Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I concur with the other Deputies in this regard. As for commencements, what is the precise definition of "commencements"? Hoarding just goes up and a hole is dug in the ground. That is one of the problems we see, where buildings are pulled down and demolished in preparation for that commencement. That needs to be the case. Also, there needs to be a conclusion in order that if planning permission is granted five years, one does not seek an extension and simply dig a hole in the ground. That extension needs to disappear or at least there needs to be some penalty if the building works are not concluded within the extended period. When granted, permissions need to have some proof of ability to get the work off the ground. There is no point in developers applying and clogging up the system if they are not going to proceed with the planning application. Part of that is to have the ability to commence, to have construction firms lined up to commence as quickly as possible, as well as the ability to pay for this. In a number of instances, as others have alleged, planning permission has been obtained only to add value. In my own area, I know of several such cases. Most of them have begun and some have concluded but many were flipped six or seven times. In some cases, the local representative and council officials met the developers in preparation for a preplanning stage, all to no avail because the next person who bought the site tweaked the planning application and put in a new application. Suddenly hours of work are repeated, looking at the plans, meeting the developer and the council officials. That clogs up the system. As Deputy Bacik said, council officials have said that if all of the planning applications currently in place were acted on, we would be in a far better position.

In regard to Deputy O'Callaghan's comments about 15 years, we need to ensure there is no chance of a planning permission for five years being extended beyond that for another five. It is reasonable in some ways to tighten it up to three or four years, I am not against that. There needs to be a reasonable limit so that the public does not suffer a derelict site for 15 years when developers get an extension and leave the hole in the ground, as has happened in many areas for many years. The Iveagh Markets building was supposed to be developed and is now back in the hands of the council. That is the classic example. It was in the developer's hands for more than 20 years. Planning permission was submitted at the start but the developer did not bother his arse doing anything afterwards. That is before the courts. Eventually the council had to step in because the original owner, the Guinness family, demanded action. The Guinness family was going to step in and take it back. That was due to a developer hoarding the site until the time was right to get maximum profit. That is not what our planning system should be for. It is not there to facilitate maximum profit. It should be to facilitate the greater good.