asked the Minister for Local Government the number of planning permissions granted on appeal since 1st April, 1973, where (a) the original application for planning permission was refused by the planning authority and (b) a subsequent application to the planning authority for retention was also refused.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Planning Permissions.
24.
The information requested is not available in my Department. For the period from 1st April, 1973, to the 31st May, 1975, the number of appeals against refusals of permission which were determined by the granting of permission, either with or without conditions, was 3,004. I am unable to say, however, whether the applications to which these appeals related were the original applications. It is not unusual where permission has been refused, for a revised application to be made. If a second or third application results in an appeal to me, I would have to deal with the proposal before me and it would not necessarily come to attention that there had been any previous application.
Similarly, in regard to the second part of the question relating to permissions granted for retention, I am unable to say in how many cases the application for retention followed an earlier application to the planning authority for permission to carry out development.
Surely the Minister is not telling me that when deciding on an appeal, when the planning authority had refused permission and later when the applicant persisted in building in spite of the ruling of the planning authority and then applied for permission to retain the building which was also turned down, he would not know these facts when the case would come before him for decision?
Normally I would be told there had been previous applications but the information the Deputy has asked for is not available in my Department.
I cannot understand why this information is not available.
It is not available in that it would be necessary——
It would expose the Minister.
No, it would not. Could I make it very clear that I am prepared to stand over, and have done so, any decisions I have made, so snide remarks like the one Deputy Andrews has made are completely out of place.
We have a list of anomalies and we will expose the Minister when the time arrives.
Deputy Molloy spoke last night and I wonder will Deputy Andrews be prepared to stand over what Deputy Molloy said then? I do not think Deputy Faulkner is prepared to do it. Deputy Andrews is entitled to join in the queue of character assassination Deputy Molloy did last night, but do it outside this House where I can deal with him and Deputy Molloy.
The Minister is very sensitive about this matter.
I will not take character assassination from anybody on those benches, including Deputy Andrews, even if he is a legal luminary.
The Minister took every opportunity when we were in those benches.
Character assassination is the stock in trade of some people over there and if Deputy Andrews wants to join the queue he can do so, but let him do it outside.
I am entitled to make the remarks I made and I do not apologise to the Minister. We will expose him when the time arrives.
Will Deputy Andrews allow Questions to proceed?
Expose me any time you like. I know what I am doing.
I am just wondering whether the Minister has been playing on words in regard to my questions. Is it the form in which the question has been put down that has been inhibiting him in his reply? I ask him again is it possible that he would have decided on an appeal in relation to the retaining of a building without his knowing what had happened in relation to that case prior to its coming to him on appeal? In other words, would the Minister not know that the planning authority had turned down permission to build, that in the event of the person persisting with the building and the planning authority had turned down an application for retention——
I would know. The Deputy had asked the number of planning permissions granted on appeal since 1st April, 1973, where the original application for planning permission was refused by the planning authority. That information would not be available to me. If the application was made to the planning authority and did not come to the Department on appeal, I would not be aware of it.
There is no question in my mind now that the Minister is playing on the wording of the question. The Minister has divided the question in two. The question states:
To ask the Minister for Local Government the number of planning permissions granted on appeal since 1st April, 1973, where (a) the original application for planning permission was refused by the planning authority and (b) a subsequent application to the planning authority for retention was also refused.
In the first case I would not be aware but in the second case I would be aware because it would be on file.
Surely when the case comes before the Minister he is aware that in the case of a refusal by a planning authority to permit the retention of a building in respect of which the planning authority had refused permission originally——
The retention of a building is not mentioned in Deputy Faulkner's question. For goodness sake, let us be clear about what we are asking.
The Minister would have been fairer to the House and to the Deputy who put down the question if he had replied to the question asked. Surely the person concerned was not applying for planning permission and later for retention permission in respect of a piece of ground?
The question was to ask the number of planning permissions granted on appeal since 1st April, 1973 where (a) the original application for planning permission was refused by the planning authority. To take that one on its own, I would not be aware of that. Then we come to (b), "a subsequent planning application to the planning authority for retention was also refused". That I would be aware of.
The Minister knows perfectly well what the intention behind the question is. It would have been very much better for the Minister and everybody concerned if he had answered the question that is on the Order Paper.
Hear, hear.
What do you know about it? Nobody ever said in public that I was an unmitigated scoundrel and got away with it.
You are lowering yourself in the muck, now.
I have not been particularly contentious in regard to these matters. All I wanted was a little information and the Minister is simply not giving it to me. To be quite frank, just before the question was answered I guessed there could possibly be a play on words.
I am sorry if Deputy Faulkner thinks this. I assure him it is not so. The information I have got is exactly as I have given it to him and if there is anything further I can do——
Could the Minister say from the background information he will have in how many cases on appeal he granted permission to retain a building where the planning authority had refused planning permission and when the person concerned persisted in building and was refused retention permission?
I have not got that information but the question seems to imply that it is improper to reverse a decision of a planning authority or to give permission for the retention of a structure. Of course, specific provision is made in section 26 of the 1963 Act for appeals and in section 27 for retention of structures. There would be no point in having those provisions there if they were not intended to have an effect. What Deputy Faulkner appears to be trying to say is that it is wrong, that it is a crime to give this, when in fact provision was made in the Act passed by this House for the purpose of allowing this to be done. If he has a specific case which he wants to discuss, perhaps he would put a question down and then we will know what he is talking about.
There is no point in mentioning specific cases. I simply wanted to know in how many cases this had occurred. One of the supplementary questions I would have asked is that where a person deliberately and with full knowledge breaks the law and has been perhaps convicted of breaking the law, would the Minister feel that the proper thing to do in a case like that was to reward such a person by allowing him to retain the building?
This House decided it was proper for a Minister to give permission in those circumstances and it made the necessary provisions in sections 26 and 27 of the 1963 Planning Act. There is no point in Deputy Faulkner trying to get out of these facts.
Is it not so that that provision was put in the Act to deal with certain types of relatively minor cases?
There is nothing about that in the Act. I was in the House when the then Bill was being debated but I do not think that Deputy Faulkner took part in that debate.
I would assume that this provision was inserted for the purpose of allowing retention of some small building where the person who had erected the building was not aware of the obligation to apply for planning permission.
That is not in the section.
In a case where it is public knowledge——
The Deputy is entering the realm of argument.
——that planning permission was applied for and refused and where the person concerned persisted in building the structure and applied subsequently for permission to retain but was refused and was brought to court for contravening the Act, would the Minister not agree there could hardly be any conceivable reason why that person should have been granted planning permission?
I would not agree and since Deputy Faulkner would not have available to him the files available to me, he would not be in a position to judge those matters. I studied the files.
Question No. 25.
May I be granted permission to ask one supplementary?
The Chair is not allowing any more supplementaries on this question.
Is it not unfair in a matter concerning us all I should not be allowed to ask one supplementary?
The Chair has allowed debate on this question for a long time.
I am here to represent the people of my constituency. I am entitled to ask a question and propose to do so.
The Chair will insist on order in the House.
Am I being allowed to ask a supplementary?
No, not on this question.