Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The Aarhus Convention does not have direct application in Ireland. Rather, it is implemented at EU level by a number of EU directives, namely, the Directive 2003/35/EC which deals with public participation and access to justice in certain environmental matters and Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and commonly referred to as the environmental impact assessment EIA directive. These directives have been transposed into Irish legislation and are fully reflected in the planning code. The requirements and principles of the above mentioned EU directives are already fully reflected in the planning code. It is fair to say that is not going to change with this Bill going through.

Amendments Nos. 17, 114, 115, 121, 125, 126 and 127 from Deputy Ó Broin propose to amend sections 4 and 22 to provide that an application for an extension of duration of a planning permission will be treated as a new application for permission, involving environmental impact assessment and appropriate assessment in particular cases, full public participation, a right of refusal even where all statutory requirements are met, appeal to the board and extensive revision of existing conditions and the addition of new conditions. I oppose these amendments as they would completely negate the purpose of extensions of duration, which is to allow extra time for existing permissions, the building out of which has been prevented or slowed down by unforeseen circumstances, to be carried out or completed in accordance with the terms of the original permission. The Deputy's proposal could create a situation where a site with planning permission granted for 200 houses, and with substantial movement on the site with maybe 150 houses completed, may need to go back through all of this process for the last 50 houses. It seems a little unnecessary when we are trying to bring the supply of housing up and to finish it out. We have taken amendments already and there has to be substantial work on the site and major progress. If these amendments were accepted that is what could happen and the development would need to go through all the process with the associated delays. We believe it is excessive with regard to that aspect also.

Similarly, I oppose amendment No. 118 from Deputy Murphy, which on the face of it appears to apply to all types of development and not just housing development. Planning permissions for development do not specify the phases in which development must be carried out and do not provide that the authority will take each phase in charge according as it is completed. I do not believe that requirements of this nature, proposed in this amendment, are reasonable conditions to attach to extensions of duration of permissions. The proposed requirement that all work is completed within five years would appear to preclude a developer who does not finish the approved work within the extended period from applying for a new planning permission to complete the development..

The amendment also proposes that the term of any bond or security that is conditioned under the original permission would be extended as part of the extension of duration of the permission. The terms of any such bond or security are set out in agreements negotiated between developers and financial institutions without any direct involvement by planning authorities and I do not think any statutory provision can automatically change the terms of such agreements. There are, however, a number of Government amendments in this grouping I propose to move, a number of which are of a technical drafting nature. These are amendments Nos. 119, 120, 123 and 124. Amendment No. 119 is in essence a technical amendment, correcting a reference in the Bill. Subsection (4) of section 42 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, currently provides that a decision to extend the appropriate period of a planning permission shall be made once and once only under this section. As subsection (1A) now proposed to be inserted into section 42 provides for a second extension of the appropriate period of a planning permission for a certain class of development, the “notwithstanding” provision of subsection (1A) must apply to subsection (4) of section 42, as well as subsection (1) of that section.