Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome everybody back to the Select Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, where we continue our Committee Stage consideration of the Planning and Development Bill 2023. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, to this afternoon's meeting. We will continue where we finished last night, which was on a discussion on amendment No. 725 and the grouping of amendments associated with it. The first one we are going to discuss is amendment No. 779, in the name of Deputy Boyd Barrett and others.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair for accommodating me. Amendment No. 779 seeks to amend the Government's proposals in the legislation around the duration of planning permissions. Currently, in the Bill in front of us, the duration of a planning permission "shall be five years from the date of grant". I understand there is also scope for an additional five years. We are suggesting that this be reduced to two years, with the possibility of another two years. The rationale for this should be fairly obvious. We are all aware that there are people sitting on planning permissions and abusing the planning process for the purposes of speculation. I will give the Minister an example from my constituency. We were trying to highlight this case at the weekend and we have done so over a period of years. It relates to what I would describe as a strategically important site where there is a lot of potential for development. I will not go into the precise location of the site. We highlighted it a decade ago at least. In fact, it has been sitting undeveloped for nearly two decades at this stage. It has had multiple planning permissions. I am not quite sure who the owner is now but at one point we traced the ownership of it to a company that was based in a tax haven in the Caribbean. When we highlighted the case, and pressed in the council for it to be compulsorily purchased to develop social and affordable housing, lo and behold, the developers cleaned the place up a bit all of a sudden because it was looking so derelict. I think they put in a planning permission then but nothing has happened. It seems pretty clear to us - I am sure many others can cite similar examples - that there is no real intention here, and in fact that site has been flipped on about three occasions. They are getting planning permission. It ratchets up the value and allows them to sit on an asset that is appreciating in value but nothing is actually happening.

This is not an attempt to get at people who are genuinely putting forward legitimate planning or development proposals. However, where people are knowingly hoarding land for the purposes of speculation on the appreciation of land that could be used for housing, measures have to be taken to address that. There are different ways of going at this. I am in favour of coming at it from a number of different points of view. One of the ways to go at it is to limit the time that the planning permission will remain, unless they show serious signs that they are going to do something with it. Obviously, we are aware that things can legitimately get delayed, so that is why we are saying that an extra two years could be added under certain circumstances. A total period of four years is reasonable. If there is no sign of movement after four years, I think it is entirely legitimate to say that this planning permission is no longer valid. That would also allow local authorities to move in, where land is being held on that sort of land-hoarding and speculative basis, to acquire those properties to develop them for social and affordable housing, or things that would benefit the community and society. That is the rationale, and I hope the Minister will take it seriously.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. I want to say that his amendment here would affect all planning applications. It would reduce the period set at five years to two. There are certainly issues with extensions of permissions, and the Deputy will see in this grouping that I intend to bring forward amendment No. 729, which is about limitations on the extension of duration of permissions. That would mean that you could only seek an extension of duration once for that period, and it must be in line with the length of the original planning permission. It would allow it to go once more but that would be on the basis of amendment No. 726 - which is a Government amendment as well - where we are clarifying that the development must have commenced. That is very important. Where you have people seeking an extension on permissions where they have not commenced the original permission, we are only going to allow one extension. The example the Deputy has used of, let us say, multiple extensions to it would be no more on the passing of this legislation.

I understand where the Deputy is coming from because there are a number of measures we can take on this but I genuinely believe that to reduce a planning permission period to two years would be far too restrictive, particularly with regard to larger developments. I understand that in the Deputy's amendment he is allowing an option to seek an extension for a further two. We have talked and debated here, and rightly so, about the quality of design and what we need to do with regard to the planning process itself. Even the pre-planning and planning stage can take quite a substantial period of time. The Deputy will have seen that this year and last year, with the very substantial increase in commencements, that some of it is cost-related. That is why I have moved forward with the waiver of the development levies and the Uisce Éireann connection charge. We have seen a surge in commencements, which I absolutely welcome.

This amendment proposes to reduce it to two years, and there is another amendment here to reduce the duration from five to three years, but I cannot accept them. The specified planning period of five years is, I think, appropriate.

However, I agree with the Deputy about looking at the issue of the multiple extensions to existing permissions and bringing in the provision that a permission must have commenced before someone would seek an extension to that permission. I also recognise that we are looking at a longer term strategic planning view where development plans will be for ten years with a review after five years. A planning permission duration of five years is appropriate in that instance. We are bringing forward measures, as the Deputy will be aware, such as the residential zoned land tax and separately, uplift in values and zoning and land value sharing, which is also a significant change we are making. While I understand his motivation, a reduction from five to two years would lead to many more applications and many more requests for extensions to permission, even if it was for two years. My provision, which I do not see this in the Deputy's amendment, only allows one extension to the permission and only on the basis that the original permission has commenced. I will not accept the amendment.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the Minister acknowledges there is an issue to be addressed, or at least I hope he does. However, we are in a housing emergency. The situation is absolutely dire and a part of that is rooted in the abuse of planning permissions for speculative purposes. I might cite in that regard, the Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service, IGEES, report from a few years ago, which identified this as a serious problem. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of it. The report stated that the evidence suggests that planning permissions far exceed commencements. The Minister stated that the position has improved on commencements. I would be interested to know the proportions on that, but certainly the IGEES report identified that the planning permissions granted for residential development were significantly in excess of the number of commencements in any given year. My guess is that has not changed dramatically since that report was done. It may have changed somewhat and it would be useful to see if the Government has up-to-date figures on the balance between planning permissions granted for residential development and the number of commencements. The IGEES report is a strong piece of evidence produced by, I think, the Department of public expenditure and it pointed explicitly to speculation and land hoarding as a serious problem that the authors believe explains the disparity between the number of planning permissions granted and the number of commencements. We are all aware that speculation goes on and we can probably all point to examples.

The Minister stated that two years is too short, but I say that five years is too long and ten years - as five years allows for an extension to ten years-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is only if the project has commenced.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, if it has commenced, but the other thing that can be done, as per the example I cited, is that another planning application can be lodged. In the example I gave, the property was flipped. It has had at least three different owners in a period of approximately 20 years and when a bit of heat was put on, including a discussion by the council about using a compulsory purchase order to buy the property, a planning application was lashed in, but nothing happened with it. Then the property was flipped and another planning application was lodged and I bet my bottom dollar that nothing will happen with that and that the owners have no intention of doing the development they say they will. Therefore, we need to put serious pressure on them. I am not for making life more difficult or having downside impacts but at the moment there is too much scope for abuse. Our amendment is trying to get at that. We need to put the squeeze on them to get a move on or to prove that they are serious about developing the site.

I am not sure where it comes in the groupings, but I will flag that we have tabled a connected amendment that talks about use-it-or-lose-it provisions, essentially if it is clearly evident that people are speculating and land hoarding, that there would be a mechanism to transfer such land that may be suitable and is urgently needed for residential development into the hands of the local authority. It is amendment No. 785. I am not sure which section it amends.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has been ruled out of order.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, it has been ruled out of order. It may be out of order but the point is important.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will bring in Deputy O'Callaghan who wanted to speak on this. Then, Deputy Bacik's amendments No. 781 to 783, inclusive, are related so we might take them in order and the Minister can respond to all three.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These are important amendments. When the Minister was in opposition, he talked a lot about use-it-or-lose-it measures. It was one of his big catchphrases or slogans. However, we do not see strong use-it-or-lose-it measures in this Bill. We might get a response to that.

If the planning permissions that were granted were all built in a timely manner, our housing situation would be completely different. It would be transformed. It is not all down to land speculation and land hoarding, but it is one element, as was identified by the report Deputy Boyd Barrett mentioned by the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform. I can think of a number of strategically located sites in my constituency that I have seen be granted multiple planning permissions and change hands multiple times over 15 or 20 years. The value went up but we were left without much-needed housing 15 or 20 years later. I have seen it happen and it has a societal and economic cost and a cost for people who are trying to access housing. It also has a cost on the planning system in the volume of resources and time taken up and the congestion it causes for planning authorities, including An Bord Pleanála.

It was interesting to hear Deputy Boyd Barrett speak about one of these sites in his constituency and finding out it is registered to an offshore tax haven because, lo and behold, in my constituency there is a strategic site that has had planning permission for many years and it is registered to an owner based in an offshore tax haven. It is one of these patterns, especially for these speculative developments. The local community would love to see the development built and has been asking for that for years. They ask who owns it and all I can say is that planning permissions have been granted but it is registered to some unknown entity on some islands halfway around the world and we do not know what the story is with it and whether the owners intend to ever do anything. We know they have planning permission and increased the notional value of the land and so forth.

To be clear, the current situation is that planning permission is valid for five years and an extension for another five years is available. Previous measures allowed a further extension of five years, but they are gone, are they not? Currently, for any development, the maximum time planning permission can be valid is five years, plus an extension of five years, so ten years in total. Under this Bill - the Minister may correct me if I am wrong - the maximum duration proposed is ten years with a further extension, if the amendment being discussed passes, for another ten years. Rather than going from use-it-or-lose-it measures, we are going from a maximum ceiling of ten years to 20 years under the Minister's proposals. It is the opposite of use-it-or-lose-it measures. It is as though he is telling people not to use it and that they will not lose it as he is giving them an additional ten years in an extension. Will he give the rationale for that? When we are in a situation where we need more housing and we need many of these projects that have planning permission to be built, why is the extra potential ten years of delay and land speculation being facilitated under this Bill?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will respond first to Deputy Boyd Barrett because his amendment was put forward, then to Deputy Bacik and other Deputies. In regard to multiple applications clogging up the system, Deputy Boyd Barrett's amendment does not restrict the duration. For example, if the planning permission was for two years and could be extended by another two years, it does not preclude further extensions. This means the same person could go back every two years, adding to the strain on resources within the council. We look closely at the conversion rates on permissions. In the past 12 to 14 months, we saw a surge in conversions because we have been able to bring in cost measures that have helped, as I mentioned, the waiver of the development levy charge and the Uisce Éireann connection charge as well. We have seen commencements increase year on year. Last month, commencements were up by 85% on the comparable month in the previous year. There are cost implications as well. That is actually working. I am not sure how many members agreed with the provision that I brought in on that but it is actually working. I intend to extend it for the rest of this year too, subject to Government approval. We all want to see permissions on housing. I will talk about that in a moment. We have mainly been referring to housing developments. I want to see them built out. Deputy Bacik is absolutely right, what we are talking about here is a balance regarding the length of time. If planning permission is granted, the scheme needs to be funded, whether through the State or with the State in a public private partnership or through private finance. It is very difficult to get finance on large developments if they are going to be restricted to a two- or three-year permission. That is a genuine issue on which I ask members to reflect. I am not sure whether Deputy Bacik was here when I initially responded to Deputy Boyd Barrett but I am bringing forward specific changes whereby one cannot seek an extension to a planning permission unless it is commenced.

