Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move Amendment No. 79:

In page 48, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 35 (refusal of planning permission for past failures to comply) of Principal Act

12. Section 35 of the Principal Act is amended in subsection (7) by inserting the following after paragraph (b):“(ba) a registered society under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts 1893 to 2014 that—

(i) carried out a development pursuant to a previous permission,

(ii) carried out a substantial unauthorised development, or

(iii) has been convicted of an offence under this Act,

or, during any period to which subparagraph (i) or (ii) relates or to which any conviction under subparagraph (iii) relates, the registered society was, during that period, controlled by the applicant—

(I) where, pursuant to section 15 of the Friendly Societies and Industrial and Provident Societies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, ‘control’ has the same meaning as in section 220(5) of the Companies Act 2014, or

(II) as a shadow director within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Companies Act 2014,”.”.

The purpose of these amendments is to address the past performance of developers in the consideration of planning applications. I commenced my addressing of this issue with my Committee Stage amendment No. 69 which proposed the amendment of section 34 of the principal Act to require that planning authorities shall, in the assessment and determination of planning applications, have regard to previous developments by the applicant which have not been satisfactorily completed and previous convictions against the applicant for non-compliance with the Planning and Development Act, the Building Control Act 2007 or the Fire Services Act 1981.

Amendment No. 79 elaborates on this and addresses section 35 of the principal Act relating to the actual refusal of applications for planning permission for past failures to comply. Specifically, amendment No. 79 proposes that where a person has previously operated under a particular company name which has left estates unfinished and who subsequently applies for planning permission for a new development under a different company name, this may be taken into account by the planning authority as the basis for refusing the planning application under the second company name.

For completeness, I am supplementing this amendment with amendment No. 92. That amendment is intended to ensure that refusals of planning permission under this provision will be excluded as grounds for compensation that might be claimed by planning applicants where planning authorities make use of this provision. Again this addresses a concern that members of the public have raised with all of us over the years. They feel extremely frustrated when they cannot link company names even though the same people are involved in them. That is what we are trying to address here. Most people would agree with it.

See this speech in context