabled this amendment to prevent the situation dragging endlessly on and being excused on the basis that there are ancillary works being completed.

I am sympathetic to this idea. It is desirable that ancillary works should be completed as quickly as possible. However, this amendment is unnecessary because planning authorities already have sufficient enforcement powers and will have more powers under this Bill to ensure works are carried out. The introduction of a time limit may have the effect of leading to further applications for planning permission to enable the works to be carried out if, for some reason, they have not been carried out within the 12 month period. The way to meet the concern expressed is one of enforcement rather than a separate provision in this legislation. Planning offices would end up being bogged down with further applications that are unnecessary and it would not be a productive use of the time available to planners. Therefore, I ask the Senator to withdraw his amendment. I am sympathetic to his amendment but it would lead to unnecessary work.

Acting Chairman

Is amendment No. 205 being pressed?

No. I might take further advice on it, particularly since the Minister seems to have a little inkling in that direction.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 206 not moved.
Section 39 agreed to.
SECTION 40.

I move amendment No. 207:

In page 58, between line 4 and 5, to insert the following new subsections:

"(2)In the event of being granted a permission whose life is longer than 5 years and if the application is commenced in terms of works, the applicant shall be required to submit a progress report every 5 years thereafter for the lifetime of the original permission in order to facilitate a possible review of the conditions imposed in the original permission. This progress report shall be the subject of public notices as required under section 33 of this Act in order to facilitate public consultation before a decision is made by the planning authority.

(3)In the event of granting a permission whose life is longer than 5 years, a planning authority may grant an applicant outline permission for all or part of the proposed development. In the case of any such outline permission the applicant must seek an approval permission under section 35(3)(a)."

My amendment requires the submission of a progress report where permission is longer than five years. It is looking for a series of progress reports every five years thereafter for the lifetime of the original permission so a review of conditions can be imposed. Things change and one needs to keep monitoring a situation – one cannot have a blank cheque. This amendment proposes a parallel review so the developer has to file a progress report, which is reasonable, after five years. If the permission is longer than five years and the work has commenced, a substantial amount of it should be done. There should be a progress report and we will then be in a position to review it.

This is an important amendment. The developer should also have to make a public statement about what is going on. It may have been worse in the past when people were naturally enthusiastic in progressing building developments. However, developments have been started and stopped continuously. It is important that this should not happen. Because of the pressure on people to produce houses and flats one sees it less but if a development is running on and on, the least the public should expect is a statement, perhaps similar to planning application notices, so those in the area have some idea what is going on.

This Bill re-enacts the current provision that while five years is the standard lifetime of planning permission, circumstances may arise, for example as regards the nature and scale of the development, where a longer period is appropriate. The number of planning applications granted permission for a period longer than five years is minuscule in the general scheme of things. The effect of amendment No. 207 would be to add a new subsection (2) which would seek a report to facilitate the possible review of conditions imposed in the original plan. Allowing for the review of conditions would introduce an undesirable element of uncertainty. The idea of being able to grant planning permission for longer than five years is to give people the necessary assurance they will be able to complete a development in accordance with the permission, despite the fact it cannot be done within the five year period. In granting such permission the local authority must be satisfied the development is in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development in the area.

There is no advantage in allowing conditions to be reviewed at the end of a five year period. I accept that circumstances can change in five years. However, local authorities are supposed to consider planning applications with a period longer than five years in mind and in reviewing it after that, one could not alter the conditions that much. I do not think accepting this amendment would be a good idea. The element of uncertainty to which it would give rise outweighs any benefit it might have.

The insertion of subsection (3) would allow a planning authority, in granting a planning permission for longer than five years, to grant the applicant outline permission for all or part of the proposed development. The provisions on outline planning permission are clarified in section 35 which we already discussed in detail. Where an applicant applies for outline planning permission, the local authority may grant an outline permission which requires a subsequent grant of permission before any works can be carried out. In the circumstances referred to in the Senator's amendment, the applicant would have applied for full planning permission and the plans and proposals should enable the local authority to con sider the proposal properly. In the circumstances, I do not see any advantage in the proposed amendment and I ask the Senator to withdraw it. Members will be aware of at least one case in the recent past where the local authority allowed for full permission on one part of a development and outline planning permission on another. The Senator's proposal is currently possible.

