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

I thank members for their comments and input. On the public consultation and the planning advisory forum, it worked very well and I reject any assertion it did not. PLS was extensive. This is a significant piece of legislation. The IPI or members within it are absolutely entitled to their views. I do not have to agree with them and I do not. I am somewhat surprised this is one of the biggest issues the institute has raised and I suggest it reflects the strong views of individual members within it when one looks at all the other areas of the Bill we are dealing with and the new measures they are bringing in that this is an area they have particularly focused on for criticism. It is fine. We will work through this and that is what this process is for.

There are a couple of things here. Something Deputy Ó Broin mentioned was it was like a planning application. We have got to be careful we are not creating another planning application process here. The Chair has already mentioned notification. Another aspect could be costs. Let us say Deputy Ó Broin is a third party, that he does not like me and he then decides to seek section 5 declaration. Right now I do not know and we are all agreed that piece needs to change. If I get to respond, to what level do I respond to? Do I have to submit plans? The proposed amendments refer to any person, so that could be anyone. Does the person have to show they are impacted? These are the type of things that need to be considered. Could it very simply be a neighbourhood dispute? How many times can I seek that declaration? The Deputy mentioned an instance there where someone builds a shed. It could be another complaint about something else in a few months' time, so all those things have got to be considered, as well as the landowner or property owner themselves. I think we all agree that too. We are genuinely engaging with the Attorney General's office right now to see what other parties there could be to this process. The number of section 5 applications is not tracked at a national level. I understand it is in the hundreds as opposed to the thousands in any given year, but no one disputes that this is an area that has received very significant criticism in the courts, so changes need to be made. We will look at that also but if it is an application process I am the owner. I may have done absolutely nothing wrong, but if we are to look at how they are involved what onus are we putting on them? Is it a question of them having to submit detailed plans. Let us say I have gone about my business, I have an exempted development and it is fine. Then Deputy O'Callaghan decides - I know he would not - to seek that on me for whatever reason. What onus is that putting on me then as the owner? They are the type of things we are teasing out, as well as who, to be honest. That is an issue.

I cannot ignore the very strong advice from the Attorney General on foot of experience with criticism of the process as it is now. That is another element the IPI did not mention. I will be working through this with the Attorney General to see how we can refine this further to get to where all of us want. However, we have to balance it so we ensure this is not just another type of reverse planning application either and that there is a whole new application process there. Deputy O'Callaghan has read into the record an instance where, unquestionably, the process worked but the enforcement process did not and then they were able to seek the declaration. I get that, but we have got to see how we can refine this further and I will work to do that and we are working to do that right now. However, there has to be a balance as well and we have to be clear on what onus we are putting on maybe a very unsuspecting property owner who may have done absolutely nothing wrong and then we are bringing him or her into a process. They are the type of considerations and we have time to consider that.