I will deal with Deputy Ó Snodaigh's question in a minute about what the commencement looks like, and one can only seek that once.

Let us say we have a housing development. So from what I understand is being framed here, why would one want a longer duration? If one takes Intel, MetroLink, large strategic infrastructure or large residential developments that would be at scale, there will be appropriate times. These amendments do not just say for housing either and will actually restrict permissions for anything such as a large school, college, campus or greenway. I could go on but I will discuss the bigger projects. It is appropriate for certain planning permissions and it happens right now, Deputy O'Callaghan, where permissions can be granted for ten years or more. So that is not a new departure and it recognises the scale of that development and how long it will take to deliver that out or to get to that substantially complete piece. One does need to have that. All of us want permissions to be converted into developments but I will respectfully say that if one goes to three or even two years, then people will find it really difficult to fund anything. What we really need to look at is how we ensure that activation happens.

We have just come through the Covid-19 period. To compare conversion rates against permissions, we had to give extensions for a period to which all parties agreed, and rightly so. Things do happen, such as economic downturns and things like this. To fund development that all of us want, be that the State funding like we are doing in housing this year, with over €5 billion this year, and other developments such as infrastructure, education or whatever the case may be, one needs to give a permission that allows those developments to be developed. If the timeframe is seen as being far too short and too restrictive, then one will not get funding for it which will be a big problem. Then the Deputy would come back to me, and rightly so, asking why can this housing development not be built out or why has it not started.

There are other measures we are bringing forward around the residential zoned land tax, the land value sharing and the State getting the uplift on the rezoning value, which is also very important. There are also restrictions that I am going to bring in here about how an applicant can seek an extension. An applicant can only seek an extension if the original permission has been commenced and that is very strongly within here. That is there in a Government amendment in this exact section, so that is why I am referring to them.

On the very important question about what looks like a commencement, that has differed from place to place. I intend to detail that in regulations as to what constitutes a commencement. Some local authorities are very strict on this, and rightly so. I have seen what constitutes a commencement. Certainly in most, and Deputy Ó Snodaigh knows this, it is not just erecting hoardings because substantial groundworks, foundations and those types of things are what is needed. We have seen sites change ownership, unquestionably. I am not going to speak about who owns them or whatever. What we have been seeing in the past 14 months in particular is a highly significant surge in commencements and activations of permissions for a number of reasons and not just the waiver. We have spoken in here at committee and debated in the Dáil as well with, I think, most of the members who are present on the issue of activating planning permissions, particularly permissions for apartments that have not been built out in our cities. As the State is getting involved in co-funding or fully funding them for large cost-rental schemes, one is seeing those permissions actually being activated and work commencing, and work being completed on many of them, through things like the Croí Cónaithe cities scheme, the apartment activation fund and the cost rental equity loan model. We are seeing substantial apartment developments now being built for cost rental and, indeed, for sale through the Croí Cónaithe cities scheme because of Government measures. I believe we struck the right balance here. It is not a case of getting your permission and hanging on to it. People will not be able to seek an extension unless the permission has been commenced.

Most of us, if not all of us, want to see MetroLink delivered and I certainly do. If I brought in the amendment tabled by the Labour Party or by People Before Profit, and I understand the motivation behind them, then those developments would be restricted to a two or three-year planning permission. Frankly, that would not work and that is why I cannot accept these amendments.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Boyd Barrett first, then Deputy Bacik and Deputy O'Callaghan, please.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman for his indulgence. This will be my last intervention because I must depart.

The Minister can quibble about two, three or even four years but if the thing commences then there is not a problem. We want to see commencements. The Minister has made the valid point that our amendment does not put a limit on the renewals. If I were to table this amendment on Report Stage then I would precisely insist on that. Insofar as the Minister has said he is going to do that so there would be no extension beyond ten years, that is welcome but to my mind, ten years is too long unless there is an extremely good reason. The Minister can legislate for that as well if there are some exceptional circumstances. Covid-19 was referenced by the Minister. All sorts of exceptional things were done during the Covid-19 period, even in the planning area, to acknowledge the exceptional circumstances involved. Ten years is too long, however. As we say, we have got all these sites, as we have, right now in the face of a housing emergency which are being sat on. They are not being activated. We need them activated. Given the severity of the housing crisis we are now facing, we cannot give developers the latitude to sit on them for ten years, in my view, unless there is an extremely good reason. I cannot think of many reasons that would justify that. Furthermore, all of us need to grapple with the question of what we should do about them lodging a planning application and then, after that expires after whatever the time period might be, them just putting in a different planning application even though they have as little intention of developing that as they did the previous one. We have to deal with this matter because it is being abused wholesale. Moreover, the Government itself, in reports it has done, has acknowledged this. It is not the only problem but it is a significant problem and we all know and have evidence that it is. I say ten years is too long and the Minister can say our amendment does not quite capture it.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not ten years we are setting it at but five years.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Five years plus.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is an option or opportunity to go for another five years, should a permission have commenced. Ten years is not the standard. Five years is the standard, as is the current practice.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In our case we are saying two years. I think that sort of standard, with the possibility of an extension, gives the option for the period ending up being ten years.

This matter does not just concern residential development. Perhaps the Minister can answer my query about Cherrywood town centre. He should be aware of it and I have only just become aware of it. I have heard word from officials and local residents about the developer of Cherrywood town centre, around which there is a huge residential development that is all ready and people have moved in and it was premised on there being a town centre with community and retail facilities, etc. I have heard from both officials and locals that the developers have now decided that it is not going to be financially viable for them to build the town centre, which defeats the whole purpose. The idea behind Cherrywood was that it would be sustainable, people could walk everywhere and everything would be in the development. The idea was to have a big residential development, which is effectively a small new city, and that all of the facilities would be there. Now, the developer has signalled that they are not going to build. I suspect that they are trying to put the Government over a barrel to see what other concessions they can wangle out of a Government that has already put in a lot of money, in terms of infrastructure, parks, funding from the local infrastructure housing activation fund, LIHAF, which is not on and we need measures to deal with that as well.

While we might not have all the answers in these amendments, we are signalling that something serious must be done. The severity of the crisis is so bad that speculation must be stamped out. Blackmail, if that is what is happening in certain circumstances-----

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please, Deputy.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. I will tone that down.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, the Deputy might want to do so.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will say that using the situation to leverage concessions would be equally unacceptable. This aspect must be addressed. In our view, it has not been adequately addressed and we need more robust measures, given the seriousness of the situation.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy can table a Report Stage amendment to reflect that point. I call Deputy Bacik.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Bacik. I call Deputy O'Callaghan.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We moved into these amendments to facilitate Deputies Bacik and Boyd Barrett but I have a fair bit to get into concerning the other amendments in this group.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have to go back to those.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, grand. To follow on from the point made by Deputy Bacik, has any analysis been done in terms of durations of permissions in respect of a large-scale housing development, for example, of how long it normally takes to build out after getting planning permission? If we are talking about 500 units or 1,000 units, how much time is required in this regard, if we consider the time needed to get the planning permission, get all the required ducks in a row after that and then get on site? There are workforce mobilisation aspects involved. It is not like all this is possible from day one. The odd developer is able to move a workforce onto a site straightaway if things have been timed well in terms of getting an assembled workforce moved from another site. Usually, however, workforce mobilisation, and everything concerned with it, takes time, with different stages around the process. Has any analysis been done around this context that is informing the times referred to in this Bill?

The Minister was also just talking about bringing in the land value sharing measures and uplift. Initially, we were told that these measures might form part of the Bill. They do not currently do so. Will the Minister be seeking on Report Stage, or later, to bring these measures in?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There will be a separate Bill.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. The Minister might just tell us the timescale and timeframe in that regard because it is related to this Bill.

In terms of commencement, I do wish to talk about this a bit more, although I might leave the discussion until we are dealing with other amendments. In respect of Deputy Bacik's amendments here, the Minister asked about large-scale projects, such as MetroLink, for example. Deputy Bacik's amendments here do not have any impact on those kinds of large-scale proposals because they seek to amend sections 164(1) and 164(2) but not section 164(3).

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure the Minister will be aware that something like MetroLink would be covered under section 164(3)(b) because a project of that kind would surely be a Chapter 4 application or development. In terms of Deputy Bacik's amendments, therefore, they do not interfere with those sorts of large-scale projects.

Turning to section 164(3)(a), it does not specify. I refer to where it is possible for an applicant to seek a permission for up to ten years or for a planning authority, at its own discretion, to grant a permission for up to ten years. We must remember that an extension of permission for a further ten years can be granted as well, which allows for a full 20 years overall. Whatever type of planning application we are talking about, 20 years is a long period of time. Incidentally, for a project like MetroLink, I refer to a project like that having perhaps more than ten years, including, potentially, another extension. I totally appreciate that large-scale infrastructure takes a few years to be built out, but we do not want to see the likes of MetroLink taking more than ten years after planning permission was secured to be completed. We want to see projects like that built out in a timely fashion.