I accept what the Minister said and I know the example to which he referred. I wish to ask another question from a personal point of view on which, perhaps, the Minister has an informed opinion. One of the reasons people want planning permission for five years or more is that they do not have the available funds for their development. For example, I am getting older and I will not be able to get to the top of my house. I want to put in a lift at some stage but I do not have the money – it will be exceedingly expensive. I will apply for planning permission at some stage. I assume that even if a planning permission withers after five years, the fact that it was granted originally means one has a stronger chance of getting it renewed. That may or not be the situation. If the principle is accepted, unless there is a change, is that the case? I am not sure.

It might apply in the example cited by the Senator but not as a general rule. Before I became Minister, when I could make representations on individual planning applications, I regularly represented constituents who were granted planning permission five or seven years before which had lapsed and under no circumstances would the council grant it. In the Senator's circumstances, where it is internal—

This would be external – that is the problem. It will have to go up the chimney on the outside, a big bubble like that in the ILAC centre.

There might be someone in that part of the city who would have stronger feelings about these matters than the Senator.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 40 agreed to.
SECTION 41.

For the information of the House, amendments Nos. 208 and 209 are listed in the list of amendments under section 40 whereas they are amendments to section 41. Amendments Nos. 208 and 209 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 208:

In page 58, subsection (1)(c), line 17, after "extended," to insert "which period shall not be more than 2 years from the date the extension of time is granted,".

This amendment proposes the insertion of another time limit.

Section 41 enables a planning authority, in certain circumstances, to extend the duration of a planning permission for such additional period as the authority considers appropriate. This additional period can be further extended. The section does not place any limit on the length of that extended period other than what the authority considers necessary to enable the development to which the permission relates to be completed. Given that the duration of the permission can only be extended where certain provisions have been satisfied, including the fact that the development has started and that substantial works have been carried out, I do not think it would be useful to set a specific time limit on this section. This is better dealt with at local level in the circumstances with which the local authority must deal.

I grasp the Minister's philosophy which is one of encouraging local democracy rather than using legislation to hammer people. I think I sense the Minister's position so I will not press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 209 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 210 and 211 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 210:

In page 59, subsection (5), line 21, to delete "to further extend" and substitute "further to extend".

I am advised that it would be more grammatically correct if the section read "further to extend" rather than "to further extend" and this is the purpose of the amendment.

This is a favourite subject of mine. The amendment deals with a split infinitive. It is shocking that a draftsman included a split infinitive. However, the latest advice from the coal face of academia is that, regrettable as it may seem, the split infinitive is now endorsed because of usage. I regret and deplore this. Undoubtedly, it shows the lapse in standards due to the dwindling impact of the classical languages. There is no doubt that a split infinitive dilutes the sense and I am abashed that Senator O'Meara spotted it and that I did not attack the split infinitive. However, unfortunately, there is now no hard and fast rule.

I ask the Minister to accept the amendment because it would look so much better.

I am totally convinced by the pleas of the Senators not to allow a split infinitive. It does not make any difference one way or the other. As the Senator said, it is no longer a capital offence to split an infinitive, but I will accept amendment No. 210.

The effect of amendment No. 211 would be to allow the decision of a planning authority to extend the period of a planning permission to be appealed by any person to An Bord Pleanála. I cannot accept the amendment because, as I said earlier, a planning authority can only extend the duration of a planning permission in certain circumstances. These include that the development has commenced and that substantial works have been carried out and the extension is to enable the development to be completed. However, land use decisions, including the impact on adjoining property, etc., will already have been taken into account in the context of the decision to grant the planning permission. I do not consider that the decision to extend the duration of the permission to enable the development to be completed ought to be capable of being appealed to An Bord Pleanála and I ask the Senator to withdraw the amendment. The purpose of the provision is only to facilitate the extension of a planning permission.

There is a serious point in relation to amendment No. 210 because in the infinitive, both words are part of the verb, which is "to extend". The problem is that when it is divided, it makes it look as if the word "further" is the principal verb. One can further an objective and it could potentially lead to some confusion. It is gracious of the Minister to accept the amendment because the provision will make better sense.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 211 not moved.
Section 41, as amended, agreed to.
Section 42 agreed to.
SECTION 43.

I move amendment No. 212:

In page 60, subsection (1), line 3, after "modified" to insert "by condition".

The amendment is an attempt to clarify the term "modified" by inserting "by condition", which refers to the conditions imposed.

