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

Briefly, the intention of amendment No. 5 is to place an additional responsibility on the applicant to set out the reasons the development cannot be reasonably completed within the current timeframe. We need to find ways of strengthening the Bill as it stands to force developers to justify the reason they need the extension. That is the basis upon which the amendment is proposed.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 17 are connected but they are probably not well enough drafted for that to be clear to whoever was doing the grouping. Essentially, this goes back to the argument I made on Second Stage, which is as follows. My fear with the five-year timeframe is that it will become the default decision, rather than a local authority having the discretion to say the extension will be for six months, 12 months or two years. The idea was to make the default position one year unless, as amendment No. 17 outlines, there are significant reasons the planning authority believes a longer extension is required. I intend to press amendment No 5. but will not press amendments Nos. 6 or No. 17. I have a real concern that, under the pressure of time, local authorities will start granting five-year extensions as opposed to what the Minister outlined, namely, the possibility of shorter ones.

See this speech in context