On 164(3)(a), then, are there any safeguards, regulations, conditions or definitions around this or is it just the wording we have here? Is it entirely discretionary in its application? Could this be applied in very different ways around the country by different planning authorities in different-sized projects or is there anything that informs this section? I refer to having ten years and then perhaps a further extension of ten years as well.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Finally, before we move on, I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will try to be brief. I thank the Minister for providing clarification concerning what the commencement will look like and the regulations in that regard. Hopefully, we will have this universal approach that does not now exist.

The other part of the question I asked concerned the completion date. We know that to get an extension it is necessary to have started a development. Is there, though, any completion date specified in this context? I ask this because being allowed to commence projects without such a date accounts for some of the problem. We have seen this happen. With the downturn, there was a specific problem in that regard. We had all these buildings that were sitting there half complete. Some of those buildings still have not been completed. There are even buildings constructed since the crash that are still sitting there. In some cases, that is because the county council will not sign off on them or take them in charge. I refer to the process in this regard.

These are buildings that are basically derelict because nobody is living in them. There is no function to them because the offices they were meant to be or whatever were not completed. Obviously, we have the debacle around the children's hospital and the planning in 2016. That shows, even with building, that for some developments you need longer periods of planning permissions. I am not one to say that all planning permissions should be two or three years. I think everybody accepts in large-scale developments that a longer period is needed. I am not arguing about the children's hospital, but just speaking to the fact that this shows if we were to go down the road of completion, there could be a question around the definition of completion. The builder might say buildings are completed but they are not taken in charge. Is there a series of penalties? A developer will have penalties against subcontractors for not completing their bits of work on a site but is the council - or the public basically - to wait forever for some buildings to be completed? Sin é.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To go through this, Deputy Ó Snodaigh's comments at the end helped me to answer the question I wanted to put even when Deputy Boyd Barrett was here. The completion is within the planning permission period. You have to build and operate within a planning permission period. If you start building and you have a five-year permission, the permission is for five years. It is not that you get your permission and you start building four years and 11 months in and then happily go on. If you are operating outside of the five years, you would be developing an unauthorised development then because your planning permission has ceased. This addresses the points that many of the members have been making around the timeframe. This is a real issue if you are trying to fund a project, be that the Housing Agency, a State funder or some other authority. If we want to fund a development and the permission is reduced to two or three years, who is going to fund the development if it is known it cannot be completed within the two- or three-year period? If you are still building post that date, you are going to be unauthorised as your completion date is up to the five-year period. The amendments that are here, while well-meaning, and I understand not necessarily the rationale but the points that members have made, would greatly restrict the ability to be able to finish any type of project within that period of time. Funding is a real issue, although not the only one. I would agree with Deputy Bacik on this. One of the other reasons for this is the delays. The purpose of the legislation we are bringing through is to bring forward those statutory timeframes that are in place to bring the consistency and certainty we need on timeframes and the clarity around who can interact with the planning system. Those are the three main objectives to do within this. Delays are one of the major complaints. As Deputy O'Callaghan mentioned, if we take MetroLink, we do not want to see a permission going on and on. Nobody does but it will not. I will not talk about a specific development because the oral hearing is just being heard.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister mentioned it first.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not mention it any more.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I used it as an example of a large infrastructural project that I take it we are all agreed on the need for it to happen. That could take 15 years to build once it is granted. The permission is granted for the period of time that it needs to be built. If we speak to section 164(3)(a) on which the question was asked and which Deputy Bacik's amendment was said not to affect, something like Intel or one of those would have sought permissions directly through the local authority so the amendment would actually affect that. The build period of time is the permission period. That is it. If you get permission for five years, you have to build within five years. If we restrict it to two years, a lot of big projects will simply not be able to be done. I have explained this to Deputy Boyd Barrett regarding his amendment and in fairness he has acknowledged it would be a rolling back in for two years repeatedly. Deputy Bacik's amendment simply reduces it to three years. The standard is five years. Yes, you can go back in for up to another five years should it be needed. The granting of a ten-year permission is nothing new for larger projects. That has been there. If I am building out a large apartment development scheme, of which thankfully we are seeing a lot, that can take five years but it has to be built out within five years. It could take ten years. I understand that there is frustration among all members that when a permission is granted, we want to see it built out. Things can happen. It is not just about activating the workforce, doing the ground works and having all that done within that permission period. It is actually completing the works. These amendments would cause untold difficulties and would strangle development further, so I cannot accept them.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I mentioned the phasing plans as well. Where they exist, they can go beyond that two- or three-year period as well. That was all.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The phasing plans operate within the time period as well.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is where you could end up with a ten-year permission-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You could. I did not answer Deputy O'Callaghan's question about who decides the permissions. The planning authority would decide on the basis of the scale of the project if it would require a ten-year permission. The planning authorities responsible and the planning professionals in the local authorities would be the ones to decide. A ten-house development, for argument's sake, is not going to get a ten-year permission. It is around the scale of the proposal and then the appropriate permission for the scale of that proposal. However, that would have be sought. Someone would have to show why a project would take eight years and then permission could be granted for that.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To clarify, Deputy Bacik's amendments do not seek to amend section 164(3)(a) or (b).

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Callaghan mentioned subsection (3)(a).

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I mentioned subsection (3)(a) and (b). However, on the Minister's arguments about MetroLink and so forth, Deputy Bacik's amendments would not affect an application such as this because she does not seek to amend subsection (3)(a) or (b).

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Deputy looks at large developments that go straight to the local authorities, subsection (3)(a) would be affected. The three-year permission would be-----

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Metrolink would surely be a subsection (3)(b) Chapter 4 development?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we take another example, such as Intel that went to Kildare County Council, it is covered under subsection (3)(a).

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In any event, in such a development, Deputy Bacik's amendments would be covered under subsection (3)(a) but she is not seeking to amend subsection (3)(a). That is the point that was made.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Bacik can speak for Deputy Bacik-----

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and she can make those points. All I was saying, in trying to be helpful-----

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was trying to be helpful to the Minister.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If people could be helpful, we could get through the rest of these amendments.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Lean ar aghaidh.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what you get for trying to be helpful. On section 164(3)(a), apart from the wording there, is there anything else that specifies anything around that? I appreciate it is not a new provision. Is there anything else in the legislation or anything outside of the legislation around that at all? For example, in larger housing developments, from what the Minister knows, is that clause used at all currently? Does it happen from time to time? What sort of scale are we talking about? I have not seen it myself.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To answer the Deputy's question, it has been used. I cannot tell him the number of times it has been used. This would be for housing developments in the thousands effectively, where there is phasing. As the Cathaoirleach mentioned in his comments, the phasing has to be included within the permission period.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This would be for the likes of large SDZ or something like that.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Exactly.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is that type of development I am talking about.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the type of thing. It is appropriate to leave it to the planning authority in that area to make that decision. As I said, if you are building out, you have to build out within the permission period.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Finally on this, a large application like that which a planning authority may give a ten-year permission for would obviously have a phasing plan. Within that phasing plan, it would be stipulated that 400 homes would be completed within the first two years and some infrastructure by the third year. Therefore, while it might be for a large application of ten years, effectively there are timelimits within that. It would be broken up. It would be inconceivable in housing to have a ten-year permission and there would not be phasing within that.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot see how that would arise.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There would be a phasing plan within them. I will not mention schemes the Deputy would know as well which are large schemes in the areas we represent. They would have phasing plans within them. They would have to have those to deliver X amount by 2025 and X amount by 2027. That would be detailed in the phasing plan but would all have to operate within the overall housing development plan. There have not been many that have had that ten-year type cycle. Our standard is the five years.

To reiterate, and we are looking at amendments somewhat in isolation, I am bringing in changes that will make sure developers will not go for an extension unless they have commenced the original permission. That is very important. Deputy Ó Snodaigh is right on this in that there have been different views or interpretations of what constitutes a commencement. We will deal with that in regulation.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will very briefly follow on. If a developer has got an extension and, at the end of ten years, has not completed the development, it is an unauthorised development, as the Minister stated. Does that developer have to go back to full planning permission, even though the development is near completion? The reason I ask is that a number of such developments in the area where I live were not completed in the designated period. They got an extension because there were bricks in the ground, or there was a change of ownership in the middle of development, and they went beyond the period. In one case, neighbours objected that the development was unauthorised. In another, neighbours tried to be very helpful. They asked for the development to be finished and said they would not object or complain, but the developer had problems. The development was eventually finished but beyond the timeframe the developer had. Does it fall back on the council to use its discretion if something is a few weeks away? Is there any discretion? Is it the case that once the ten years - I am talking about ten years rather than five years and then another five years - have elapsed works have to stop?

