John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)

I, too, welcome the Minister. I am glad to have the opportunity to debate the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill, 2002 which was flagged in the programme for Government. I am one of the wishful thinkers referred to by Senator Quinn and believe this course of action was necessary. Having listened to what the Minister said about withering sites, this action was necessary. He has also introduced a levy of 0.5% up to €200,000 and 1% thereafter on the builder. Senator Quinn referred to this as a slap on the wrist, but what we are trying to achieve is housing for all sections of society by meeting demand.

Before speaking on the specific issue, I want to avail of the opportunity to refer to planning in general, something I have raised on the Order of Business on a few occasions. There is an urgent need for a wider debate on planning, in particular the ludicrous situation that prevails with planning applications and the correlation between the local authority, inspectors from An Bord Pleanála and the board. The vigorous development of this country is hindered by a process that holds development to ransom. How can we continue to let major developments be delayed by a handful of individuals when local authorities approve applications, inspectors from An Bord Pleanála uphold the decision and the board turns it over? We cannot let multi-million euro investments in development be threatened by the whims of a few objectors.

This has been the case in my city of Cork in recent months where four major developments have been lost having been approved by the local authority, upheld by the inspectors from the board but overturned by the board. In each case we were dealing with no more than a handful of objectors. We must address this. What developers will put money upfront and invest in a major development when they have no idea where it will go? We cannot deal with such developments on a lottery basis. There must be an agreement or principle where planning officials from the local authority, inspectors from the board and the board are singing from the one hymn sheet, otherwise we will continue to frustrate the process. The next time the Minister comes to the House he should do so with proposals to review this whole process in order that it can be brought into line. It is as if they are all going to different schools or colleges. They should all be going to the one college.

The Minister should also look at the issue of retention which is a necessary evil for those who may have completed a little extension at the back of their house and find there is a difficulty when they go to sell the house, which has to be legalised. However, I am referring to the misuse of retention by developers who wilfully apply for planning permission and omit from the planning application a section that they know would not be approved. They then proceed to seek retention. In such cases, when retention is sought to which there is an objection, all work should cease immediately until it goes through the full process of planning. That would concentrate the minds of developers to make sure their applications were dealt with through the planning process in the proper manner in the first place. Retrospective retention on major developments is a matter of serious concern and is being abused.