Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am making sure the people in question will be responsible for the work they sign off on. An efficient, well functioning planning system is essential for the proper, balanced and sustainable development of our country. In this regard, we have very detailed legislation built up over a number of decades to underpin the planning system, namely the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, supplemented by equally detailed planning regulations which, in unison, set out how the overall planning system should operate. The Government inherited many legacy planning issues arising from bad planning decisions and poor planning enforcement. However, the Minister of State and I have provided solutions to the residents in Priory Hall while others spoke about it. We provided solutions to those homes affected by pyrite while others spoke about it. We are dealing with the unfinished estates legacy. That is not to say the planning system and the legislation underpinning it is perfect. As has been indicated on a number of occasions by the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, and I in recent months, a commitment has already been given to review the Planning and Development Act. In this regard, we have announced the firm intention to bring forward proposals for a new planning Bill in the first half of 2014, primarily for the purposes of implementing the recommendations of the Mahon tribunal and, in particular, the establishment of a new office of the planning regulator. In association with this, it is also intended to undertake a broader review of certain provisions of the Planning and Development Act, including some of the matters raised in Deputy Catherine Murphy's Bill, with a view to appropriate updating and strengthening, particularly in the area of enforcement, which is an issue of concern.

I will now briefly discuss some of the main provisions in Deputy Catherine Murphy's Bill that require some further consideration and teasing out as the Bill is considered by the Oireachtas. Section 4 proposes to establish a national planning compliance register containing particulars of all planning enforcement notices issued by all of the planning authorities in the State, the measures taken to ensure compliance with planning permissions and the outcomes achieved. I consider that there is some merit in this idea. However, there are a number of issues which need to be further teased out as the approach could involve additional administrative burdens and resources which may be better employed in undertaking actual enforcement on the ground. There could also be data protection issues that need to be considered in the compilation of any such national register. It is also worth pointing out that much of this data is already required to be published on each planning authority's planning register. I will give consideration to the matter of how enforcement data could be better published electronically, as appropriate, and whether legislative proposals or guidelines are required.

The second issue in the Bill relates to the taking into account of past non-compliance by a developer when deciding on a planning application. This is already covered by section 35 of the Planning and Development Act. Accordingly, I do not consider that the amendment proposed at section 5 is necessary.

Section 6 proposes that planning permissions be fully compliant with local area plans. There is some merit in this proposal but care needs to be taken that the introduction of such a provision does not introduce undue inflexibility into the system. For instance, a proposed development might comply with a large number, but not all, of the local area plan objectives. Taking account of the wording in these proposals, planning permission for such a development would have to be refused. Section 18(3) of the Act already provides that planning authorities must have regard to the provisions of a local area plan when considering a planning application. It may be appropriate to better highlight this provision by moving it to section 34 of the Act where reference is made to the development plan.

In section 7 Deputy Catherine Murphy proposes the establishment of a centralised national schedule of agreed development contribution liabilities in respect of industrial and commercial developments. Under the proposal, local authorities would be required to submit to the Minister at specified intervals comprehensive details of all development contributions determined under sections 48 and 49 for the preceding ten years, the monetary amounts of such contributions, the specified improvement works carried out in respect of the payments in question, the liable persons, the local authorities to which the contributions are to be paid, and the dates by which payment falls due. Given the thousands of planning applications determined by planning authorities each year, the level of detail required in compiling the data specified represents an onerous task. Nevertheless, it may be necessary although it gives rise to an additional administrative burden and resource implications.

In particular, the requirement to list each of the specified improvement works carried out in respect of the monetary payments for each and every development contribution condition attached to each and every relevant planning permission in the State would be burdensome for both developers and planning authorities. However, I am prepared to look into the matter of the compilation and publication of more comprehensive information on development contributions generally, both locally and nationally, than is the case.

Deputy Catherine Murphy's proposals in sections 8 to 10, inclusive, of the Bill relate to extending the duration of planning permission. These proposals require that applications for extensions of permission have to comply with the requirements of newspaper notices, site notices and all of the other public participation requirements of the Aarhus Convention.

However, it is considered that an application for an extension of the duration of a permission is not an application for development consent; instead, it is regarded as an administrative application for additional time to complete a development for which permission has been already granted, and which has already gone through all of the public participation processes required. The proposed amendments also provide that an extension of permission in respect of a residential estate will only be granted where conditions are attached and where the planning authority considers it appropriate to do so with regard to the phasing of the development and the application of bonds. I add with regard to bonds that the planning Act was already amended in 2010 to provide that when granting an extension of the duration of permission, a planning authority may attach conditions requiring a bond or may vary or add to any such conditions attached to the permission which was originally granted.

