Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 11 is very important. I am aware of a few examples of developments in respect of which nothing has happened in the past five years even though there was an extension of duration. As for the idea that another five years would be given in such an instance, again, I make the point that where some work has taken place on such a development, it means that not only are the people living on it living on a building site, but questions would also be raised if they even tried to sell. There is a huge degree of unfairness if that is the case.

If there is a development that is 50% completed and it is motoring on and is going to deliver houses, none of us wants to stop that. However, neither do we want the unintended consequence of something being extended to developers who really have not engaged in building, even though they have got the benefit of extensions and now would get another benefit of an extension, despite the fact that they did not do anything within that first extension. To be given an extension is a big deal because it is a very costly exercise to come in and make a fresh planning application, and all of that would have been of benefit to them. I can understand why this has happened, but amendment No. 11 is very reasonable and I think it would give some degree of safety. I would reiterate the point about the definition of "substantial" as well.

See this speech in context