I have already welcomed the central aspect of this Bill which will speed up the consideration of planning appeals. This is a very welcome development and the way in which it is being done is very constructive. I have pointed out that the power of the board as regards vexatious references or appeals, in other words the power of the board to deal with what are, in effect, irrelevant or semi-irrelevant appeals, is considerable. I hope this is used in order to eliminate what I consider to be an unnecessarily high level of appeals in relatively minor applications.
Section 17 which deals with expenses of appeals is a different matter, and while I would not like to see small groups taking on large combines on appeal, I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the expenses of appeal would not be great. I should like the Minister to spell this out in more detail. A valid point has been raised in relation to this. Nevertheless, by including a monetary aspect in relation to appeal it may help towards eliminating unnecessary appeals.
I suggested earlier that the central element in local planning was the development plan. I note here that the Minister has referred to this in detail It is my own opinion that if a proper development plan is established and is discussed properly, not only by the local authority but by outside interests before it is amended, this will reduce the necessity for appeal in a number of cases.
I was also pleased to note that the board, while keeping itself informed in relation to certain policies and objectives which the Minister establishes, national objectives, will maintain a good balance allowing the local development plan to be the central aspect under the Planning Act. This is a good thing.
The matter of oral hearings is dealt with quite firmly in this Bill, especially in relation to what one might call minor appeals when an oral hearing is unnecessary. I was pleased to see that under section 14 of the Bill the board has absolute discretion in this matter. I take it that the objective of the section is to eliminate oral hearings on what, in effect, are minor appeals.
The section which deals with the High Court prohibiting unauthorised development is a good one. There has been unauthorised development, some of major consequence. I hope the planning authorities will use the High Court in a proper way. I hope the planning authorities will not hesitate to go to the High Court in relation to a major unauthorised development. Either we are going to have the Planning Act working properly, and being seen to be working properly, or we are not going to have a good Planning Act. This device of the High Court is a good one if it is used properly.
I also agree with the limit of duration on planning permission. Section 25 which deals with this matter allows for a five-year period but I wonder if this period is too long. It should be borne in mind that the development plan in all areas is revised every five years and if permission is granted and it is not carried out within five years it is possible that developments in that area would have altered the situation. I suggest that the Minister consider a period of three years.
I hope the Minister will consider the question of providing an advisory service at local level and the availability of a highly-qualified consultancy service in Dublin.