Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 1145 relates to section 503.

If only we were on page 649. Section 503 is on the fees payable to planning authorities. On a similar point to that raised by Deputy Ó Broin, I really feel we need to increase planning fees to value the complex work that is done. That is the subject of my amendment No. 1145. I am not entirely sure of the process that is to be followed in order to increase planning fees. Perhaps the Minister of State can enlighten us about that. I have moved No. 774 and will be moving No. 1145, having spoken to it. The amendment states that "prescribed fees shall be commensurate with the complexity of administration and professional planning services provided by the planning authority". It is a fairly simple amendment and I would appreciate a response as to how we can look at this.

Amendment No. 1146 is also part of this grouping. It relates to section 504 on page 652, which states that, "A planning authority may, in addition to the terms of a scheme, require the payment of a special contribution in respect of a particular development". The amendment relates to section 504(10)(b) and proposes to include the contribution of or costs incurred by a State agency. For example, where a Luas line is to be put in, a section 49 contribution used to be made. Are section 49 contributions for the delivery of services and infrastructure that may not be provided by the local authority but by another State agency in some way covered in these special contributions? Amendments Nos. 1146 and 1147 are exactly the same. They both seek to insert "or state agency" into the section.

Amendment No. 1148 is also to section 504, specifically to the part of the section on page 653. It again relates to contribution fees. Where development contribution fees are spent is often a mystery to people. Going by the regulations, the contribution fees are supposed to be spent in a way that benefits the development. Local authorities often develop countywide development contribution schemes. The section reads:

A report of a local authority under section 50 of the Local Government Act 1991 shall— (i) contain details of moneys paid or owing to it under this section, and

(ii) indicate how such moneys paid to it have been expended by any local authority.

However, that comes under the Local Government Act. I suggest that there should be a separate report published on the local authority's website under this planning Bill. Such a report would detail the payments received, development contributions fees that have not yet been collected and any agreements made for developers to provide a service rather than pay the moneys. It would be very helpful for the planning system if people knew in more detail where development contribution fees were being spent.

I have two more amendments in this grouping, amendments Nos. 1151 and 1152. No. 1151 is on section 505 and covers the same issue as the last amendment, providing that:

A report of a local authority, containing details of moneys paid or owing to it under this section, and details on where such moneys paid to it have been expended or transferred to another public body shall be published annually on the local authority website.

Again, it is just about providing a bit of transparency and information for the general public as opposed to just having that report under section 50 of the Local Government Act.

Amendment No. 1152 refers to section 505(12) on page 657, which states "Where payment of a contribution is required in accordance with this section, the following provisions shall apply:" before setting out certain conditions under subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii). The provision under 505(12)(a) applies if "the planned public infrastructure project concerned is not commenced within 5 years of the date of the payment of the contribution", "the planned public infrastructure project concerned is commenced, but has not been completed within 7 years of the date of payment of the contribution" or "the public body decides not to proceed with the planned public infrastructure project concerned". With regard to those timelines of five years and seven years, would it be beneficial to provide that the clock be stopped in the case of a judicial review? Obviously, the development would be delayed and, therefore, the development contribution may also be stalled. That completes my amendments to that section.