Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I used it as an example of a large infrastructural project that I take it we are all agreed on the need for it to happen. That could take 15 years to build once it is granted. The permission is granted for the period of time that it needs to be built. If we speak to section 164(3)(a) on which the question was asked and which Deputy Bacik's amendment was said not to affect, something like Intel or one of those would have sought permissions directly through the local authority so the amendment would actually affect that. The build period of time is the permission period. That is it. If you get permission for five years, you have to build within five years. If we restrict it to two years, a lot of big projects will simply not be able to be done. I have explained this to Deputy Boyd Barrett regarding his amendment and in fairness he has acknowledged it would be a rolling back in for two years repeatedly. Deputy Bacik's amendment simply reduces it to three years. The standard is five years. Yes, you can go back in for up to another five years should it be needed. The granting of a ten-year permission is nothing new for larger projects. That has been there. If I am building out a large apartment development scheme, of which thankfully we are seeing a lot, that can take five years but it has to be built out within five years. It could take ten years. I understand that there is frustration among all members that when a permission is granted, we want to see it built out. Things can happen. It is not just about activating the workforce, doing the ground works and having all that done within that permission period. It is actually completing the works. These amendments would cause untold difficulties and would strangle development further, so I cannot accept them.