As I said previously, and the Senator accepted it, I am concerned that if I accepted this amendment, we might unnecessarily restrict a local authority's flexibility. As the Senator is aware, section 43 deals with the revocation or modification of planning permission. The effect of the amendment would be to restrict modifications to modifications by condition. Modifying existing or adding new conditions is one way of modifying a planning decision where a planning application is lodged. However, the amendment suggests that this would be the only way in which a permission could be modified. This would unnecessarily restrict a local authority.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 213, 214, 215 and 219 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 213:

In page 60, subsection (2), line 10, after "plan" to insert "or the local area plan under section 18 of this Act, or of an area of special amenity under section 185 of this Act, or of a landscape conservation area under section 187 of this Act.

The amendment would allow landscape area plans to be considered as a new factor. It would be useful if landscape, and particularly its conservation, was included in the consideration of a local area plan.

Section 43 provides that a planning permission cannot be revoked or modified unless it no longer conforms with the provisions of the development plan. The effect of amendments Nos. 213 to 215, inclusive, would be to add to this non-conformity with local area plans, special amenity area orders and landscape conservation orders. Section 46 provides for the making of an agreement between the planning authority and a person interested in the land to restrict or regulate the development of that land. Any agreement they make cannot restrict their powers under this legislation as long as those powers are not exercised in contravention of the development plan. Amendment No. 219 would amend the provision to state that they cannot exercise their powers in contravention of a local area plan, any special amenity area order and any landscape conservation order.

The amendments are unnecessary because they are comprehended by non-conformity with the development plan. By definition, local area plans must be in agreement with the terms of the development plan. Special amenity area orders include development objectives which are also incorporated in development plans and the provisions on landscape conservation areas mean that prescribed development, which would otherwise be exempted development, will need planning permission. Development plans must include objectives for the protection of amenities and the landscape.

The Senator and I are in agreement on this matter. I assure Members that the purpose of the amendments is met in the Bill as it stands. I am satisfied that any planning permission which would not be in conformity with a special amenity area order or a landscape conservation order would not conform with the provisions of the relevant development plan. As I stated previously, I am trying to ensure the legislation is as simple and straightforward as possible and, therefore, I ask the Senators to withdraw the amendments.

Based on the Minister's assurances, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 43 stand part of the Bill."

I need some assistance from the Minister and his officials on this matter. I understand the provision is a modification of section 30 of the 1963 Act and I wish to deal with the issue of revocation. I am open to correction but I understand that under the 1963 Act local authority members could revoke a planning permission on the basis of information they did not have when they made the decision. This provision appears to have been removed from the Bill.

I have some documents in relation to a case involving a mast in County Leitrim where this occurred. After planning permission was given, it came to the attention of the local authority members that it might involve a substantial danger to people's health. They were not aware of this when the original application was made and they revoked it. They then had to ask the circumstances in which the elected members could come to a bona fide view that there has been a change in circumstances. If they agreed that a change of circumstances had taken place, under the previous Act they could revoke the permission. They also had to ask who was the planning authority – An Bord Pleanála or themselves. The legal opinion they received was that it was the local authority. On the question of who makes the decision to grant permission, they received the following answer: "An Bord Pleanála's decision to grant permission is called 'a board direction'. 'Direction' is the legally operative word here. It is a directive back to the planning authority to go ahead and issue a grant of permission on foot of the board's determination of the appealed issues of the particular application. It is still the council's grant of permission." Another issue which arose related to compensation. It was felt that because circum stances had changed, no compensation accrued to any members.

On reading the section, there seems to be a dramatic change whereby the right of local authority members to make a modification or revoke a planning permission if the circumstances have changed is again being eroded. Section 43(2) states, "A planning authority shall neither revoke nor modify a permission under this section unless the development to which the permission relates no longer conforms with the provisions of the development plan." This is a sizable change which is worthy of examination. I would like clarification from the Minister on this issue.

I wish to acknowledge the presence of former Senator Queally from Waterford, together with his delegation, in the House. He is very welcome and it is good to see him here.

This section restates, with some changes, section 30 of the 1963 Act concerning the power of the members of the planning authority to revoke or modify permission. The power will now be exercisable only when the development plan has been amended – that is the major change – and the proposed development, therefore, no longer conforms with specific objectives of the plan which must be specified in the decisions under subsection (2). The decision of the authority may be appealed to the board under subsection (4). The revocation is as it was previously, a decision reserved for the elected members of the authority under section 43(9). The members are the people who decide and finally pass the development plan. It is reasonable, if they revoke an individual planning permission, that they should do so on the basis of a change they have made to their own development plan.

