I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:
Section 19: In page 15, between lines 10 and 11, the following subsections inserted:
"(1) (a) Section 31 (1) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the addition of the following paragraph after paragraph (b):
`(c) A notice referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not be served after—
(i) if the permission to which the condition is attached is a permission other than of the kind referred to in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, the date of the expiration, as respects the permission, of the appropriate period (within the meaning of section 2 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1982) or, as the case may be, of the said period as extended under section 4 of the said Act,
(ii) if the permission to which the condition is attached is a permission for the retention on land of any structure, the expiration of a period of five years beginning on the day of the grant of the permission.'.
(b) Section 32 (1) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the addition of the following paragraph after paragraph (b):
`(c) A notice referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not be served after the expiration of a period of five years beginning on the day of the grant of the permission referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection.'.
(c) This subsection shall have effect as respects a condition referred to in section 31 or 32 of the Principal Act which is not complied with before or after the commencement of this subsection.
(2) (a) Section 35 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the addition of the following subsection after subsection (9):
`(10) An enforcement notice shall not be served in relation to any development authorised by a permission granted under this Part of this Act which has been commenced but has not been carried out in conformity with such permission after the expiration of a period of five years beginning on the expiration, as respects such permission, of the appropriate period (within the meaning of section 2 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1982) or, as the case may be, of the said period as extended under section 4 of the said Act.'.
(b) This subsection shall have effect as respects development referred to in the subsection inserted in section 35 of the Principal Act by paragraph (a) which is carried out before or after the commencement of this subsection.".
I want to thank the Whips of all the political parties for their co-operation in facilitating me in getting time, despite the pressure of business, to conclude these amendments to the Bill.
These amendments are concerned with two matters. In the first place they seek to bring about greater uniformity and consistency in relation to the time within which enforcement action may be taken by planning authorities by putting a time limit on the use of those powers which are open-ended at present.
Secondly, the warning notice procedure under section 26 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976, will be strengthened by allowing a planning authority to serve a notice where they believe that an unauthorised use is likely to be made of land. At the moment a warning notice can be served in relation to unauthorised use only where the use is actually taking place. Looking first at time limits for enforcement action, I should say initially that these proposals take account of the desire underlying an amendment which Deputy Brendan Howlin put forward when the Bill was before the Dáil, that it should not be possible to challenge a development's validity after an unduly long time. I had hoped to bring forward amendments on the matter when the Bill was before the Dáil but it was not possible to finalise them in time.
I would like to explain that certain powers which planning authorities can use against unauthorised development or development which does not conform to the terms of relevant planning permission are already subject to a time limit. For example, an enforcement notice under section 31 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, can be served against an unauthorised development only within five years of the carrying out of that development. However, other enforcement powers such as the application to the High Court for an order under section 27 of the 1976 Act are not subject to any time limitations. There is no doubt that the open-ended nature of some of the enforcement powers gives rise to serious practical difficulties, particularly in the area of property transactions. This led the Law Reform Commission to recommend in their report on land law and conveyancing law that a five-year limit should be put on the bringing of applications for court orders under section 27 of the 1976 Act. These amendments propose that the five-year limit currently applicable to some of the enforcement powers will be extended to the open-ended power. I believe this will bring about greater clarity and consistency. I am satisfied also that this will not adversely affect the ability of planning authorities to police the proper planning and development of their areas if an unauthorised or non-conforming development or use has not come to attention or been the subject of enforcement action within five years. It is most unlikely to be problematical from the point of view of the proper planning and development of the location concerned.
I should add that it is my intention that these new time limits generally will not come into operation until the start of 1994, so that the planning authorities can take action in the intervening period in relation to any long-standing planning infringement of which they may be aware or which is brought to their attention before then.
As for the proposed strengthening of section 26 of the 1976 Act, the present position is that a planning authority can serve a warning notice where it appears to them that unauthorised development of land is likely to take place. However, they can serve a notice in the case of an unauthorised use of land only if the use is actually occurring. The amendment will change matters by also allowing a notice to be served where the authority consider that an unauthorised use is likely to be made of land.
Amendment No. 1 will put a five year limitation running from the expiration of the planning permission and the time within which a notice under section 35 of the 1963 Act can be served where development has not been carried out in conformity with the permission. This amendment also proposes related changes to the existing time limits under sections 31 and 32 of the 1963 Planning Act for taking action against development which does not comply with the terms of a condition attached to a planning permission. The current formulation of the time limit in those sections means that they are effectively open-ended so far as conditions are concerned.
Amendment No. 2 is a minor consequential drafting change arising from these other amendments. Amendment No. 3 proposes that it will be possible to serve a warning notice under section 26 of the 1976 Planning Act in relation to unauthorised use of land only within five years of when the unauthorised use first commenced. Amendment No. 4 will place a time limit of five years on applications to the courts for orders under section 27 of the 1976 Act.