Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)

In answer to the Senator's question as to why we are discussing this Bill now, all legislation needs updating and there are some provisions in the Bill which are most welcome, such as section 23. I have come across several couples who received planning permission in recent years but whose economic circumstances have changed, for example, one or both spouses may have lost their jobs, such that they cannot go ahead with the development of their houses and their planning permission runs out. In rural Ireland if one's planning permission runs out there is no guarantee that one will get it back as planning codes and restrictions tighten. Many couples are paying off mortgages although in effect they own only fields with no value. That is why the provision in section 23 which amends the 2000 Act is most welcome.

This ties into NAMA because, amazingly, the Government will end up owning a great deal of property, some of which has planning permission but which it is not economical to develop. If the permission runs out, however, the value of the land will disappear. For the Government to re-establish value on the land it would have to seek planning permission at enormous cost in architects' fees and levies and so on. That provision is most welcome. The rub, however, is that couples have already lost value in their property where the planning permission has run out and need to seek permission to re-establish value and build a house in the future but may not get the permission.

This Bill was published last May and had it been passed then, some people would have been able to apply for an extension of up to another five years under section 23 without having to go through the entire planning permission process. The Government will also take over planning permission that has run out and will have to spend millions re-applying for permission. I have written to the Minister to ask him to backdate the legislation, if not in the interests of those couples who cannot develop their land and see its value disappear, then in the Government's self-interest so that it does not have to apply for planning permission on properties it will own or take charge of through NAMA. I will table an amendment to backdate the legislation. The Minister has said he wants amendments. All Bills can be improved before being enacted.

I am also concerned about the siting of mobile telephone masts. This Bill is the ideal place in which to regulate for this. There was a problem in Annascaul when Tetra, through Eircom, wanted to place a mobile telephone mast in the middle of the village. There is growing evidence from the European Environment Agency, EEA, about the dangers of mobile telephones and masts. Although the council said that the mast should not be sited in the middle of the village and that there were alternative sites, An Bord Pleanála ruled in favour of Eircom, the mobile telephone mast and the service provider, as it always seems to do. In Kerry there is a 1 km rule for the siting of mobile telephone masts near schools, hospitals or residences. I have asked for a version of that rule to be implemented. It took years to establish the link between smoking and cancer. If a similar link is proven with mobile telephone masts it will be incumbent on the Government to take account of what the EEA calls the precautionary principle. It would have to establish a principle whereby all mobile telephone masts would be situated as far away from the population as is practical. This was the case in Annascaul where alternative sites were available. However, An Bord Pleanála's plan states the committee numbers can go from three to two. God knows what would happen if they disagreed. They would probably end up tossing a coin.

We must look at this issue because it is unsustainable. Mobile telephone companies seem to be getting away with a great deal of irregular behaviour by putting communications devices on existing masts without applying for planning and subsequently applying for retention.

A councillor in Galway, Jim Cuddy, raised the issue of how landowners can have their lands rezoned from development to amenity without being notified. I realise there is a process but surely we could bring it about that where land is being rezoned, as is proposed in parts of the Bill, there would be a right to be informed correctly and with due process. We could amend this point.

Increasing numbers of agricultural buildings could be used for small enterprises as distinct from light industry - I am not talking about a mini version of Harland and Wolff. We could try to get those going in rural areas where, because farm buildings are involved, planning issues would not apply and there could be a simplified non-bureaucratic process. God knows we are great at red tape in some cases but this could be done in a way that made it as easy as possible and we would create jobs at this time when we need them. Councillor Pat Doran in County Wicklow raised that idea. There are great ideas being put forward from local people who deal with planning regularly. This is especially so in the case of rural planning.

Banks have a role to play too. Where a couple is forced to sell their property which contains a residency clause stating it cannot be used as a holiday home and that the buyer has to prove a need to live in the area, if that couple, who may be in County Louth, for example, intend selling their property to a person from Dublin offering €300,000 to buy it and commute to work, the council can refuse to allow that purchaser to buy the property on the basis that they live in Dublin and do not need to live in Louth. The bank will then repossess the house, that same person from Dublin can go to the bank and say he or she was trying to buy the house but the council would not allow the sale because of the residency clause attaching to the owner of the property, and the bank, which might have loaned only €225,000, will ask for €250,000 in return for calling it a day. The problem is that the original owner of the property will then be at a loss because of being unable to sell it on the open market although it appears the bank can sell it to whomsoever it wishes.

At this time banks should not have any advantage over an individual who is trying to maximise their price in selling the property into which they have put their heart and soul but on which, because of financial reasons, they cannot maintain the mortgage. A person may not be allowed to achieve market value because of the residency clause. I ask the Minister to take into consideration in the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill that rather than the residency clause being specific to named individuals, it would just be a residency clause and the person who would take possession of the property would have to have it as his or her principal private residence and that it would not be subject to the €200 levy which we have now established.

There is natural justice involved in this. If banks can repossess houses to which residency clauses apply and sell them to anyone, and councils say they can do so, how is it that the people who owned the properties originally are not allowed to achieve maximum value because the residency clauses apply and restrict those to whom the houses can be sold? My main concern is that when a bank takes over a property on which its loan is €225,000, all it cares about is covering the debt. The bank does not care that a different buyer might have offered €300,000 but did not qualify under the residency clause. This situation leaves the person with the debt and who was subject to the foreclosure at a significant financial disadvantage. The last thing with which I would wish to be associated is maintaining a financial advantage for banks because they have proven themselves unworthy of it.

This is a timely Bill. Senator McFadden pointed out that it is too late but I entirely disagree. There are many provisions which are very necessary at this time. My main emphasis concerns section 23 which we might backdate to allow a person to apply for an extension to his or her permission period without having to go through the entire planning process again.