There is a dramatic change in the rights of revocation. Under the 1963 Act, if they were not aware of all circumstances pertaining to the actual granting of permission, they had a right of revocation. This right has been eroded in the Bill and I do not think that is fair to local authority members. If a decision has been made but they have not received all the facts on how circumstances may have changed during the actual procedure, they should have the right to revoke the planning permission. That aspect of section 30 of the 1963 Act should remain in the Bill.

If there has been a change in circumstances which affects the development plan, members are being asked to change the development plan and revoke the planning permission. The 1963 Act states, "Planning authorities shall neither revoke nor modify a permission under this section unless there has been a change in circumstances relating to the proper planning and development of the area concerned and such change in circumstances has occurred." This is what the Bill clearly spells out. The wording in the Bill clarifies the power they had but makes it subject to their own development plan. If the circumstances change, members can change their development plan and revoke the planning permission. Extra information they may think they have in relation to a specific planning permission or application is not a sufficient reason to allow for revocation.

If one is aware of a change in circumstances, one can change the development plan, which is not easy. Will councillors who change the development plan be liable for compensation?

The import of what is in the Bill does not dramatically differ, if at all, from what was in the previous Act. The issue of compensation is important. Very often it deters local authority members because they feel exposed and it is often used by county managers. Will the Minister clarify if any qualification can be placed on the compensation? The reply will probably be that the courts will decide. However, it does not involve only the costs incurred by the applicant up to the date the revocation takes place. It could also cover future losses. Where members wish to revoke the planning permission, this is often used as a deterrent.

I am not a legal expert. I understand that if members undertake a revocation under this section, which is in accordance with changes made in the development plan, they should not be individually liable for costs. However, if a decision is made which affects works already carried out by an organisation, that organisation would have a right to claim compensation from the local authority rather than from the members.

I do not wish to labour the point, but I am concerned that the change in circumstances has been written out. If this was included, issues in relation to compensation would not arise. It may be intended but I would prefer to see it in writing and clearly understood.

While the change in circumstances means virtually the same thing, it is actually more dangerous from the members' point of view. Some people formed the view that there was a change in circumstances in that there was a health hazard from mobile phone masts. All the experts and the WHO would say that is not a change in circumstances. I am not arguing the case one way or the other. A member may genuinely believe that but a court may decide they have no grounds for their belief. At least this proposal will protect members. If they change their development plans and then make a revocation, they are more protected rather than less protected.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 44.

Amendments Nos. 246, 247 and 248 are cognate on amendment No. 216. Therefore, amendments Nos. 216, 246, 247 and 248 may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 216:

In page 62, subsection (6), line 8, to delete "the Minister for Agriculture and Food" and substitute "the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development".

This is a straightforward amendment involving the addition of the term "Rural Development" to the title of the Minister for Agriculture and Food.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 44, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 45.
Government amendment No. 217:
In page 63, subsection (5), line 39, to delete "2 months" and substitute "8 weeks".
Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 218:

In page 63, subsection (5), line 39, to delete "2 months" and substitute "one month".

Those who may be flouting the terms of planning permissions or erecting buildings without obtaining planning permission are being given as much time to deal with matters as those who have obeyed the rules. It is for this reason I suggest that the period in the subsection be reduced to one month. However, I will not press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 45, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 219 not moved.
Section 46 agreed to.
SECTION 47.

I move amendment No. 220:

In page 65, subsection (3)(b), line 40, after "determination" to insert "and the amount of the contributions normally levied shall not be less than half of the actual capital cost of the provision of the required infrastructure unless the contributions are subject to the special arrangements under subsection 3(c) of this Act.".

This amendment, which involves development contributions, is self-explanatory. I will be interested to hear the Minister's reply.

The amendment arises from a misunderstanding of how a development contribution scheme will be drawn up. The scheme will include the actual estimated cost of providing the different classes of public infrastructure, with a deduction for any benefit which accrues to existing development. It may be, therefore, depending on actual circumstances, that a particular piece of infrastructure will benefit only new development in which case the total estimated cost of the facility will be included in the scheme. Therefore, if an item of infrastructure only benefits a new development the total cost will be levied against the full scheme.

