Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

I am delighted to add a few thoughts this evening to a very important Bill. The Bill makes a number of amendments to issues surrounding compliance with planning permission. As Deputy O'Connor indicated, many of us have been members of local councils and we understand issues surrounding planning, the granting process and the importance of adhering to conditions laid down.

Section 20, for example, provides that a planning authority may refuse planning permission to an applicant who is substantially non-compliant with a previous planning permission. This was a significant issue in the Celtic tiger years which are no longer with us. Some developers got too big for their boots too quickly. They went from town to town and village to village building schemes rather than one-off housing. These are not the local builders we know and value and which are required in our communities. Such builders have provided many fine structures in a practical and architectural sense. They have always done good work.

We have seen cases with large applications and as land was zoned, we must take responsibility as politicians for that. In my village and other areas, too much land was zoned for building purposes. A builder might have wanted to build 80 or 150 houses but may have had unfinished work in other parts of the county or in neighbouring counties. The planners have always said they cannot consider previous history and every application has to be considered on its merit. I understand the reasoning but I welcome that there will be a change, as a previous record of work completion and adherence to planning conditions is vital. We are closing the stable door when the horse has bolted but I still welcome the provision in the Bill.

A case may go for final analysis with a senior planner; some counties have planning committees and they should be in all counties so that a case will not be determined by the views of one planner. This is not to condemn such planners as they are qualified but a group should consider each final application and have a broader view.

Social capital must be considered. Where there are defaulting builders and developers who have not complied with planning conditions - there are a number in my constituency - the matters go before the courts. That is an expensive business and a gravy train for barristers. We have seen tribunals in other sectors. It is a tough business and I know the law must be adhered to, which I accept totally. Matters may not necessarily have to be brought to court to get an injunction or permission to demolish a building.

There is a scheme of houses in a town in Tipperary where that position pertains at present. The court will give its decision on these matters and we must respect it but there should be some kind of social capital involved. Instead of demolishing fine buildings - although not built completely in adherence to planning conditions - they should be used. I am a member of the national board of the Irish Council for Social Housing and believe they should be used as social housing. Amendments could be made to the Bill to bring this about rather than force people to demolish such buildings, which would be a complete and utter waste. If the issues are small and the buildings do not interfere with landscaping and are not prone to flooding, they could be used. We must consider such social capital aspects. The rogue developer would be punished but there would be a gain for the State and the taxpayer above all, including ordinary people who are looking for but cannot find houses. The courts should examine that aspect and an alternative use should be possible for such a development other than a decision that this scheme of houses must be demolished by a certain date.

While An Bord Pleanála has a statutory role, long delays have been incurred in its decisions on projects, although the delays are not as long as the delays incurred of up to 12 months during the busy periods in the past. I understand it has a big workload but there should be more transparency and accountability in the system.

While I welcome the input of groups such an An Taisce in certain areas, a member of An Taisce who lives 40 miles away from a proposed development could lodge an objection to it and bring it to An Bord Pleanála. While people have a right to object to a proposed development and it is important that right is enshrined in law, the planning process for schools and community facilities should be fast-tracked. I am not saying we should break or bend the law but we, as politicians, are all aware of the planning stages that have to be completed to secure funding for a school project.

It takes years to secure funding for a school project that is badly needed. There may be overcrowding in a school or conditions may be such that from the point of view of health and safety or road safety the development may be required as a matter of urgency. There is a backlog in completion of school projects even though the Minister for Education and Science has invested considerable funding and effort into fast-tracking their delivery. Progress on these projects has been delayed on issues to be decided by an An Bord Pleanála. Some other mechanism should be provided to ensure that such projects should not be referred to An Bord Pleanála where long delays are incurred in arriving at decisions. The construction industry and our economy needs such investment now. The funding for such projects is taxpayers' money and such projects would provide valuable business to an area and valuable jobs for thousands of unemployed tradespeople. Value for money in the completion of such projects can be secured now, unlike times when those who worked in the construction industry were busy. Some fast-tracking mechanism for the delivery of such projects is needed.

In saying that, I am not undermining the work of An Bord Pleanála, but in many cases when an inspector's report is submitted to An Bord Pleanála recommending a decision, the board may make the opposite decision, and the reason for it doing so is hard to fathom.

An oral hearing on a proposed development in a town in my county was held some months ago and, thankfully, the decision reached was the one we wanted. The proposed development was too big for the town and worse than that it was to be sited in the middle of a flood plain. The incidence of flooding has been a major issue throughout the country and the proposed development was a massive one. As the old saying goes "people would say they would put legs under hens". The proposed development was to be built on stilts and the river was to flow under it. That is codswallop. I have never before heard of such a proposal. I live in the vicinity of a flood plain and anyone who knows about flood plains understands concerns in this respect. Architects can design any development one would want, but the planned siting for this development was wrong. It was a divisive issue in the town. The proposed development was granted planning permission and then the decision was referred to An Bord Pleanála. Objections were lodged and I made a submission.

I raised it with the previous Minister of State with responsibility for public works and with my colleague, the current Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh. I accept he cannot intervene in such a matter, but logic must prevail. The answer I would get from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government regarding this development is that he cannot micro-manage town councils. I accept that, but there is no point having grandiose plans for regional developments and flood plain guidelines if they are not heeded. Thankfully, following the oral hearing on this proposed development which was a major issue and on which many contributions were made, An Bord Pleanála made a decision, with which I was satisfied, that it was unsuitable because of its scale and its potential impact on the area.

Some €4 million was spent on building flood defences in that town some years ago and in the flooding that occurred there last February and recently, flood waters came within inches of breaching those defences. Therefore, that development would have had an adverse impact and proposed developments in such areas must be seriously examined.

Planning for community facilities needs to be fast-tracked to kick-start work on them. In doing that we should not break the law but get around it by ensuring an easier system is put in place and that there is a more transparent system in place in An Bord Pleanála.

The development contribution scheme is another issue. I supported and voted for that scheme when it was introduced at council level. I have never apologised for doing that because it is a valuable scheme in terms of the community facilities provided under it for many areas. Substantial moneys have been collected under it. However, there are people who have been granted planning who cannot pay their development contributions because of the collapse of the building industry. There must be flexibility in this respect. If we want to get these people back in business, to have buildings completed and to collect the contributions, this matter will have to be worked through and perhaps a site will have to be taken for a playground, as was done in my village, instead of money.

There is a myth that councils have a slush fund of such development contributions. I raised this issue with my parliamentary party today. Substantial moneys were collected during the Celtic tiger era. If this is myth, it must be dispelled, or if local authorities have this money, it must be spent now on the roads, building flood defences and driving forward our economy. There is no point in having it in the bank. If they do not have such money, we need to be told that. I thank the Chair for his patience and I look forward to having further input into this debate.

See this speech in context