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would rather deal with that matter when we get to section 166, but if the Minister wants to answer that now, he can.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This relates to section 166 on page 303. If a developer has planning permission, be it for ten years or five years, is building on the basis of permission for 1,000 houses for which the phasing and all that has been done, and if by the time that permission expires only 800 have been done, those 800 have been built under planning permission and are fine. However, and this is detailed under sections 166(1) and 166(2)(a) and (b), "Effect of expiration of duration of permission", what is not done is unauthorised. The developer cannot just plough ahead. He or she would have to go for a new application for what is not done. That is the way that will work.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Bacik is next. I really do want to move on after these amendments because we have covered them-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know the Deputy was not here yesterday as she had other things on. We dealt with section 165 in detail yesterday-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For developments under ten units, it is not envisaged that there would be a phasing approach-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----for developments of that size. We dealt with that yesterday.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I understand the Deputy, the default position would be set to three years for all permissions, under her amendment.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Someone who goes back for an extension would not be restricted, but instead of five years it would be three years. The point is that would shorten that timeframe and the timeframe for permission for any application that goes to a local authority. That could involve a large commercial facility or a large housing development, or whatever the case may be. The Deputy's amendment sets the default to three years as opposed to five years right the way through.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Someone going back in for more time would not be restricted but I take it, if that person went back to request another period, the Deputy would probably want that to be three years.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have already made the points on why I cannot accept that and why I do not think it is a good idea.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Totally. I completely and utterly agree with the Deputy. That is why it has been one of our focuses. We will not have a political discussion here but we could talk about all our various plans for housing and what we are doing. Unquestionably, vacancy is an area we are very focused on. It is something we want to see continued progress on, but that is for another discussion. I have outlined where there would be real issues. While respecting the motivation that members have in putting these amendments forward, serious problems would be created with those type of changes. I have given my views and the rationale behind them.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Callaghan has one supplementary point to make.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will make that point and then move on to the commencements issue rather than prolong this discussion. In respect of section 164(3)(a), the Minister and I had a good discussion on where that section might be used, and the kind of practice around that, but the issue I raised is that none of that is specified in the Bill. I appreciate it is not a new provision but the Bill would be stronger if it included some level of criteria. It is wide open in that sense.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, I thought I answered that. That will sit with the planning authority. It is right and proper that the planning authority and the planning department in a local authority will be the ones who will make that decision. The Deputy is right that it is not specified, but it is for those authorities to determine the duration of the permission under section 164(3). Section 164(4) states:

A planning authority or the Commission shall have regard to the nature and extent of the proposed development and any other material considerations, in determining the duration of a permission under subsection (3).

That is the riding orders they are given there.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My point is that in effect there are no criteria under section 164 for-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think it would not be appropriate to have critieria, to be honest.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The provision "shall have regard to the nature and extent of the proposed development" is very wide.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what a plan is for.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How could authorities make a decision and not have regard to the nature and extent of the proposed development? However, we are talking about time limits.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is suggesting we include a provision in the Bill for a developer who has 1,000 houses to be given ten years, for example, or similar for a shopping centre of more than X thousand square metres. Is that what he wants to put into the Bill? I do not think it is. With the passing of the Bill, planning departments will very clearly see where they can go further than the five years. The applicant has to actually make that application for a period. Applicants will be the ones going in to say that they want to build a new rail line, for example, and it will take them ten or 12 years or whatever. I genuinely think it is very clear that the best place for those decisions is with the professionals in planning departments in our local authorities and in an coimisiún pleanála. They will be the ones who will make those decisions. The Bill is not the appropriate place to set down the criteria for different developments and what should be in or out.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does not necessarily need to be made by the applicant because section 164(3)(a) states, "where requested by the applicant under subsection (2) or at its own discretion". It is not that the applicant has to put out before the-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That could be read together with section 164(2)(b). You could also look at every different scenario.

If someone is coming in for a large project, be that residential, infrastructure or whatever it might be, they will know the timeframe within which it should be built. The completion of the work has to happen within the permission period. If someone thinks it is going to be ten years or four years he or she will be told the standard provision is for five years. If they think the work will take longer than that at application stage, in the main, they will specify that.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So the Minister does not envisage any situation where the planning authority would decide on its own discretion.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It could.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But the Minister is making the case that it would not happen, that it would only be because the applicant-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I am not. It allows for both.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just pointed that out to the Minister.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is wrong with that?

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister told me a minute ago that it did not allow for both.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I did not.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister did. He said it was only the applicant.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Callaghan should go back and check the record. I did not say that. He should go back and check it.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. If I try to check the record-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am telling Deputy O'Callaghan what the fact is. I do not want to have an argument about it but I did not say that. We have to allow that flexibility, for example, if an applicant makes an application and says it will take ten years or if a local authority says it will take five years but the planning authority thinks it will take longer. There is no other motive in any of this. It is the normal planning process that pertains right now, except we are bringing in further clarifications on it around how one can seek an extension, which I have already mentioned, and the fact that commencements and other such things have to happen. I do not see any difficulty with it, but that is just me and I respect that people have other views.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. I want to try to move back because we jumped around the group to facilitate Members. We have dealt with amendment No. 725. I think Deputy O'Callaghan had a question on amendment No. 726, which the Minister spoke to yesterday.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, and Deputy Ó Snodaigh has covered this as well in his comments. What I want to ask about, because the legislation is not clear and the Minister says he will do this by regulation, is what a commencement of works would look like. I have concerns about the ambiguity around that in the legislation. The Minister says he will do it by regulation but as we cannot see the regulations here, which will come down the line, we can only discuss the legislation that is in front of us. Can permission be refused for an extension if substantial works have been completed? That is my first question.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I spent a long time discussing this yesterday. The extension of duration of permission provisions in the Act of 2000 refer to "substantial works" having being carried out before the extension is sought. This language previously caused some uncertainty, particularly in the courts, and by referring to works being commenced brings certainty to it. As I said to Deputy Ó Snodaigh, what we will be doing is bringing forward regulations. I appreciate that Deputy O'Callaghan cannot see the regulations now. It would not be normal to have the regulations running side by side when the Bill is being debated. When I bring the regulations forward, I will be really clear on what constitutes a commencement. That is important.

In the event that a holder of a development does not commence before the end of the duration of a permission, the permission will expire. I have said that already. What Deputy O'Callaghan is asking me is if an application for an extension to a permission could be refused if substantial works take place. From my reading of it, it would have to be quite a good reason for it to be refused if substantial works were carried out.

We also dealt with the scenario before whereby phases 1 to 4 were built out and completed and phase 5 had not been started at all. That would then become unauthorised and an application would need to be made for it. An applicant would need to go back in again for an application for the uncommenced or uncompleted works outside of the permission period. That is the position.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What would be a good reason for refusal in such circumstances?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be very unusual, frankly, but potentially it could be for environmental reasons. It could be because something was carried out on the site that should not have been carried out but that would lead to an enforcement notice. I am trying to think myself of what the reason could be for refusal if a development was substantially complete and the works had been carried out on foot of the permission that was granted. If an extension is sought the planning authority will look at it on its merits. It does have the ability to refuse it but I cannot tell the Deputy on what grounds.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What happens to the site if there are substantial works and the planning authority does refuse an extension of permission, which is allowed for under the Bill?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are talking hypothetically here, as we do not have a specific case to talk about. I discussed section 166 earlier with Deputy Ó Snodaigh. If a person is refused for that part then no further work can take place and another application would have to be made.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So a person would have to come in with a new application to effectively complete the development or for demolition, restoration or whatever.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. We discussed section 166 on page 303. It is very clear in section 166(1) and section 166(2)(a) and (b). It is at the bottom of page 303. I referred to it when Deputy Ó Snodaigh asked me a question a few moments ago.

A developer would have to cease works if they were not compliant. I do not know what happens after that. The developer would obviously have to engage with the planning authority and figure out a way forward, make an application or whatever else.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If they do not, substantial works will have taken place-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But the permission has been refused. If a developer has completed the first four phases within the time period, and they are fine, that is covered under section 166. If the developer has not commenced or completed another piece then an application must be sought for that. If the planning authority refuses it, the developer cannot do anything with it. The developer cannot work if there is no permission.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under the provisions, when a developer is looking for an extension of duration, as part of the planning application process is there any examination to see if the works that have been carried out to date have been compliant with the planning permission?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is on the completion side of it. There would be examination. Again, if phases 1 to 4 have been completed, it would have to be signed off that they have been completed to the granted specification.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but let us just-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not doing an investigation into it.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To make the question a bit more straightforward, let us imagine there is no phasing. A developer has planning permission and substantial works have been completed. Some of the structures are built. There is no phasing. There is no completion because-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy O'Callaghan want to ask me about a specific case? Does he want to just put it on the table and talk about it?

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. I am not asking about a specific case, I am asking about what happens in these scenarios under the provisions of the legislation. It is not related to any specific case.

Let us say, there is no phasing and works have been carried out. There has been no completion. At the point when the applicant looks for an extension of permission, does the planning authority look at what has been built to date and say it is in line with the granted planning permission so far except for the fact that the applicant is running out of time and the work will not be completed within the timeframe? Is that a factor in the decision-making or does the planning authority not look at what has been built in terms of compliance with the existing planning permission? I ask that to establish whether there is any obligation on the planning authority in the Bill to consider this aspect of an application for an extension of duration.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy O'Callaghan mean work that has already been done?

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Exactly, yes. Do they look at it or do they disregard it altogether?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, in regard to that element of it, the work that is built out has to be done according to the planning permission that has been granted, and it has to be looked at. That piece has to be compliant. If other works have not been started or completed, it is a new application and the new application will be assessed by the planning authority taking into account all relevant facts.

The reason I referred Deputy O'Callaghan to section 166 is that even if you have run out of time, what you have built so far, which will have been built in accordance with the permission and be compliant, is not unauthorised. The next piece, which you have not started, will be. This is getting into hypothetical scenarios. Section 135(1)(a) contains the phrase "alter the terms of a permission, provided that any part of the development to which the permission relates that has been carried out is in compliance with the permission." You have to show you are already in compliance.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. That is helpful. The determination involves an examination by the planning authority of works carried out to date.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not an investigation.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it is not an investigation.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 135 is pretty clear.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The applicant has to be compliant under section 135(1)(a) in order to make the request, so the planning authority may or may not take a look at what has been built so far to see-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It more than likely would for big developments. The Deputy knows what I mean. It involves a planning permission.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, that is what I was trying to clarify. It would mean that this aspect of the Bill could not be used as a backdoor route towards retention for unauthorised works.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. It is not for retention purposes.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It could not be misused for retention purposes.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It could not be misused for such purposes. It is about the extension of permissions.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The wording in section 135(1)(a) would prevent it.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. That is what I was asking about.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have spent an hour and 22 minutes discussing this and have given it a good airing, so I just want to tidy up. I intend to withdraw amendment No. 727 because the Minister has covered was is needed in amendment No. 729.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister covered the point that one cannot extend twice.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of Deputy McAuliffe, I intend to discuss amendments Nos. 734 to 736, inclusive, and 738. Does the Minister have a response on them, for the record?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure. Amendments Nos. 725, 734-----

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 734 to 736, inclusive, and amendment No. 738.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and 788. These amendments propose a number of changes to the material alteration provisions in section 137 and the expiration of permission provisions in section 166, which we have just discussed. They collectively aim to provide that a permission may be extended for no more than 24 months in cases where development has commenced and no more than five years in cases where it has not.