In another instance, however, it may be that up to 60 per cent of a particular infrastructure will benefit existing development, in which case only 40 per cent of the cost can be charged to the development contribution scheme. It would be wrong that 50 per cent of the cost of a scheme could be charged to new developments, which would happen if we were to accept the amendment.

I ask the Senator to withdraw the amendment because the circumstances with which it deals are already catered for. It would be wrong to impose an additional burden on a new development simply because it is a new development. The contribution scheme local authorities will draw up, which will be passed by their members, will be such that the actual costs will be levied rather than a random 50 per cent which could give rise to difficulties in the courts.

Would it be less costly for a developer to apply in stages?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 221:

In page 65, subsection (3)(c), line 43, after "scheme." to insert "The special concession of reduced development contributions shall only apply where the proposed development is primarily for community rather than private benefit like a community centre, educational or health or recreational facility. The only private benefit that should benefit from these reductions is the appropriate restoration of listed buildings or those situated in an architectural conservation area or in an area of special amenity or in a landscape conservation area.".

This amendment arises out of the concern that an entire community rather than private individuals must benefit.

I sympathise with the thrust of the first part of the amendment. In my opinion, reduced contributions should apply to development which is primarily aimed at community facilities such as schools, hospitals, etc. As it stands, the Bill will allow for that. However, the amendment seems to suggest that reduced contributions should only apply in the circumstances outlined. The amendment may have arisen from people's concerns that developers will enter into cosy deals with local authorities and they want to ensure that community facilities are catered for properly.

I am not sure it is wise to limit the discretion of local authorities in this area. For example, a local authority may wish to attract a certain type of development – perhaps a supermarket or a private leisure facility – into a particular area. To do that, it might use the contribution scheme by stating that it will apply a reduced level of contributions for a desirable facility which would benefit the community. If we leave this discretion to local authorities, they can consider the circumstances in which it should be applied.

The second part of the amendment provides that the only private cause which should benefit from reduced contributions should be the restoration of listed buildings or buildings situated in an architectural conservation area. In the normal course of events, such developments should not attract any development contributions at all because they involve existing buildings. I see no reason that a person obtaining planning permission in an area of special amenity or in a landscape conservation area should be able to benefit from a reduced rate of contributions because we are trying to make it as difficult as possible for people to obtain planning permission in these areas.

The intent behind the first part of the amendment, which is aimed at schools and community facilities, is already dealt with in the section as it stands. We could shoot ourselves in the foot and prevent local authorities from proceeding with desirable community developments in particular areas if we are overly restrictive. As already stated, the provisions relating to the restoration of listed buildings, etc., can also be catered for in the wording of the scheme contained in the section. Local authorities should be left with maximum discretion.

I accept the Minister's statement that the amendment as it stands is far too specific and does not allow local authorities sufficient discretion. Would he agree, however, that it might be beneficial if we included the phrase "of benefit to the community" in respect of the reduced contribution scheme? In other words, it would be stated in the subsection that a scheme may allow for the payment of a reduced contribution in certain circumstances where a development is of benefit to the community. I am of the view that the phrase "of benefit to the community" is sufficiently broad so that it will not tie the hands of local authorities while also making it clear that reduced contributions will only apply in the circumstances to which I referred.

I agree with some of the points put forward by the Minister. However, if we include some form of words along the lines suggested we will be making a valuable contribution without overly restricting the powers of the local authorities.

With regard to landscape conservation, architectural conservation, etc., it is not as if we are inciting developers to ravage these areas. However, the Minister, perhaps mischievously, almost suggested as much.

We were really trying to ensure that positive development was encouraged. Any kind of development we would see as damaging or exploitative we want to keep out. There may be circumstances where the landscape would benefit from some limited degree of development and we wished to ensure that this positive development was fostered. It is interesting that we keep crossing sides. I am almost saying what the Minister was saying earlier, that we cannot stop progress or development, that we cannot limit everything. I am saying all right. Where there is a desirable objective in terms of a development, even if it should happen to be within a conservation area, so what? If it is good, let it receive encouragement, the best form of which is some kind of financial assistance. I will leave it at that.

I will not repeat what I said but the text of the Bill allows for all the things about which the Senator is talking. It would be better to leave the details to be worked out by the local authority.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 222:

In page 67, subsection (10)(b), line 7, after "34", to insert "or any other person".

