Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this Topical Issue matter. It is fair to say the planning laws are only as good as their enforcement and each local authority has a different approach. In addition, the courts are often involved in the most egregious cases. As is usual, I am dealing with several unauthorised developments at the moment, as I think is every other Deputy. I have chosen three to give a flavour of some of the problems.

The first is a garage and panel-beating business within a residential setting in Naas. It is located to the side of a private home and it does not have planning permission. An unauthorised development file was opened in May 2015, following which the council initiated legal proceedings later that year. After many District Court postponements, the case was heard in September 2017. Following that, there was an application to retain, which was subsequently rejected and which was then appealed. When that process was exhausted, an application to declare the development an exempted development was made and rejected and is being appealed. In the meantime, the council is back in the District Court and the case has been mentioned but postponed until the appeal is decided. In the meantime, the neighbouring home is subject to noise from early morning until late at night with activity at weekends and their garden is now simply off-limits to them. I am also told that the licence for chemicals has expired, so there are potential health and fire risk implications. No commercial rates are being paid because there is no planning permission. That is totally unfair on other businesses which are trading in an unequal environment. No development levies are being paid either. In May of this year, it will be four years since the unauthorised development file was opened and it looks like it will still be in operation four years later.

The second example is a large quarry in Ballysax beside the Curragh in south Kildare. The Ceann Comhairle will be more than familiar with this particular one, which is not in my constituency. The site in question has no planning permission and its footprint has expanded to more than 60 acres. It has gone through the whole entire unauthorised development process, including warning letters and enforcement and has gone right up to the High Court which made an order to cease operation. The decision specified that quarry owners were to wind down the activity. They were given a very generous six months to do that. They were to cease all activities on 1 February of this year. What has happened is that the activity has accelerated and the footprint has widened. The amount of traffic has noticeably increased. I have photographs that show this and are truly shocking. The council has applied to the Circuit Court to enforce the High Court order. The council is now in the hands of the court as to when the case will be heard.

There is an interesting contrast between how Kildare County Council and Wicklow County Council apply the law regarding quarries. Wicklow takes a no-nonsense, straight in with the injunction approach, while Kildare takes a more lenient approach. There is a noticeable contrast in the behaviour by quarry owners when a different approach is applied.

This quarry has no planning permission and, therefore, there are no funds for reinstatement, there are no bonds, there are no development levies and there is significant ongoing damage being done to the roads which the council is repeatedly repairing. It is being argued that the road repairs are being funded from the public purse to facilitate what is essentially an illegal development. The neighbouring homes are living with dust, noise, heavy commercial activity, significant damage to the landscape and the water table has been altered. There are mountains of soil there that did not exist before. I have numerous photographs which I can give to the Minister as to the operation and planning breach here.

I will continue with what I was going to say in my response later.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Catherine Murphy for raising this important issue which is the enforcement of planning law regarding unauthorised developments and consequential damage and maintenance issues concerning surrounding infrastructure. I am conscious that in her presentation she mentioned cases, the details of which I do not have and of which I am not aware. She has put them on the record and we can check them out. That may help to inform future decision-making but I cannot comment on something I did not know about until it was presented tonight.

On the issue the Deputy raised, I take this opportunity, as Minister of State, to outline my role in relation to the planning system which is mainly to provide and update the legislative and policy guidance framework. The legislative framework comprises the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, and the associated planning and development regulations. Furthermore, my Department issued a large number of planning guidelines under section 28 of the Planning Act to guide planning authorities in relation to the implementation of the wider planning policy framework which they and An Bord Pleanála are obliged to have regard to in the exercise of their planning functions.

However, the day-to-day operation of the planning system is a matter for the individual planning authorities and under section 30 of the Act, the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, and I are specifically prohibited from exercising any power or control in relation to any particular case, including an enforcement issue with which a planning authority or the board is or may be concerned with. The Deputy has outlined a number of cases, and will probably mention more later on, of which I have become aware but in which I do not have a role. It is worth hearing about them because, as we review policy, it is important we keep all scenarios in mind.

Under planning legislation, any development which requires permission and does not have that permission is unauthorised development. This is also the case with a development which is proceeding in breach of conditions laid down in the planning permission or any exempted development that is carried out that does not comply with the limitations of that exemption.

