Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

We are out of time on that point. Our roster has gone a little askew because people are coming from the Seanad and the Dáil.

I want to talk about consenting for the moment, which is mentioned in discussion paper 2. Part of the consent process is the site notice whereby a person must erect a notice at the start of his or her application. I am of the view that we need to tighten up on that a little bit. I have seen situations where multiple site notices have been left up on the same building. It is specified that a notice must be removed after a decision has been made. It is often not followed up on and we end up with multiple site notices. People actually get confused or do not notice a new site notice has gone up and think it is an old one. That is an area I would like to see addressed.

I also think the site notice could be modernised. I suggest it should probably have a picture or outline or suggestion of what the development will be; not the choicest picture but one from the angle where the site notice has been erected. A scale picture of what one is likely to see would help many people. Site notices can have very technical jargon with a small amount of description, which can be quite difficult for people to follow. I think a picture would be very helpful in that regard. I ask the Department to consider that as part of the consenting process.

One of the other issues on the consenting process, which has really damaged it in my view, is that local authority planners are bound closely to the objectives in the development plans. The specific planning policy requirements, SPPR, under section 28 completely skewed that as well. I seriously think we need to address the SPPRs. They have damaged a lot of confidence in the planning system. Essentially, the public is involved in planning by electing their councillors, abiding by the development plan process and submitting an application at the planning application stage, which then ends up at An Bord Pleanála, which is not as tightly bound by that plan. They get developments that are totally out of character and not what was expected for the area. I really think that needs to be addressed. I understand the need for the Minister to have the scope to issue ministerial guidelines but I think those specific ones have done a huge amount of damage.

Enforcement is referenced in discussion paper 2. Enforcement has always been weak but I wonder whether it has always been weak because of the amount of time that is required to be put into it by local authority planners who get caught up in court cases that can go on for a huge amount of time. Such cases are very resource intensive, and the penalties at the end are often very minor. One can understand why planners or planning departments may not be willing to put that money in at the time. They ask what the return on that is when people get fines or penalties regarding unauthorised developments or non-compliance with planning conditions. I know that is beyond the scope of our planning Act because they are court judgments. That needs to be accounted for as well.

It is proposed that the serving of a warning letter will be a mandatory first step in enforcement, except in urgent cases. Can the witnesses tell me what they think an urgent case might be? There is provision to be made here for the staying or withdrawal of a warning letter in certain situations. If the warning letter is stayed, does that mean if somebody fails in a section 5 application, it commences in that time period again? The warning letter is just to say to somebody that the Department thinks something is unauthorised or that there is a non-compliance. It is just to serve notice on somebody. I do not see why it would be withdrawn because if it runs out, it does not make any difference. To keep the continuity of that timeline, it would be better not to withdraw warning letters. Let them just fade out if there is no reason for them to have been issued, if the application is found to be authorised or if a section 5 declaration is given. Those are my questions on enforcement and the consenting process if the witnesses wish to respond.