This restricts the capacity to bring an appeal as it stands.

Only to the contribution scheme.

Yes. I want to get this across so I will listen to the Minister's reply before I comment further.

An appeal can be brought to the board where an applicant for permission under section 34 considers that the terms of the scheme have not been properly applied. The Senator's amendment would allow anybody else to bring an appeal to the board which would not seem to be very fair. This is the business only of the local authority who apply the scheme and the person to whom it applies, who is the only person who should have that right.

I thank the Minister, that has been most helpful. I now recall the thinking behind this. The Minister should imagine that he is in a partly completed development or section of a development, such as a housing scheme, and he has a clear interest in this process. Why should he be disbarred? He is neither the applicant nor the authority but he is clearly someone with a principled interest. His well being is affected by this.

The Senator's well being would not be affected directly by it because one's well being would be affected by the overall general planning application and the conditions attached thereto. This will be decided by the elected members of the local authority who will apply that scheme to the development. It is really none of the Senator's business how much a builder has to pay to ensure the infrastructure is put in place by the local authority generally. I can guarantee that the local authority will not let themselves be short-changed. This is not a matter for anybody but the person concerned and the local authority. It only applies where a person believes that the scheme has not been properly applied. This issue is black and white. It is not a question of someone being able to influence the amount. Either it was applied properly or it was not. An Bord Pleanála can decide the amount of money it should cost if it is applied properly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 223 and 224 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 223:
In page 67, subsection (12)(b)(i), lines 33 and 34, to delete "grant of permission" and substitute "date of payment to the authority of the contribution".

The Bill currently provides that a special contribution may be paid by a developer relating to specific, exceptional costs which a local authority will incur and which are not covered by a development contribution scheme. If the works are not done by the authority this money must be refunded to the developer, after five years if the works are not commenced, or after seven years if they have commenced but have not been completed. These amendments provide that the time limits for the refund will operate from the date on which a special contribution is paid to a local authority. Currently this period runs from the date on which the permission was granted. This is a more realistic timescale as the developer could pay the contribution late in the life of the planning permission, leaving the local authority with a short time only to complete the works.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 224:
In page 67, subsection (12)(b)(ii), line 36, to delete "grant of permission" and substitute "date of payment to the authority of the contribution".
Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 225:

In page 67, between lines 48 and 49, to insert the following new paragraph:

"(d)a planning authority may impose an annual development contribution where a development will use infrastructure on a continuous basis (like a quarry using a nearby public road to distribute its stone). A planning authority may impose a charge on a once-off basis towards the use of existing infrastructure rather than condition the development of additional infrastructure in its area if that appears more appropriate in the particular circumstances of a planning permission.".

This is something to which I have referred in passing before on a number of occasions. It concerns the damage that can be caused to infrastructure such as roads from overuse by heavy vehicles and so on. This empowers the planning authority to impose an annual development contribution where development will use infrastructure on a continuous basis. An example which is put in here for illustrative purposes is "a quarry using a nearby public road to distribute its stone. A planning authority may impose a charge on a once-off basis towards the use of existing infrastructure rather than condition the development of additional infrastructure in its area if that appears more appropriate in the particular circumstances of a planning permission.".

The wording is inelegant. I did not phrase this myself but it might not necessarily be any more elegant if I had. The idea is a reasonable one. I look forward with interest to the Minister's comments. We discussed this before. Previously it concerned Coillte and forestry and the number of roads being used, and the heavy expense incurred by the local authority in maintaining them, the principle of which was that the damage to the roads was caused by this kind of industry.

Development contributions as they operate now, and as they apply under the new development contribution schemes under this Bill, relate to the capital costs of providing infrastructure, refurbishment and upgrading and replacement costs can be included in development contribution schemes under this section as such works can involve major capital investment and enable additional development. The first part of the amendment proposes an ongoing charge for the use of infrastructure. While I sympathise with the intent of the amendment, this Bill is not the place to deal with it. The purpose of the development contributions under this section is for the capital costs of providing infrastructure to facilitate development. If development is such as to warrant the construction of special infrastructure to facilitate it, for example, if a road interchange is being provided, the power is provided to have a special levy or a special contribution under this particular section as well. It is not a good idea to try to use the planning Acts to introduce user charges, about which we are talking.

