Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)

I have an open mind on that. There may be a case for having elected members and making them work, but we cannot do these things piecemeal. It is similar to the situation with the Lord Mayor of Dublin. If we are to establish an elected mayor it must be as part of an overall reform of local government in Dublin. If it were up to me, I would establish an elected Dublin mayor with executive power over all of Dublin, combine all the local authorities, and then have any number of smaller authorities dealing with neighbourhood issues. If we are to do something like that on a national level, we should have regional authorities but the local government structures must be reformed as well. Making the current ones elected would not solve the problem, we must start again from scratch.

Section 20 provides for the power to refuse permission to rogue developers, something I welcome. It is a disgrace that developers who have not finished estates and who have behaved appallingly, treating residents with absolute contempt, have been allowed planning permission by local authorities, including by those where they have left developments incomplete. Provision was made for this in the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006, or perhaps in the 2007 Act, which allowed local authorities to refuse permission on that basis but it has never been used. I tried to get my local authority to use it on a number of occasions against the worst developers and it would not because it did not want to go to the High Court or be the first local authority to use that power. Planners have every excuse not to refuse planning permission to rogue developers. That is not acceptable and I hope this section removes those excuses for refusing permission to developers who do not honour their permissions.

Section 23 relates to the extension of planning permission. I am cautious about that given the collapse of the construction sector and the economy. I can see the sense in it and I understand why we would extend permissions when no building is happening or is likely to start. My only concern is that many recent permissions should not have been granted or, as Deputy Burke pointed out, were granted under the old guidelines allowing for shoe box apartments and building on flood plains. The section should be amended to permit local authorities more discretion to refuse planning permissions where they were granted for the sort of development we do not want to happen anymore. It could be amended to permit permissions to be extended while allowing local authorities to refuse to extend permissions for developments we do not want to see.

Section 28 allows for a quorum of two on An Bord Pleanála. I am totally opposed to that idea, it is an appalling provision. I have had some very bad experiences with An Bord Pleanála. It is a lottery that is completely dependent on which three people a person gets. I do not know how many cases where decisions made by the council have been appealed to An Bord Pleanála and An Board Pleanála has made all the wrong decisions, usually where it rules against its own inspector. It did this in the White's Road development near Farmleigh, that was initially refused by the council and that the inspector did not support. An Bord Pleanála, for various reasons, not only decided to grant permission but to allow the developer not to put in place any open space so he did not have to pay an open space levy.

Similar things happened on the Phoenix Park Racecourse and with very high rise developments in inappropriate areas in Blanchardstown. Even recently, a major development in Castleknock that is not viable, that will never be built, that was opposed by the Green Party representative in the area and where the planning inspector from An Bord Pleanála agreed that permission should not be granted, was approved by An Bord Pleanála for spurious reasons, lopping off a storey here and a storey off there. It is totally dependent on who makes the decision and it is obvious whom one would want to get when an application for permission is being adjudicated. That will get worse if the number for a quorum is reduced to two. If the application is adjudicated by the two who grant anything, it will be granted.

I do not like the idea that three is enough for a quorum, never mind reducing the number. That would not happen in the Supreme Court, we could not break it up and say and any old pair of judges would be enough, and if they agree the case is settled. It is a bad idea. If anything, An Bord Pleanála should be broken up into regional boards rather than having a quorum of two.

Section 18 refers to the changes a Minister can make when development plans are submitted to him. There is only a two week period for consultation, and that is much too short. By the time additional information is sought, and notice is served, the two weeks are past. Four weeks would be reasonable. It is only done once every five or six years so making that change would be reasonable.

On section 127, IBEC put forward a proposal on third party appeals whereby someone making such an appeal should have to sign a document stating he is not being vexatious and the appeal is not spurious. It is a valid point. We are all familiar with people who make planning appeals to An Bord Pleanála to be paid off to withdraw the appeal, because they know it will hold the development up by 18 to 20 weeks. There are people around the country who do that, seeking Gogarty money. I will support an amendment that prevents such behaviour.

Development plans should not be five, six or nine years in length, there should be 20 year development plans. Helsinki, for instance, has a 99 year plan. If a community is to be properly planned, five or six years is too short. It would make much more sense to have 20 year plans that identify land that will be developed over the next five, ten and 20 years. That would make it much easier to plan for transport, roads and other development. I am disappointed the Greens, who would instinctively support such an idea, have not put it into legislation. The plans could be revised every five years and future development land could be identified during that process.

Strategic development zones should be the norm. I was involved in drawing one up in Hansfield in Dublin 15. Perhaps over a certain threshold of 5,000 or 10,000 units they should apply.

The Bill does nothing about retention planning permission. It is widely abused and rewards those who break the law. Some architects even advise people to build things because they have a better chance of getting retention planning permission. The Bill should be amended to put a stop to such nonsense. It is fine if we are talking about a bay window but often this involves extra storeys and units.

The seven year rule should also be abolished and councillors should be involved in preplanning discussions; that they are not currently gives developers an advantage over the community. Also, public representatives should be exempt from the €20 and €50 fees.

There should also be provision for taking in charge. That has not been addressed in the Bill, particularly the slow transfer of open spaces. There is provision in the Roads Act to allow the community to petition the council to take in charge a road if it has not been taken in charge over time but that cannot be done with open spaces. The only way to get an open space taken in charge is to leave it derelict for a period and then apply for a vesting order. I was successful in securing such an order once in my constituency but to get it I had to convince the local community not to cut the grass on the open space for an entire year so it could be declared derelict and then be vested. That is nonsense and the same provision that exists in the Roads Act should exist in the Planning and Development Bill to allow communities to petition for an open space to be taken in charge.

There should also be provision for the transfer of school and community sites free of charge from developers to the council. At the moment if a large area is being developed, developers are expected to provide the roads and the open spaces and hand them over free of charge. If the development is large enough, why should they not be expected to hand over the land for the school and community site free of charge? Think of the millions we would have saved in the last ten years if that had been done.

The Bill makes some progress but many changes and additions are needed.

See this speech in context