As regards the phasing of developments, it could be argued that this should be more appropriately dealt with in the initial permission and that any changing of the phasing of a development is in fact varying the terms of the initial permission. Existing guidelines to planning authorities on the taking in charge of estates state that planning authorities should consider requiring the phasing of residential developments. However, I have noted the Deputy's particular concerns about the desirability of phasing housing developments and the phased taking in charge of estates, and of the need to strengthening the arrangements in this regard.

Section 11 proposes to insert a new section 180A into the planning Act relating to bonds. The proposed new section 180A(1) would enable planning authorities, within one year of the expiration date of a bond or security, to stipulate an extension to the bond or security to a period deemed sufficient for the development to be completed, not exceeding five years; or where an extension of a bond is not possible, to call in the bond where there is no likelihood that the development will be completed to the satisfaction of the planning authority; and complete the development as soon as it has funds from the bond. There is merit in the overall thrust of the Deputy's proposal but I am not convinced that it is necessary as local authorities are already permitted under current legislation to monitor the completion of housing developments, the adequacy of securities provided for and to pursue enforcement actions where the terms and conditions of the relevant permission are not being observed. That provision may not always be enforced and this is essentially an enforcement matter but I am willing to look further into how the provisions regarding bonds and securities can be better operated in practice.

Again on the bonds issue, the new section 180A(2) as proposed in Deputy Catherine Murphy's Bill would require the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to make regulations providing for the phased redemption of a bond or security which a planning authority may specify as a condition to be attached to a planning permission; and the index linking of bonds or securities. This proposal which is well-motivated and worthy of consideration and it has some practical implications which merit further consideration. Local authorities are already enabled, having regard to the circumstances and nature of particular housing developments, to specify the way in which the security is to be structured and operated. For example, many local authorities will approve a development subject to the lodgement of security for the overall development. They may also specify conditions on the sequencing or phasing of houses within the development. Subsequently, taking account of market conditions and preferences for different house types in different parts of the overall development, the local authority may agree to a request by the developer to lodge a security for the initial phase of development and to release that security for reuse in a later phase subject to the local authority being satisfied that the initial phase has been completed.

This arrangement is often necessary to avoid overly onerous working capital requirements preventing an otherwise good scheme to get off the ground. In essence, such new arrangements as proposed by Deputy Catherine Murphy could stymie the smooth progression of developments but the secondary issue of the index-linking bonds and securities is something that I am open to considering.

The Deputy also proposes two amendments to section 180 of the Act relating to the important issue of the taking in charge of estates. The first proposal would require planning authorities to include both owners "and occupiers" of houses in any plebiscite to establish whether an estate should be taken in charge by a local authority. In this regard, the existing wording in the Act, which refers only to "owners" in the context of a plebiscite, was revised as recently as 2010 on foot of a recommendation in the Law Reform Commission report on multi-unit developments. The commission concluded that it is only the owners, rather than the tenants or occupiers, who should be the appropriate people to decide on whether an estate should be taken in charge. The second proposal, involving the transfer of responsibility for an estate from a developer to a local authority within two years - instead of seven years - of the expiration of the permission for that development may be problematic from a practical perspective. However, I am prepared to review the seven-year timeframe currently in place.

The amendment proposed at section 13 of the Bill on multi-unit dwellings is a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, and my Department will consult further with his Department on this issue as the Bill progresses.

The final element of Deputy Catherine Murphy's Bill relates to an appeal mechanism for local authority "own development" proposals. It is important to state that under section 175 and 177AE of the planning Act, any developments by a local authority which require environmental impact assessment or assessment under the Habitats Directive are already required to be submitted by the local authority to An Bord Pleanála for approval. Local authority "own development" proposals that do not require environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment are regulated by section 179 of the planning Act and Part 8 of the planning regulations. Proposed local authority "own developments" can include public housing, water services infrastructure, sewers, mains pipes, minor road works, parks, public amenities, swimming pools etc. Under the relevant provisions, local authorities are obliged to publish notices of any such proposed developments and to undertake a public consultation process in respect of same. The manager then submits a report to the elected members, who in turn can decide to accept, reject or vary the proposed development in accordance with their democratic mandate acting on behalf of the local community they have been elected to represent. Thus, there are already public consultation procedures incorporated into the decision-making process in this regard. In addition, one must also take account of the fact that the introduction of such an appeal mechanism could delay the implementation of works already deemed necessary by the elected representatives for the benefit of the general community.

In acknowledgement of the importance of the proposals contained in the Bill, I have tried to respond in a detailed manner and as constructively and openly as possible to each of the proposals, all of which should be considered as they have merit. There are a number of considerations that need to be taken into account in the further development of this Bill. It is fair to say Deputy Catherine Murphy and I share the same objective in seeking to revitalise the planning Act and make it more transparent, dynamic and fit for purpose, having regard to the need for an efficient, workable and streamlined planning system that facilitates balanced and sustainable development while simultaneously protecting the interests of citizens. Accordingly, I am not opposing the Bill on Second Stage.

See this speech in context