I agree with the Senator about the second half of his amendment, the intent of which is unclear to me as well. Under the development contribution scheme approach to this Bill, other than special contributions, the contributions which apply to a particular class of development will be set out in the scheme and do not relate to the location of the proposed development and the infrastructure it will use. A development contribution scheme can apply to the whole area of the planning authority. The scheme probably achieves the objectives set out by the Senator anyway.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 226, 228, 229, 233 and 234 are related and they may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 226:

In page 68, subsection (17), line 33, to delete "and facilities" and substitute "facilities and amenities".

These amendments provide for the addition of further items to the Minister's list. For example, amendment No. 226 includes amenities as well as facilities. Amendment No. 228 would expand recreation to include education and health. Amendment No. 229 would include parks and wildlife reserves. Amendment No. 233 provides for the inclusion of rail, including Luas, with buses. The usual response when lists are outlined is that where one item is included everything must be put in but it is difficult to sustain that argument in regard to this amendment because "bus" has already been specified and, therefore, rail ought to be included. Amendment No. 234 seeks the inclusion of railways, waterways and greenways. This extends the coverage of facilities, although the Minister may say that these are covered by implication in other aspects of the Bill. However, I am particularly interested in his response to the inclusion of buses and railways.

The amendments would enable the planning authorities to include the capital costs of providing educational and health facilities in the development contribution scheme. I accept that new developments, such as housing estates, create pressures, including demand for new schools, health centres, etc. In preparing the Bill I considered whether the cost of such facilities should be included in development contribution schemes but I concluded that such schemes should be confined to facilities that are provided by the local authority. Local authority infrastructure, such as roads and water, is vital to allowing development to proceed.

The need for other facilities, such as schools and hospitals, may arise from new developments but they are not needed to allow the development to proceed. Local authorities do not provide health or educational services and they would have to account for any such money collected and transfer that to the relevant bodies, such as the health board or the Department of Education and Science. I concluded that, on balance, it was best to restrict development contributions to facilities and infrastructure provided by local authorities and I hope Senators will understand that logic.

If all the extra facilities were to be included the builder would pass the cost on to house purchasers and it would probably mean that houses would be even more expensive than they are. The general principle of taxation, whereby facilities are provided for the general community, should apply here. Amendments Nos. 229, 233 and 234 refer to parks and wildlife reserves, rail, including Luas, waterways and greenways. However, the current wording is sufficient to cover any such facilities if they are provided by local authorities.

I am not sure what "amenities" would cover that is not already covered by "facilities", in the context of the substitution of "facilities and amenities" for "amenities". I remain to be convinced by the Senator, but if he were to explain this I would consider the matter again for Report Stage.

The line between "facilities" and "amenities" is thin and I will need to do more research. In American usage, both are used to refer to a lavatory. "Facility" is slightly more direct whereas "amenity" is used in the context of an amenity centre. If an American approaches one and asks where is the amenity centre, he is not referring to a wildlife park in terms of the usual application of that phrase. However, I wish to tease this out.

We have had a long day and perhaps things are said that are not entirely meant because the Minister said that schools and hospitals were not needed to allow development but I always thought they were. It is a question in a sense of from where the appropriate funding derives. This has vitiated some working class suburbs in Dublin – developments took place without any satisfactory provision for health or education. We are talking here about a definition of "infrastructure". Public infrastructure must include hospitals and schools. I do not expect the local authority to pay for everything. I am sure there may be requirements for contributions from central funds and there have been partnerships in the development of some hospitals between Government and existing hospitals which have realised their own assets. If "public infrastructure" is defined and schools and hospitals are left out, we are in some difficulty.

Parks and wildlife reserves are important facilities which should be provided. Open spaces, recreational and community facilities are provided and parks and wildlife reserves are part of that. Section 47(17)(c) refers to "the provision of roads, car parks, car parking places, sewers, waste water and water treatment facilities, drains and watermains". That is very specific and private ownership and the private motorist are looked after while section 47(17)(d) refers to public transport, which was discussed earlier –"the provision of bus corridors and lanes, bus interchange facilities (including car parks for those facilities), infrastructure to facilitate public transport, cycle and pedestrian facilities". This essentially deals with "park and ride" facilities, as they are called in America, where one drives to a transport hub, parks and avails of public transport. There is not much point in this if we are not prepared to provide support even in terms of the definition of public transport. It is for that reason, particularly when buses are mentioned, that "rail (including LUAS)" should be included.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share