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

I will speak to amendments Nos. 668, 669, 671 and 672. As the Deputy has outlined, amendment No. 668 proposes to delete section 98(5)(d), which provides that, where an application is deemed refused because the applicant does not consent to an extended decision-making period, any fees paid by the applicant are returned.

Amendment No. 669 proposes to delete section 98(6)(a), which provides that, where an applicant consents to a longer decision-making period and such a period is not met, the application fees should be returned and an additional sum of the lesser of three times the fee paid or €10,000 should be paid to the applicant in not more than five instalments. Amendment No.672 is consequential, as the Deputy said. Amendment No. 671 seeks to delete section 98(7), which also relates to extended decision-making periods and deemed refusals.

These provisions are important as they allow the planning process to adequately deal with complex applications over an extended period. They also ensure that, where these periods are not met, the applicant is appropriately compensated. There is a requirement to allow for the rare case where applications are not determined in the statutory time period. We hope they will be rare cases.

The alternative default system is not in compliance with the environmental directives. This provision is in place at present. From a governance perspective, the accounting office of the organisation would have to report the payment of such a fine to the local authority auditor and that would form part of the public reporting process, which is important from a transparency perspective.

The three things running through this Bill are certainty of timeframes, consistency of approach and clarity, which is badly needed in the system. I do not propose to accept these amendments for the reasons I have outlined.