Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Dec 2003

Vol. 577 No. 4

Adjournment Debate. - Planning Abuses.

Mr. Gogarty

I hope the "Prime Time" producers are watching tonight because one of their investigations is the only thing that could possibly help root out the numerous planning abuses that have taken place throughout this country. The abuse is due either to a lack of resourcing among local authorities or insufficient legislation on the matter by means of the planning Acts and other laws.

I want to be specific. There are many areas around the country which might have been brought to my attention, but a case from my own constituency might be most appropriate. Time and again we see where developers or in some cases businesses construct what would be seen as developments in breach of planning regulations without planning permission. Sometimes they later seek and secure retention. That is fair enough. They pay the price for that. In many cases however, dwellings or businesses are built with no enforcement proceedings being initiated to stop them. There is a glut there.

In south County Dublin, where I was first elected as a councillor, and which area has now co-opted councillor Fintan McCarthy, this abuse is endemic. It is not just a case of large-scale development as in the case of Weston Aerodrome, recently being granted a limited permission by An Bord Pleanála while enforcement proceedings were still going on regarding unauthorised developments elsewhere on the site. We heard that the developer of Weston Aerodrome was in breach of numerous planning regulations in Saggart at the time. I do not necessarily want to have a go at Mr. Mansfield. He is a high profile person and he wants to build a conference centre which would be hugely welcome in the county. That is one large-scale example of how planning permission is being applied for without the regulations being adhered to.

The law needs to be changed so that a council is not drained, with its staff working full time trying to enforce regulations, and their eyes taken off the ball elsewhere. Councils need more resources in their enforcement departments, or else a law is needed. I will consider later what is required in such a law.

I will tell a little story about an area near Rathcoole called Calleaguestown. It is a small laneway on the outskirts of Rathcoole. I would call it the planning breach centre of Ireland. It has quite a number of developments including office buildings, a furniture retailer and other commercial units erected without any action being taken by South Dublin County Council over some time. This is an area of significant historical and archaeological interest, but the council has taken no action to protect the historical landscape. All the developments contravene the county development plan.

There have also been allegations of threats against residents of the area who have dared to suggest they have a right to see that proper planning procedures are adhered to in their area, yet nothing has been done. A business is allegedly owned by Noel and Celia Lee or a Jimmy Dunne. There is another furniture shop, Stafford Furniture, and the involvement of another relative, John Dunne. Some of these people seem to be related. I do not wish to cast aspersions on people but the records and the buildings exist. Photographs which I cannot show in the House show buildings that the council knows should not exist, yet it has taken no action.

Will the Minister of State explain why the council has done nothing? Is it incompetence on its part or has it been given insufficient resources to act? If developers or businesses are in breach of the planning laws and if enforcement proceedings have been issued against them they should not be allowed obtain planning permission for one more development. That would be a fair and just practice. Otherwise there will be a web of unauthorised developments and councils throughout the country will not be able to keep up. It is known that already they cannot keep pace with developments.

This issue requires further debate. I may request a section 31 ruling or I may at some future time seek the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 21. I await the Minister of State's views on how this crux can be solved. It will have to be done by providing extra resources or amending the planning legislation.

Mr. N. Ahern

One of the major reasons for the revision of the planning code in 2000 was to ensure increased compliance with planning laws by developers. The introduction of a culture of enforcement is critical to ensure that the planning control system works properly and for the benefit of the community as a whole. If people are to respect the planning laws they must be assured that they will be generally enforced.

Mr. Gogarty

They are not being enforced.

Mr. N. Ahern

In the past there were many complaints that people were able to avoid planning requirements with impunity. A range of new measures was included in the Planning and Development Act 2000 to tackle the problem and to streamline and improve the enforcement process.

Planning authorities are now legally obliged to respond to complaints of unauthorised development or breaches of planning permission. That is the law and in view of this, the matter to which the Deputy referred must have happened in the past. The authorities must keep complainants updated as enforcement actions proceed.

Mr. Gogarty

It is not happening.

Mr. N. Ahern

It is the law of the land. The Deputy is no longer on the council and his replacement may know the position. Local authorities normally try to comply with the law of the land. The period of time for taking enforcement action was also extended from five to seven years. If people attempt to hide behind a corporate identity this can now also be prevented.

The abuse of the retention system, where people avoided court action by a late application for permission for retention, was stopped. An application for retention, or even a grant of retention permission, is no longer a valid defence against enforcement action.

Fines were greatly increased, with a maximum penalty on conviction on indictment now being €12.7 million and up to two years imprisonment. This is a serious deterrent to people wishing to flout the law. It now costs more to obtain retention permission, with the fees for making a retention application now three times the regular fee.

In the past there were serious problems with developers who left developments unfinished, particularly housing estates with unfinished services. The local authority had to pick up the tab to complete them. The developer was free to apply again to build another development which the planning authority was unable to refuse, despite the past failures. The changes made in the 2000 Act, along with changes in the phasing and bonding system for large developments, and, in the case of housing estates, a requirement on local authorities to take them in charge after seven years, even if unfinished by the developer, should strengthen the hand of the planning authorities

The Planning and Development Act 2000 gave a new power to planning authorities to refuse planning permission depending on the applicants past development history. Section 35 of the Act provides that the planning authority has to first form an opinion that permission should be refused because of substantial failures by the developer to comply with permissions or conditions of permissions in the past. The planning authority may then apply to the High Court for authorisation to refuse permission to the developer.

The involvement of the High Court is a necessary part of this procedure. When this provision was being drafted in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, it was recognised that depriving an individual of a planning permission to which they were otherwise entitled, could be construed as preventing a person from earning a livelihood. As in the case when a person is struck off a professional register, it was considered necessary to ensure that the refusal was decided with the consent of the High Court. The threat by a local authority to seek the intervention of the High Court should be sufficient to bring most developers to their senses.

It is important for planning authorities to direct resources towards better enforcement of the law and many authorities are now doing so. I accept that in the past enforcement was inclined to be the Cinderella of planning departments.

Mr. Gogarty

It still is.

Mr. N. Ahern

These provisions, combined with a robust approach to enforcement by planning authorities, should ensure that future developments are undertaken fully in compliance with the planning code. Further legislative change is not under consideration. I suggest to the Deputy that his replacement on the council should quote the law because local authorities try to uphold it. I was a member of a local authority for many years. Some of the incidents quoted by the Deputy may have happened in the old regime before the 2000 Act came into force.

Mr. Gogarty

It is still happening.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The time allowed for this matter has been exceeded.

The Dáil adjourned at 11.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 18 December 2003.