Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

My understanding is that this section is broadly the same as the existing provisions. Was any assessment done when a decision was being made to simply replicate the existing provisions? Was there any assessment of whether the existing provisions were a useful tool in addressing the issue of developers securing future planning permissions where they have not complied with previous ones? This is a once-in-a-generation reform of the planning system, as the Minister of State likes to tell us, and issues like Larkfield House are matters of public record and have been widely debated, including in this committee.

In fact, I have written to previous Ministers about them. One would have thought some assessment was done on whether this area was one needed amending. We see elsewhere in the Bill that when the Government wants to centralise powers and remove flexibility, autonomy or democratic accountability for local authorities, there is no problem. However, when it comes to getting tough on non-compliance, either with failure to comply with planning permissions or building control, there is nothing in this Bill, as we found with previous sections, that gives any additional strength to our local authorities. The worry is that as we are starting to see new development increase, albeit too slowly, the temptation for people to cut corners and break rules grows. If they see people being able to get away with non-compliance both with planning and building control, as I mentioned, specifically with regard to the three developments in Dublin city and county, that will incentivise others to do the same. Therefore, this is quite an important issue. I am interested to know whether any assessment or analysis was done, prior to the decision to simply transpose the existing provisions into this Bill, of how effective those provisions have been.