Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

If even; so it might have been used once. If this has almost never been used and might have been used once - I am not aware of that occasion when it was used - that is not striking a careful balance. It is quite extraordinary. These are circumstances where someone has carried out substantial unauthorised development, has been convicted of an offence under planning law or is not in compliance with planning permission granted. I agree we should be talking about substantial, material non-compliance here, not minor issues. That is a different story. There are numerous examples of substantial non-compliance. It is the public, homeowners, people who work so hard to buy a home and invest so much in trying to build a life for themselves and their family and in trying to build community who are the ones who pay for this non-compliance from unfinished planning permissions. This is not without cost. It places families and communities under significant stress. I would dispute that there is any careful balance here at all. Given that this provision may have been used only once, if even, it seems there is no balance being struck here at all. The practice is heavily weighted towards developers who are non-compliant getting more and more planning permissions and making a farce out of some of the provisions of planning law. We know they are often not pursued effectively through enforcement action. It is also completely unfair to builders and developers who are compliant for bad faith actors to be facilitated through weak legislative provisions. Everyone who is doing everything the right way - residents, communities, homeowners, or compliant builders and developers - are put at a disadvantage by it. Although my amendment is not being accepted by the Government, I strongly urge the Minister of State to ensure this area is looked at and strengthened.