Amendment No. 735 proposes to amend the material alteration request provisions to allow a request to be submitted to determine whether there were there were considerations of a commercial, economic or technical nature beyond the control of the applicant that substantially militated against either the commencement of development or the carrying out of substantial works pursuant to the planning permission. The period of permission is generally five years. This relates to a discussion we have had already. It is well established that the measure generally strikes the appropriate balance between the length of the necessary construction period and the length for which a period of permission may be acted upon. There is capacity for longer timeframes.

What is the next one?

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 736 and 738.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are all on the same issue. Based on the discussion we have had, I do not propose to accept them.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that. When we come to the amendments, Deputy McAuliffe can decide whether he wishes to press or withdraw them or reintroduce them on Report Stage.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a question on amendment No. 735. Are we finished with amendment No. 729? I have a quick question on it.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy may put the two questions.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 729 would allow for an extension of planning permission of another ten years. Is there any provision whereby the extensions would not be for a full ten years, such that one could have planning permission for ten years and get an extension of just two or three?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is up to ten years; it is not a default.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. On amendment No. 735, does the Minister have a view on the way non-material alterations are treated and defined in the section? How does it reflect the advice that the Aarhus Convention compliance committee provided to the Netherlands when seeking to correct its approach to public participation obligations when revisiting permissions and the response to Decision VII/8m of the Meeting of the Parties? Has the Minister any comment on the threshold for triggering public participation obligations?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If they are not material, they will not have an environmental effect. The Dutch system is very different from ours. Section 137(5) states that a deciding authority shall give notice of a decision under subsection (1) in such form and manner, and to such persons, as may be prescribed, and section 137(6) lists what a notice under subsection (5) shall state. They relate to the material alteration of permission, but non-material alterations will not have an environmental impact. If they are material, they are covered.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will discuss amendments Nos. 784 and 788 on behalf of Deputy McAuliffe, and then we will proceed to amendments No. 789 and 791. I do not know whether amendments Nos. 784 and 788 are connected but they are grouped.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 784 seeks to amend section 164(3) to extend the ability to set a permission period of more than ten years for direct applications to the commission to include development by statutory undertakers under Chapter 3. Did Deputy McAuliffe move this?

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He submitted it.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not propose to accept it because I do not believe it is appropriate. The reason a permission of more than ten years may be appropriate for direct applications to the commission is that the type of development that is submitted directly to the commission is of a scale or complexity that it may require longer permitted timeframes. I cannot accept amendment No. 784. It does not matter who it comes from; the scale of the development is the point. I do not propose to accept the amendment. I believe the Deputy tabled these amendments on the basis of utilities. Was that it?

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We discussed that a few weeks ago as well.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is on duty in the Chamber, so I was just referring to the amendments on his behalf. When we come to them, he can decide on them.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The House is not sitting now.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Maybe the Deputy is on his way down, but I am moving on anyway.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have engaged on statutory undertakers. I remember that this was discussed a couple of weeks ago concerning Uisce Éireann and a few other bodies. We have engaged on the role of statutory undertakers but I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister have a response on amendment No. 788?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendments with which that amendment is grouped collectively aim to provide that a permission may be extended for no more than 24 months. The amendment was tabled by Deputy McAuliffe and I do not propose to accept it. Did the Deputy table amendment No. 791 also?

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was going to move on to amendments Nos. 789 and 791. There are five amendments, in the names of Deputy Ó Snodaigh and others, to amendment No. 791.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will come in on amendment No. 788. The Minister says he is not accepting it. There is an issue with that amendment in terms of the proposed subsection (4)(a)(v). It limits the focus or scope of an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I should have said we are dealing with it under amendment No. 791. That is the Government amendment and it incorporates much of what amendment No. 788 seeks to do. We have not got to amendment No. 791 yet.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does not have the problematic subsection (4)(a)(v) section which limits the scope of environmental impact assessments or appropriate amendments.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not accepting that amendment.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government amendment does not reflect that part of Deputy McAuliffe's amendment, does it?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. We have not got to that yet.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will get to those two now. The last two are amendments No. 789 and 791. There are five proposed amendments to No. 791 and Deputy Ó Snodaigh may wish to speak on those.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 791 inserts a new section: "Suspension of running of duration of permission due to Part 9 judicial review proceedings". This amendment will suspend or pause a planning permission where it is subject to a judicial review, JR. Under the Planning Act 2000, there is no restriction on the holder of a permission commencing the development while the permission is subject to JR, but the reality, as most people know, is that the holder of a permission does not commence work in such situations given the uncertainty around the development as a result of the JR proceedings. This means that if a permission is for five years and is held up in JR proceedings for two years, then the developer has only three years in which to undertake development.

The period for which the permission is suspended will be from the date of the notification of the commencement of the JR proceedings until the date of the notification that the proceedings are concluded. The amendment also sets out the arrangements for such a pause in permission, including notification arrangements. By providing that a planning permission is to be suspended while subject to JR, that will ensure that if a JR is not upheld, a holder of the permission will have the full term of the permission to build the development. That is crucial. If the JR is upheld, then the permission will no longer be valid and no development will take place.

We have had a number of situations where the clock is still ticking while the JR is in the courts. If the decision is against the JR and upholds the permission, all the time has been lost. That should not pertain. This provision will apply to all planning applications that are subject to a JR. It will give certainty to the holder of a permission and any other interested parties with regard to the status of the development while the JR is under way.

Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh tabled five amendments to my amendment No. 791. I cannot accept these amendments.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Those are only minor amendments to the Minister's amendment.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot accept the amendments proposed by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh to my amendment No. 791. Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 791 removes the end date for the suspension of time. It is not workable that a suspension of time would not have a clear end date. That would introduce uncertainty as to when the period ends.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to amendment No. 791 change the period in which a person must notify the planning authority of a JR commencing and the period in which the planning authority must notify interested parties of certain matters from "such a period as may be prescribed" to "within one day". A one-day period is not practical or workable. It is intended that the period to be prescribed would be short but it needs to be such as to allow arrangements to be put in place. I understand why members want it to be short, but one day is unworkable.

Amendment No. 4 to amendment No. 791 provides that, as well as notifying a person interested in the maritime site of JR proceedings, the planning authority should also notify any person who made a submission on the original application. Again, this is not practical or necessary. A person who made a submission will not be impacted by the suspension of time. Their submission is still there. The planning register will be updated to include this information and it is considered that this is appropriate.

Amendment No. 5 to amendment No. 791 is not required as it is already covered by subsection (4), and the regulations under this subsection will provide further clarity and information on it.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The intention was to ensure notification was as quick as possible. It is not at odds with what the Minister presented in the list of who should be notified beyond the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA. I am not sure why amendment No. 4 to the Minister's amendment would be ruled out. It is logical that those who make submissions would be informed and notified as quickly as possible, particularly in a case relating to their submissions in the past. I will look again at amendment No. 5 to amendment No. 791.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A JR is taken on foot of the permission being granted by the planning authority. The person who makes a submission to the original application is not party to the JR. The suspension of time is not relevant to them and does not affect what they have put forward. The decision on the JR will be made one way or the other. Either the permission is upheld or the JR is upheld and the permission is overturned. I do not see how someone who made a submission to the first application is in any way affected. We have covered the maritime area.

This is a new section that has gone in. It caused a lot of difficulty. People and organisations have a right to take a JR and we have not diminished that in any way. However, if you are an applicant, it could be a JR on the extension of your house. People think of big developments and faceless developers. I will not mention any but the Deputy knows JRs currently holding up works that many people would want. Someone still has the right to take the JR but this has a real impact. When JRs are in court and planning permission has been granted, time is running out on the permission. In many instances where the JR is rejected and the permission is effectively upheld, there is no time to build it out. It speaks to the discussion we had just before this about duration. It is worthless and you are back to the drawing board. You probably have to make a new application or seek an extension.

