Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I acknowledge the presence of the Minister of State. The reason I raise this issue is that in most rural constituencies, such as that of the Acting Chairman, one-off housing is a major part of their economic fibre. In rural areas such as Limerick county, one-off rural housing is the only construction activity taking place. Housing estates are not being built in small towns and villages and, in some instances, ghost estates lie derelict. The one thing keeping people employed in construction in rural communities is one-off housing.

The previous Government realised some people would find it increasingly difficult to exercise their planning permission, particularly for such housing. An amendment was made to the Planning and Development Acts, which was followed up by statutory instrument, to allow local authorities to grant five-year extensions to planning permissions for people who could not exercise them. The problem is that a number of local authorities have been tempted to impose additional conditions that were not applied when the original permission sought and I have confirmed this with a number of colleagues.

That is unfair, primarily because the people affected cannot afford to build. In some instances, they paid massive sums for sites and they went through various hoops and regulations to secure planning permission but now when they seek to extend it, they are running into problems. It should be borne in mind that the Department, the local authority, An Bord Pleanála and everybody else with an interest in planning and development acknowledged when planning permission was granted in principle that a house could be built on the site. Now that these people have run into economic difficulties, they are being told that they can build on the site but X, Y and Z condition is being imposed on them. That is unfair, particularly in many cases they are hard pressed economically. In some instances, they are in negative equity.

Recently, I encountered a case where the applicants had passed the percolation test for the building of a one-off rural house. The issue has made the news in recent days with the proposal to impose a charge on septic tanks. However, these people went through the hoops and secured planning permission. A rigorous site assessment was carried out but now it appears the same local authority wants to tweak the permission slightly, which will result in a new application having to be submitted and this, in turn, will open up everything again. People in other counties who have no connection to the site will have carte blanche to object. That is grossly unfair.

I can anticipate the Minister of State's reply because I have been issued with similar responses to parliamentary questions but there is scope in this regard. The spirit of the amendment to the legislation was intended to help those who are hard pressed economically and who cannot at the moment exercise their permission. There are ghost estates around the country but we are in danger of creating ghost houses where houses will be built to ridge height but the owners will not install windows or kit the property out because they cannot afford to do so. This will be a huge issue in rural communities over the next five years.

I intend raising this issue at the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Environment, Transport, Culture and the Gaeltacht but I ask the Minister to revisit the spirit of the legislation. The people affected are not big developers in the National Asset Management Agency but young couples primarily who are trying to get on with their lives and who may have been made redundant or who have encountered tough economic times. Local authorities are being mean-spirited in this regard.

Will the Minister of State relay my concerns to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government with a view to carrying out an audit of local authorities regarding this issue? They are using this amendment as another opportunity on which to hang the hat of anti-rural housing. The Minister's predecessor, a member of the Green Party, had an anti-one-off rural house agenda and I would hate to think the Government will carry on this.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to discuss the provisions of the planning code as they relate to the scope to seek to extend planning permissions.

Section 28 of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010 amended section 42 of the Planning Act 2000 to provide that the duration of a planning permission may be extended where substantial works have not been done, or where the development has not even commenced, in cases where the planning authority is satisfied that there were considerations of a commercial, economic or technical nature beyond the control of the applicant which substantially militated against either the commencement of development or the carrying out of substantial works. This is pursuant to the terms of the planning permission, provided that an application complying with the relevant regulations was made before the expiration of the original permission.

This provision is, however, subject to the following qualifications. The planning authority must be satisfied that there have been no significant changes in the development objectives in the development plan or in regional development objectives in the relevant regional planning guidelines since the date of the permission, such that the development would no longer be consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. The planning authority must be satisfied that the development would not be inconsistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, having regard to any guidelines issued by the Minister under section 28, such as those dealing with flood risk management, even if those guidelines were issued after the date of the grant of permission. Finally, the planning authority must be satisfied, where the development has not commenced, that an environmental impact assessment, or a habitats directive appropriately assessed, or both of those assessments, if required, was or were carried out before the permission was granted.

In extending the duration of permission under the new provision, it is open to a planning authority to attach conditions requiring the giving of adequate security for the satisfactory completion of the proposed development. Planning authorities may also add to or vary any conditions regarding security to which the permission is already subject under section 34(4)(g) of the Planning Acts. This type of condition - a condition requiring a bond, or a further bond - is the only condition that may be attached to an extension of permission. A planning authority may not, when granting an extension, vary the initial permission in any other way.

The previous provisions in section 42 of the Planning Act 2000 remain in force, allowing an extension of permission to be automatically granted on application, in a case where substantial works have been carried out within the original duration, subject only to the condition that an application, complying with the relevant planning regulations, was made before the expiration of the initial period.

I consider that the new provision strikes an appropriate balance. It is proper and prudent practice that in cases where substantial works have not been carried out, the duration of permission should be re-assessed against the current planning policies and legislation in force at the time. The duration of permission should not be extended in respect of developments for which the planning authority would now refuse permission if an application were submitted de novo.