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

I move amendment No. 70:

In page 46, to delete lines 4 to 40, to delete pages 47 to 54, and in page 55, to delete lines 1 to 4 and substitute the following: “Declaration on development, exempted development, etc.

10 (1) If any question arises as to what, in any particular case, is or is not development or is or is not exempted development within the meaning of this Act, any person may, on payment of the prescribed fee, request in writing from the relevant planning authority a declaration on that question, and that person shall provide to the planning authority any information necessary to enable the authority to make its decision on the matter.

(2) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a planning authority shall issue the declaration on the question that has arisen and the main reasons and considerations on which its decision is based to the person who made the request under subsection (1), and, where appropriate, the owner and occupier of the land in question, within 4 weeks of the receipt of the request.

(b) A planning authority may require any person who made a request under subsection (1) to submit further information with regard to the request in order to enable the authority to issue the declaration on the question and, where further information is received under this paragraph, the planning authority shall issue the declaration within 3 weeks of the date of the receipt of the further information.

(c) A planning authority may also request persons in addition to those referred to in paragraph (b) to submit information in order to enable the authority to issue the declaration on the question.

(3) (a) Where a declaration is issued under this section, any person issued with a declaration under subsection (2)(a) may, on payment to the Board of such fee as may be prescribed, refer a declaration for review by the Board within 4 weeks of the date of the issuing of the declaration.

(b) Without prejudice to subsection (2), in the event that no declaration is issued by the planning authority, any person who made a request under subsection (1) may, on payment to the Board of such fee as may be prescribed, refer the question for decision to the Board within 4 weeks of the date that a declaration was due to be issued under subsection (2).

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a planning authority may, on payment to the Board of such fee as may be prescribed, refer any question as to what, in any particular case, is or is not development or is or is not exempted development to be decided by the Board.

(5) The details of any declaration issued by a planning authority or of a decision by the Board on a referral under this section shall be entered in the register.

(6) (a) The Board shall keep a record of any decision made by it on a referral under this section and the main reasons and considerations on which its decision is based and shall make it available for purchase and inspection.

(b) The Board may charge a specified fee, not exceeding the cost of making the copy, for the purchase of a copy of the record referred to in paragraph (a).

(c) The Board shall, from time to time and at least once a year, forward to each planning authority a copy of the record referred to in paragraph (a).

(d) A copy of the said record shall, at the request of a member of a planning authority, be given to that member by the manager of the planning authority concerned.

(7) A planning authority, before making a declaration under this section, shall consider the record forwarded to it in accordance with subsection (6)(c).”.

We had a very extensive debate on this issue on Committee Stage and I do not intend or invite us to repeat all of that debate. These amendments are trying, in a variety of ways, to either salvage and improve the changes to the section 5 referrals, now section 10, or, if that is not possible, to revert to the current system where not just first parties but third parties can seek a declaration on exempted developments.

I do understand the rationale for the change, so I was hoping the Minister might be willing to improve what is in his Bill, because we all accepted, I think, during the Committee Stage process that there was a need for some change to the status quobecause it was not perfect. I think, though, that what we have ended up with in the Bill is even worse than the status quo, so if the Minister is not willing to allow a greater level of third-party involvement, then the status quowould be better. I will be interested to hear the Minister's formal responses to the individual amendments and then I will come in during my subsequent remarks.

See this speech in context