That could be objected to as well, which is people’s right. It has a real impact. People are not just bringing these forward in respect of big faceless conglomerates on the Cayman Islands or something; they affect real people and real developments. It is only fair and proper to respect the right of someone or a group to take a JR and for the clock to stop while it is in JR proceedings. It is clear when it stops and when it starts again. That is the rationale behind this.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to amendment No. 791 are related. We are prescribing that it be within one day. If it needs to be two days, then prescribe it as two days rather than leaving it open because it could be prescribed as a longer period. It needs to be as short as possible.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I absolutely agree with the Deputy. I just think one day is very short, so we need to re-envisage it to be a short period. I certainly take on board the motivation behind this.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We did not prescribe periods. It does not state “no more than three days” or “no more than five days”, for example.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will prescribe the period so it will be clear and so it is not just left open for a short period. There will be a prescribed period. Specifically in respect of the amendments the Deputy tabled - I understanding the motivation behind them - a period of one day is seen to be very short. We will be talking in terms of days, and we will be prescribe the period. We will not be a million miles from the Deputy on that at all. It is just that one day is seen as very difficult from a practical perspective.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the context of the amendments from the Minister, we can see where he is coming from. In respect of anyone who has applied for or obtained planning permission and who is affected by a JR and the delays relating thereto, there can be a major impact in the context of their trying to deliver the project. Regarding time delays relating to the JR, I can understand wanting to have the clock stopped on planning permissions. My only concerns around this are long-duration planning permissions and the impact there could be of stopping the clock and then adding in the time. Let us say there is a project where there has been an environmental assessment, habitats and species have been looked at, and there has been survey data. All that work is important. If this is a larger project with longer duration permission and the stopping of the clock of the JR is added to that, which could be a few more years, it could mean a scenario where by the time something is actually built, the data and the surveys that the granted permission were based on could be out of date. This can have real effects. When it comes to habitats, species and our environment, things do not always stand still. An environmental survey or data might say there is a protected species at a particular location in a particular habitat. If it is getting built out eight or ten years later, things on the ground in that habitat may have changed significantly. There could be growth in populations, or the opposite, and there could be shifts in where that particular species is living. All these things are important. There is no point having a planning permission based on environmental data that are out of date. Because these can go on for years while you are protecting a particular area, habitat or species, and because things have changed slightly, you may be protecting the wrong area or whatever it is. I have a concern around these longer permissions and how much this could add to it, how out of date developments could be and how out of date the data on which a development is based could be. I understand and appreciate what the Minister seeks to do. Is there any criteria, regulation or counter-balancing around that so we do not end up with situations of things being developed out in a well-intentioned way based on out-of-date data? It could create an expense for the developer but may not actually have the outcome sought or achieved in the permission granted.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no distinction between a standard permission of five or be that ten. We checked these points. We looked at it, particularly in the context of environmental assessments and so on, with the OPC and the Attorneys General, and this provision is absolutely sound. With the passing of this Bill, changes will be made. We are seeing fewer JRs now anyway, which is good. That is down to the abolition of the SHDs, frankly. We brought back planning to a two-stage process and back to our local authorities, where it should be in the main. The environmental court section will be established as well, where expert judges will look at specific cases taken, particularly on environmental grounds. For the record, I again say that I respect the right of groups and individuals to pursue JRs. We expect we will have a process and there will be much shorter JRs anyway. I do not envisage a situation in the future where something will be held up for years and the data submitted by way of the application and permission is irrelevant or different.

I would see this in a very small number of cases. I understand the point the Deputy made, namely that if something is held up for four or five years, a survey may no longer be valid. I am not making any changes to this insertion, but I will reflect on it. We do not know how long something will be in the courts. If something goes to the courts, we would like it to be shorter anyway to give clarity to everyone – those taking it to the courts and the developer or person who holds the permission. The whole purpose of the legislation is to streamline it.

Regarding the effective stopping of the clock, it is a fair provision. It gives certainty. Deputy Bacik spoke to issues around planning, funding and those type of things. We discussed big issues such as this. You just do not know how long something will be in the courts but then also it eats into the time the permission is valid for, which is a big problem. It challenges the viability of much-needed projects. That is the intent of the amendment I tabled.

I take the point but we have checked this with OPC and the Office of the Attorney General, particularly in respect of its compliance from an environmental perspective. The strong advice is that it absolutely is compliant. There is no issue with that. What Deputy O’Callaghan mentioned relates to the practicalities on the ground.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is it exactly; I am talking about the practicalities of this. I can see how the stopping of the clock is fair to the applicant. Then comes the fact that for nature, species or habitat, there is no stopping the clock just because there is a JR going on or this is being discussed in the courts. Nothing in the natural habitat is aware of the JR going on, and whatever changes are taking place continue to evolve and change. It is a bit pointless if there are environmental provisions that require something to be built out in a certain and particular way to protect our biodiversity, nature, the environment or a habitat, and things actually changed or evolved on the ground because of the duration of time that has evolved. The end result of all of it might not be the optimum protection for our environment, biodiversity or a habitat. That is the issue here. It is not a contradiction but a conflict between legal processes, so be it, and what is happening on the ground. We just have to keep sight of the intention here. Our intention is to protect our habitats, environment, species and biodiversity; it is not simply to be compliant but of course we need to be compliant as well.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Deputy to think about it this way. If one applies, one might get a ten-year permission. The environmental assessments, etc., that are done are generally for a long period of time, such as the ten-year period in that instance, so we are not looking to add on to the end. We are stopping the clock. It might be a difference between ten years and 11 years. If one is granted permission and one is not judicially reviewed, one is operating on a permission that is being carried out based on surveys that have been done prior to the application. It could be, even in those instances, an eight- or nine-year period, or a four or five-year period generally, which would be the norm because the basic permission is for five years. I understand the point the Deputy is making and I will reflect on it. It would not be one that I would see happening regularly anyway. As for how long it would add, it does not add; it suspends. As for the time period itself, if one is six months in judicial review, it is paused for six months. If one is 12 months in it, it is paused for 12 months. I am not sure how much data will change in that period of time.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The issue is that if one is years in judicial review and if there are cases taken off to Europe or whatever and it holds stuff up, how out of date is the data that something has been based on and what damage is caused as a result? I will leave it there.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy O'Callaghan. Deputy Ó Snodaigh is looking for clarification on something.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I read amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 791 again, I understand what the Minister said about the concluding part. I refer to the wording here, which refers to "notification of the proceedings" rather than "commencement of the proceedings". If one takes it that there is an error regarding the date of conclusion, we can correct that afterwards. Is there a difference between the commencement of proceedings and the notification of proceedings? The notification of proceedings could take place weeks, if not months, in advance of the commencement. I presume the commencement would happen in court. The intention was to ensure that the suspension starts from what looks like an earlier time than the specific commencement.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The difference is that the Deputy is referring to "the notification" whereas I am referring to "the commencement of the proceedings".

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is referring to "the commencement".

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are referring to "the commencement of the proceedings".

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am referring to "the notification".

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is referring to "the notification".

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know whether there is a difference. Does the commencement happen once the notification is issued?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The notification comes after the commencement. That is the reason for that.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone. That was a lengthy discussion. How stands amendment No. 725?

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have withdrawn it.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 727 not moved.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 728 and 731 are related and will be discussed together by agreement.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 728:

In page 267, to delete lines 10 to 12 and substitute the following: "(8) Where the deciding authority is the Commission, it shall notify the following of the receipt of a request under subsection (1):

(a) where the permission relates primarily to land, the planning authority in whose functional area the development the subject of the permission is situated or proposed to be situated;

(b) where the permission relates primarily to a maritime site, the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority.".

These are technical amendments. Amendment No. 728 clarifies that where a request for alteration or extension of permission relates to a development primarily on land, the commission should notify the planning authority in whose area the development is situated. Where the request relates primarily to a maritime site, it should notify MARA of the request. Likewise, amendment No. 731 clarifies that in relation to non-material alteration of permission and where the deciding authority is the commission, it shall notify the planning authority of the alteration or extension of the permission where the development is primarily on land and, for the same reason, notify MARA where the development is primarily a maritime site. It does not change the intent.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is this merely to correct an oversight in the original draft?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. It is to make sure the notification happens to the relevant authorities.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was merely an oversight in the original draft that MARA was not included.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I ask-----

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Have we not had considerable discussion on section 135? If the Deputy could be as succinct as possible, that would really help matters.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be. My question relates to section 135 but also involves section 138, which sets out the "Procedural powers of planning authority in relation to material alteration request" and section 139, which similarly sets out the "Procedural powers of Commission in relation to material alteration request".

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have not got to these sections yet.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My question is about section 135. I am referencing those sections to ask about section 135, if the Minister will bear with me and let me ask my question.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is about the commission. Those sections allow the commission or the planning authority to seek further information in relation to a material alteration request. Does section 135, which is about extensions of permissions, allow a planning authority to seek further information?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 135 is about an alteration or extension to a permission.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If it is material, they can request further information.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A material alteration that is talked about in sections 138 and 139 includes an extension of permission, as is covered in section 135.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does. One has got to look at section 137 - "Material alteration of permission" - as well.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. So an extension or permission is a material-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----alteration. Therefore, the planning authority or the commission can seek further information.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, further information.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If it has not been provided in their application for an extension, could they seek more information about why the planning permission was not built out in time, if they want to get more information about that?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is there, if the Deputy looks under section 138(2), which allows a planning authority to seek "further information ... where, in the opinion of the planning authority, that information is necessary to enable it to make the decision," and to seek "revised particulars, plans or drawings in relation to the development or proposed development, where the planning authority is considering making an alteration or granting the extension subject to the person submitting such revised particulars".

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So it is there.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 729:

In page 267, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: "Limitations on extension of duration of permission

136. (1) The duration of a permission shall not be extended under this Chapter (whether the extension is a material alteration or not) more than once.

(2) Where the duration of a permission is extended under this Chapter, the period of the extension shall be less than or equal to the duration of the permission being extended.".

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 730:

In page 267, line 15, to delete "and Part 5".

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 731:

In page 267, to delete lines 21 to 23 and substitute the following: "(3) Where the deciding authority is the Commission, it shall notify the following of the alteration or extension:

(a) where the permission relates primarily to land, the planning authority in whose functional area the development the subject of the permission altered or extended is situated or proposed to be situated;

(b) where the permission relates primarily to a maritime site, the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority.".

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 732:

In page 267, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: "(4) Where the deciding authority proposes to grant such a permission, and before that decision comes into effect, the decision will be published in a public notice and any person may make an observation in writing to the authority on their decision, which shall be considered prior to a final decision being made.".

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did Deputy O'Callaghan want to ask a very brief question on section 136?

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask members to remain, if possible, or to be very close by because there will be more voting. We will invite the officials back in. I will let Deputy O'Callaghan ask for clarification on section 136. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it a question on the section?