The planning code also provides that enforcement of planning control is a matter for the individual planning authorities, which can take action if a development does not have the required permission or where the terms of a permission have not been met. In this regard, planning authorities have substantial enforcement powers under the Act.

A planning authority may issue an enforcement notice in connection with an unauthorised development, requiring such steps as the authority considers necessary to be taken within a specified period. If an enforcement notice is not complied with, the planning authority is further empowered to enter on the land and take such steps, including the removal, demolition or alteration of any structure, as is deemed necessary as well as to recover any costs incurred in undertaking such actions.

Second, a planning authority may also seek a court order under section 160 of the Act requiring any particular action to be done or not to be done. For example, a person can be required to cease carrying out unauthorised development or can be required to restore any land to its condition prior to the unauthorised activity being carried out.

Taking account of these points, responsibility for enforcement action in respect of any breach of the planning code is a matter for individual planning authorities under the powers available to them under the Act. Accordingly, individual cases of unauthorised developments or non-compliance with planning permissions should be brought to the attention of the relevant planning authority, which can then take the necessary and timely action as provided for in planning legislation.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I suspect that, had I forewarned the Minister of State about the details what I was going to raise, he might have responded slightly differently. Like any of us who have been through the local government system, I am well aware of the process. I accept that there are guidelines but are they being adhered to? The Minister of State mentioned that planning authorities must have regard to them. In theory, local authorities can enter onto lands but that never happens and there are undoubtedly people who use every avenue to prolong a process. That is in their interests. They are not paying the commercial rates, levies and so on that go into the public purse.

This problem undermines the planning process and is unfair on the developments' neighbours. In some cases, public funds are being used to carry out repairs. In the case of a quarry, for example, who will pay for the reinstatement? No commercial rates, bonds or development levies were paid over.

Standards are set across a range of areas, but where someone has an unauthorised development, there is no testing or enforcement of those standards. Are data collected regarding how many unauthorised commercial developments are not subject to commercial rates? Is there a risk assessment of liabilities? In Naas in my constituency, we ended up with a mountainous dump that went on fire and cost more than €20 million to reinstate. It was an unauthorised development that had consequences.

Are there plans to tighten up the unauthorised development process? Is there oversight of attempts to get consistency in local authorities' application of unauthorised development laws, given that that application can vary?

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My ministerial role in the planning system is to provide and update the legislative and policy guidance framework. As the Deputy is aware, I cannot get involved in or exercise any power in respect of any particular case, including an enforcement issue with which a planning authority is or may be concerned. Recently, though, I have stated that we are prepared to examine this area. We set policy and guidance, which I am happy to have reviewed to see if we need to strengthen it. We are in talks with local authorities around the country concerning various issues. In terms of dereliction and vacant properties, for example, we have examined whether their enforcement powers need to be strengthened and whether the Act is strong enough. That is something that I can talk about and am happy to discuss. We can review the policy and legislative situation in respect of the cases the Deputy raised but the cases themselves must be dealt with individually by each local authority. Responsibility for enforcement action in respect of any breach of the planning code is a matter for individual planning authorities. In the cases the Deputy referenced, that is Kildare County Council.

Part VIII of the Planning and Development Act 2000 sets out the comprehensive enforcement powers that are available to planning authorities. If we need to strengthen them in general, that is something that we can review. Indeed, we review it on an ongoing basis, and changes were made a number of years ago to the planning code. I agree with the Deputy that local authorities should be in a strong position and be able to use their powers when they feel doing so is appropriate. I also agree that there can be delays in planning authorities taking enforcement action against unauthorised developments and that situations may arise in which those developments impact on the surrounding infrastructure. For instance, if damage is caused to roads by certain construction activity and is not acted upon, it can at the very least be a source of annoyance or inconvenience for local residents, never mind the additional cost it incurs for us all.

It is important that there be enforcement, and at an early stage where possible. The earlier that an instance of unauthorised development or non-compliance with planning permission is brought to the attention of the relevant planning authority, the earlier the relevant enforcement powers provided for in legislation can be activated by the authority. Where authorities deem it fit, these powers should be activated as quickly as possible in such situations.

In general, I would be happy to examine enforcement powers to see if they can be strengthened.