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a brief question on section 136.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy to take it if the Deputy wants me to, as long as it is a reasonable question.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All of my questions are reasonable.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask for reasonable questions and reasonable answers.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A non-material extension of duration shall be granted under section 136. Why? What is the rationale for that? What kind of permissions would not be material, thereby causing an extension to the duration of the permission to be automatically granted?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, it is extremely rare. It is whatever is not covered by the provisions relating to a material alteration of a permission, which is covered in section 137. We discussed this a little yesterday or the day before. It could be a colour scheme or something similar that is not material to the development itself. It is that type of thing. It is very rare.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am asking about the extension of duration aspect. If you get a five-year permission for a development or a scheme and then need to make a slight non-material change, you are automatically granted permission. I can see the logic or rationale behind that but this about extending the time. If you are changing a colour scheme, why do you need another three or five years?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In this instance, a colour scheme might be a bad example. In the context of an extension, if the Deputy looks at page 264, he will see that a material alteration is one "that requires an appropriate assessment", "that requires an environmental impact assessment" or that falls under parts (c) or (d) of the definition, particularly part (d), which reads:

(d) subject to subsection (2), that the deciding authority determines under subsection (4) of section 135 constitutes an alteration of the terms or extension of the duration of the permission that is otherwise material;

I am trying to think of a real-life example. We were talking about this earlier on. It would be very rare. It would have to be exceptionally minor. In those instances, the works would effectively be complete. Any of the material works would be complete. I do not know. I am not going to give an example. I am trying to think of one that would apply. It would be very minor and very rare. It only has to do with exceptional circumstances.

That is a determination that would be made by the planning authority.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In terms of the extension of time on it, if it is so exceptional then why is it an automatic grant of the extension to the time?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One, because it is non-material and, two, because it could be an instance whereby - as we discussed earlier - the development is completed but there may be some additional small works to be done. If one is effectively working on a site where the permission period has expired any works post that date are unauthorised if the permission period has expired. This provides the option to the local authority in a regularised way to grant an extension for non-material works by which I mean something that is not material to the actual permission or the development itself. It allows it to be done in a regularised way, but it would be extremely rare.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While I can absolutely see circumstances where this would be needed and justified my question is that there is no actual option for the local authority or planning authority on this because the section just states that it will be granted.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Because it is not material to-----

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The extension of the permission.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The extension of the permission is granted on the-----

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If someone looks for a five-year extension to do non-material works that are minor does this mean they have to be given the five years even though these are minor works that should have been completed within the five years? Such works may reasonably require another six months or another year. If they have looked for their five year extension, as the Minister said, must they be given five years to actually finish off or is it up to the development?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We discussed that the extension period is up to that period. So you know-----

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But this section states that it has to be granted. If the applicant seeks five years for something minor and non-material to finish off the development, does this mean the planning authority has to give the developer the five years to finish off the development? Could this not cause problems?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand the point and I understand why Deputy O'Callaghan is asking the question but I do not see that being the instance at all. If it was something that would take five years to do, it would all be material to the development itself. This extension of permission will be for very minor works. Any extension periods we talked about are up to that period.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The problem with this wording is that it does not give the planning authority the discretion or the option to tell the developer, when they are looking for a five year extension for non-material works to finish and complete the development, that the planning authority believes it is unreasonable the developer would need five years to do that, and that the planning authority could say to the developer, "You should finish and complete your development with these non-material additional works within a year". Does this wording prohibit the planning authority from doing that? Must it grant the planning application extension for the five years being sought? The planning authority does not appear to have that level of discretion.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If it is not material it has to grant it but what I am saying to the Deputy is that his question to me is-----

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They would have the five years.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The authority does not have to give the five years. That is what I was trying to say.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will give a period of time up to that. Five years is the maximum.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. So it must grant it.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They do not get a default, "Here is five years to finish the painting".

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Even though that is what they looked for.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They could get whatever.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They could get six months if the planning authority saw fit, but they must get it. They must get the extension but it is up to the planning authority to decide how long.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, that is what the wording is. That is what I was asking about. It does, however, state "as requested".

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is as requested by the person.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but it is "as requested".

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The time period is up to the planning authority to decide. Deputy Ó Snodaigh, for example, could come to me and say-----

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I could say that I wanted five years.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But I could then say, "Sorry you are getting two months".

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But it does state the authority shall alter it, as requested.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, the section states: "the deciding authority shall alter the permission, or extend the duration of the permission, as requested." Surely that means if I request five years I get my five years even though the planning authority might believe one year is enough.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The period is discretionary.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where is it stated that it is discretionary?

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does not state the duration requested; it states the request for a duration.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It states, "extend the duration of the permission, as requested."

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would say it is to extend the duration of the requested permission.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Deputy came to the planner and said he wanted two years to paint the apartment block or to paint a bike shed within the development - we will use this as an example of a non-material alteration - he would be given the permission in relation to the extension of duration for non-material completion or non-material works. The planning authority will decide on the duration. One does not get a default five years.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps it should also state, "shall alter the permission requested, and determine the timeframe".

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, for clarity. That sort of comma can make all the difference.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 135 interacts with section 136 as well. Section 135(3) provides that: "A request under subsection (1) shall specify (a) the particulars of the alteration requested, (b) the period of the extension requested, or (c) both those particulars and that period". The duration period is a matter to be decided by the planning authority. Section 135 deals with overall "Request for alteration or extension of permission". Section 136 refers back to section 135(1) and (2). Section 135(3) also refers back to subsection (1). Reading section 135 the three requests are there that flow all the way back to section 135(1).

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On reading that, section 135 states that "a person may request the deciding authority to ... extend the duration of a permission.", and then section 136(1) states that where an alteration or extension requested is not a material alteration "the deciding authority shall alter the permission, or extend the duration of the permission, as requested." There is nothing in section 135(1)(b)-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Subsection (1) details what the request is. The request is the particulars of the alteration required, the period of the extension requested and all of those things. That assessment is done by the planning authority. I get the point the Deputy is making. If someone goes in with a request for an extension of duration based on non-material works that are required, do they get a default five year extension? No, they do not. Do they get just exactly what they look for? That is an assessment the planning authority would make.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where is it clear that the planning authority has that flexibility and discretion on this with regard to non-material works?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 136(1) refers to "where an alteration or extension requested under subsection (1) of section 135 "." So this goes back to section 135, which is the main section within it. The request under section 135(1), referred to in section 136, is assessed under section 135(3). Section 136 goes back to section 135(1) and then we can see what flows out of section 135(1) with regard to what a request would entail, which is laid out in section 135(3):

A request under subsection (1) shall specify —

(a) the particulars of the alteration requested,

(b) the period of the extension requested, or

(c) both those particulars and that period,

and shall be accompanied by —

(i) sufficient information to allow the deciding authority to assess the request, and

(ii) where the deciding authority —

(I) is a planning authority ...

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where in any of that does it give the planning authority the discretion not to grant the requested extension of permission?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not to not grant it. It is stating that for non-material works it is defaulting to grant an extension to non-material works. In response to the point the Deputy is putting, if he came to Fingal County Council and asked for an extension of permission on a non-material basis and said that he wanted two years, the planning authority would assess that. The planning authority does not just say, "There is your two years". This is what I am saying. Section 135 guides section 136.

Amendment No. 729 to section 136(2) provides that, "Where the duration of a permission is extended under this Chapter, the period of the extension shall be less than or equal to the duration of the permission being extended.”."

That gives the discretion to the local authorities. That is also the case with amendment No. 729, which further clarifies it. I believe we have agreed amendment No. 729.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It states very clearly, "Where the duration of a permission is extended under this Chapter, the period of the extension shall be less than or equal to the duration of the permission being extended." It is not material.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State Deputy Noonan.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 733:

In page 267, line 25, to delete ", Part 5,".

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 734:

In page 268, between lines 14 and 15 to insert the following: "(4) In making a decision under subsection (1) in relation to a material alteration request to extend a permission that has been commenced (within the meaning of section 166(4)(a)) or is, or has been, the subject of judicial review proceedings (within the meaning of section 166(4)(b)), the deciding authority shall, in addition to the matters set out in section 83, have regard to—

(a) any social or economic benefit that would likely accrue to the State or a part of the State by virtue of the granting of the extension requested,

(b) the development plan and any local area plan, urban area plan, priority area plan, or coordinated area plan, that apply or applied to the proposed development when such permission was granted,

(c) any relevant contractual and financial commitments entered into and that have been brought to the attention of the deciding authority by the person who made the material alteration request in relation to the development concerned,

(d) where applicable, the policies and objectives of the Government, any State authority, the Minister, the planning authority concerned or a public body whose policies have, or have had, a bearing on the proper planning and sustainable development of cities, towns or other areas (whether urban or rural), that apply or applied to the proposed development when such permission was granted.".

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 735:

In page 268, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following: "(5) On application to it in that behalf a planning authority shall, as regards a particular permission, extend the appropriate period by such additional period not exceeding 5 years as the authority considers requisite to enable the development to which the permission relates to be completed provided that the authority is satisfied that there were considerations of a commercial, economic or technical nature beyond the control of the applicant which substantially militated against either the commencement of development or the carrying out of substantial works pursuant to the planning permission.".

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 736:

In page 268, to delete lines 30 to 34 and substitute the following: "(c) where the deciding authority decides to—

(i) grant an extension in accordance with subsection (4), state the main reasons and considerations for the decision having regard to the development plan that applies or applied to the land on which the development is proposed to be situated when such permission was granted, or

(ii) make an alteration or grant an extension in accordance with section 142, state the main reasons and considerations for the decision in material contravention of the development plan or National Marine Planning Framework, as the case may be,".

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 738:

In page 271, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following: "(13) Save to the extent provided for in section 166(6), this section shall not apply to a request for an extension to a permission made in accordance with section 166.".

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a question on section 137(4)(b). It is about contractual commitments. Should a developer be entering contractual commitments that do not comply with the existing planning permission? Does this section not create an incentive for a developer or applicant to enter into contracts that do not comply with planning permission obtained? It would increase the chance of obtaining a material alteration request.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is only for maritime development.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I am aware of that.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand the contractual commitments entered into by the person are under the maritime area consent and it is so long as the material alteration request is not at odds with this. The MAC is separate from the material alteration request.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where does it say in the section 137(4)(b) that the contractual commitments are under the MAC?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has to do with maritime development.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know it has to do with maritime development and section 137(4) has only to do with maritime development.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Deputy O'Callaghan asking why the MAC is not specifically referenced in the section?

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does not refer to contractual commitments in relation to the MAC. It just refers to contractual commitments entered into by the person who made the material alteration.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is implicit because it is maritime development. It is implicit that the MAC is the contractual commitment.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There could be other contractual commitments. People could make contractual commitments with their investors that are not to do with the MAC. Someone could say to investors they have this maritime area consent and planning permission, that they will go in for a material alteration, that they need a particular level of investment for it and that the investors would get a particular level of return. There could be contractual commitment on this. The person could then get the material alteration based on this contract made with another investor, with nothing necessarily specified on the MAC. If someone has a contractual engagement with an investor could this not potentially tie the hands of the deciding authority?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does not specify that it is a contractual commitment specifically on a MAC. It could be any contractual commitment, surely, with investors, promises made to investors and possibly unreasonable promises made to investors. Does this not open all of this up?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The critical point in section 137(4) is in the opening paragraph, which states "In making a decision under subsection (1) in relation to a material alteration request to alter or extend a permission for maritime development, the deciding authority shall, in addition to the matters set out in section 83" have regard to subsections (a), (b) and (c).

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Their hands are not completely tied by contractual commitments but they must have regard to contractual commitments. It is an unusual provision in planning law. There is nothing comparable to this in land-based development. As the Minister of State has confirmed, it is maritime only.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is because it is maritime.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But if this were a good way to do planning why is it restricted to maritime? Why is it not being done on land?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It all has to do with the MAC.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does not say that, it just refers to contractual commitments. This is much broader than the MAC. It is implicit that it is maritime development and that the contractual commitments are related to the MAC.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How is it implicit? Obviously they would have some relationship because the person is making the material alteration-----

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Because it only applies to maritime development. Maritime area consent has to be in place. It only applies to this.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But it does not say that. The wording does not say that it only applies to it.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Only where it applies to maritime development.

They must have a maritime area consent, MAC, before getting planning permission for a maritime site.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The rationale of this is contractual commitments relating to the MAC. Why is it necessary even to have this wording? Why does the provision not just refer to the contractual arrangements relating to the MAC? Why is that not specified. Would that not be much cleaner and tidier?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The contractual commitments are the commitments under the MAC.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why does it not say that? If that is what is meant, why not say it in the legislation?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take on board the point the Deputy is making. We could look at the wording if that would help clear that up.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That would be great.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that okay?

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 739:

In page 271, line 22, to delete "ask" and substitute "request".

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 740:

In page 272, line 14, to delete "asked" and substitute "requested".

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Callaghan has a question on section 138.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On subsection (3)(b)(i), which relates to additional material being available for inspection, given the day and age we are in, should the additional information available for inspection not be available online in order that most people can access it?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is down to wording that is used in lots of different places. It would be online where appropriate.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Should the legislation, given we are in 2024, not reflect that it should be available to people online? If it is available for inspection and not available online, for many people that just cuts out access.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not everything can be online, such as finishings, as the Deputy can appreciate, so that is the reason. It is standard wording. Is that okay?

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 741:

In page 272, line 25, to delete “ask” and substitute “request”.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 742:

In page 272, line 28, to delete “ask” and substitute “request”.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 743:

In page 272, line 33, to delete “ask” and substitute “request”.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 744:

In page 272, line 33, to delete “it may specify” and substitute “may be prescribed”.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 745:

In page 272, line 39, after “licence” where it firstly occurs to insert “, an industrial emissions licence, an abstraction licence”.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 746:

In page 272, line 39, to delete “ask” and substitute “request”.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Callaghan would like a clarification on section 139.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Subsection 139(8) states:

Where a person who made the material alteration request fails to comply with a requirement referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (5) within such period as may be prescribed, the Commission may— (a) extend that period, where it considers it appropriate to do so, or

(b) treat the material alteration request as having been withdrawn.

Why is subsection (8)(a) there? What is the rationale for it? Does it not encourage non-compliance with subsection (5)(b)? Why have the time limits in subsection (5)(b) if there is then the potential get-out clause here?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is to give flexibility where the developer is engaging with the planning authority.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is just that elsewhere in the Bill there is not that level of flexibility and timelines are much harder. It is almost an ongoing theme of the Bill to try to tighten up timelines, so why in this instance is it felt that this makes sense?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We do allow flexibility in terms of timelines and it is reflective of that, that there should be flexibility with the commission where the applicant is engaging positively in the process.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but in other areas where deadlines are not met by applicants, there are not get-out routes like this.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The thrust behind this is that it is an already permitted development and, again, it is just to give flexibility. There are other elements of flexibility in the Bill, but this is in cases where there is positive engagement around a material alteration request. It could be just material finishes on a building. It is to give that flexibility to allow applicants to try to meet the requirements of-----

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but does it not then create a situation where they are more likely not to comply with the subsection-----

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it does not.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----because they know there is this get-out clause?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. They will still be absolutely required to comply, but-----

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But if they do not, they may be okay because of this. That is why it just seems a bit unusual in terms of the overall Bill because-----

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The critical wording here is "extend that period, where it considers it appropriate to do so". It may not be appropriate in all cases. It is on a case-by-case basis, where there is positive engagement and a means by which the failure to comply is where there is genuine effort to try to address the issues that-----

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So the planning authority, in deciding whether it is appropriate to do so or not, would decide that there is a level of engagement and would consider it appropriate. If there is no level of engagement-----

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Exactly.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----you would not expect a planning authority to exercise this.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Paragraph (b) would kick in then, I presume.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. That is exactly it.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 747:

In page 274, line 29, after “period” to insert “, or such longer period as may be consented to under subsection (2)”.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 748:

In page 276, line 28, to delete “section,” and substitute “section”.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 749 to 751, inclusive, and 756 to 758, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 749:

In page 276, lines 40 and 41, to delete “the planning authority makes one or more than one request under subsection (2) of section 138 and”.

A key feature of the Bill is the introduction and clarification of timelines across the Bill to ensure that the planning system operates as efficiently as possible while also maintaining sufficient time for notification and consultation where required.

Section 140 of the Bill sets out the time limits for deciding a material alteration request where the deciding authority is the planning authority. Subsection (15)(a) sets out the relevant period for deciding the material alteration request where an appropriate assessment or environmental impact assessment is required. Amendments Nos. 749 to 751, inclusive, correct a reference within this subsection that was found to apply more generally and not just to the subsection referenced. Amendments Nos. 756 to 758, inclusive, correct an identical reference that relates to section 141, which deals with the same matter, relating only to the commission as the deciding authority. The amendments are of a technical and drafting nature and seek to better clarify the provision.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister of State explain the rationale for amendment No. 749 in detail? There seems to be an issue with it in terms of the relevant period and that being four weeks, regardless of whether or not additional information is received.

Will the Minister of State explain about the four weeks? If additional information is received, is more time not allocated then? I may be misreading it but I would be grateful if the Minister of State would explain it.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This amendment came as a recommendation from the OPC. Its intention is to bring clarity to the section where there was unnecessary text in the section.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regarding clarity in this section, if additional information is received, is it still only four weeks?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, it is.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If additional information is received, is more time not required to deal with it?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It states, "4 weeks from the date of the expiration of the prescribed period referred to". This is the section on the relevant period. Section 140(15)(a)(iii) will read: "where subsection (3) of section 138 applies, 4 weeks from the date of the expiration of the prescribed period referred to in subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section 138".

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to be helpful, but I am having difficulty understanding this because of all the different subsections and the way it is written. I know the amendment is trying to clear it up. For the benefit of everyone, will the Minister of State explain what this amendment actually means in terms of additional information? If we look at section 138(3)(b)-----

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Callaghan, allow me to make a suggestion. With the agreement of the committee, we will go into private session for a moment to allow the officials to clarify this. I am having difficulty understanding it as well.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure, and we might just get a summation then on the public record.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister of State to clarify the previous point.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 749 addresses the time of four weeks to make the decision from the end of the consultation period. There is the four-week consultation period and then from the end date of that there is a further four weeks to make the decision.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for the clarification. Section 140(15)(a)(iv) states, "where more than one of the foregoing provisions of this paragraph applies, the period specified in those provisions that expires last,". With this amendment, some of those foregoing provisions are taken out. Is it referencing the foregoing provisions in 140(15)(a)(i) and (ii)?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, that is correct.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. Amendment No. 750 is effectively a repeat amendment of amendment No. 749. Is that correct?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is similar to amendment No. 749, is it?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 750 corrects a reference within subsection-----

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, it is connected to it. Is that correct?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, amendments Nos. 749, 750 and 751 are to section 140 and they replicate amendments Nos. 756, 757 and 758 to section 141. They are a repeat.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the purpose of amendment No. 750? It seeks to delete the words "to the request or requests concerned". After these amendments, section 140(15)(a)(iii) would read, "where subsection (3) of section 138 applies, 4 weeks from the date of the expiration ...".

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Four weeks.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Four weeks applies from the date of expiration.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is it.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what we were saying before. Therefore, four weeks would apply after this. Amendment No. 751 states: "In page 277, lines 20 and 21, to delete “the planning authority makes one or more than one such request under subsection (2) of section 138 and”." Does that mean that when information is received, a longer period applies or is it just four weeks?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is four weeks, yes.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Therefore, it is not a longer period.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. Sorry, it is eight weeks because of the EIA.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it eight weeks with this amendment or was it eight weeks anyway?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 750:

In page 276, line 41, and in page 277, line 1, to delete “to the request or requests concerned”.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 751:

In page 277, lines 20 and 21, to delete “the planning authority makes one or more than one such request under subsection (2) of section 138 and”.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a question on section 140(8)(b) regarding the fines for planning authorities. How were the sums for these fines arrived at?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Those sums are already there in the 2000 Act.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Therefore, it is the same as the 2000 Act.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is, yes.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source