Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran. Planning applications and approvals have been on an upward and downward spiral in recent years, as a recent survey in The Irish Times confirms. The newspaper carried out a survey of ten county councils and found a sizable fall in the number of applications made in the past three years. The figures supplied to The Irish Times by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government showed that in 2008 there were 62,906 planning applications lodged, compared to 91,654 in 2007 and 97,226 in 2006. The number of applications varied in county councils in different parts of the country.

Although it is a rural county in the north west, my county, County Donegal, had one of the largest number of planning applications lodged in any county or city council in the country. There has been much development and many sites would have been approved from 2005 or 2006 onwards. Many of these developments did not go ahead and as a result, the people involved now have the option of proceeding with the development or seeking an extension of planning approval. I will refer to this matter later.

I am very pleased the Bill is before the Oireachtas and progressing through the Seanad. It is an important Bill. Its objectives include the support of economic renewal and the promotion of sustainable development. One of its aims is to bring into closer alignment the national spatial strategy, the regional planning guidelines of the regional authorities, county development plans and local area plans. This should facilitate closer working between the Minister, his Department and all the respective agencies involved.

I wish to refer to several sections of the Bill, including the one dealing with An Bord Pleanála. One aim of the Bill is to improve the throughput and performance of the board. The provision to give effect to this aim is intended to secure a higher compliance rate with the statutory period of 18 weeks. In other words, a decision should be taken by the board within 18 weeks, or approximately four and a half months. There is no question but that the board is taking significantly in excess of six months to make a decision on a sizable volume of applications. This is unacceptable from the point of view of objectors and, more importantly, that of developers, especially in cases involving large-scale developments that may create employment in an area, whether hotel developments — although there are not too many such developments at present — or other job creating developments.

I note section 28 proposes to reduce the quorum at meetings of An Bord Pleanála from three to two. While I welcome the objective of trying to increase the throughput, I hold some reservations about reducing the quorum from three to two. The board is made up of ten members. If it cannot have at least three members present at all meetings, we should review the membership, not necessarily the membership of the organisation, but perhaps the individuals on the board from certain organisations. If they cannot attend board meetings, the matter should be reviewed, rather than reducing the quorum to two. I appreciate the reduction from three to two only relates to decisions of a minor nature such as those on smaller applications. Nevertheless, I hold some reservations and concerns about the matter. Some of my colleagues in county councils, for example, some councillors in County Donegal, have raised this matter cautiously also and they hold concerns about the matter. I seek more information on it but I welcome the objective of the legislation and the recognition that reducing the timeframe of the board to administer applications needs to be dealt with.

I refer to other issues related to the Bill, including the recognition of the refusal of planning permission in cases in which there has been previous unauthorised development. Currently, the planning authority or the council can refuse permission on the basis of past failures to comply, having regard to certain information, and if it is satisfied the applicant is not in compliance with the terms of previous permissions. It may form the opinion that there is a real and substantial risk a development may not be duly completed in accordance with the terms of planning permission and that permission should, therefore, be denied. This is contained in section 35 of the principal Act of 2000. The non-compliance referred to in section 35 of the 2000 Act must be substantial in nature. Under the Bill, the planning authority will have new grounds on which to rely in forming the opinion that planning permission should not be granted. These include where the applicant has carried out a substantial unauthorised development or has been convicted of an offence under the Act. I welcome this measure because there are rogue developers who have, heretofore, gone from development to development without completing a previous one. I am aware of several such developments in my constituency in which developers have finished up, sold on the houses but have not completed the estates or complied with the planning conditions in terms of finishing green areas or providing facilities for kids. Such developers move on to the next development and the local council cannot do much about it. I welcome this section of the Bill but trust the word "applicant" refers to the individual, not the company, because an applicant could go and form a new company and apply for planning permission under that company's name. It is important permission is related to the individual rather than the company. I trust the Minister of State will note this point.

Another measure I welcome relates to a matter I raised on the Adjournment with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, that is, the extension of planning permission. I welcome the proposed amendment to section 42 of the 2000 Act by its replacement with section 23 of this Bill. Until now, to have planning permission extended substantial works had to be carried out on developments. In the recent climate this has placed a significant burden on individuals, whether young couples with planning permission for one house or small developers with planning permission for several houses. I know of one such case in which the applicant is negotiating with Donegal County Council to purchase the houses for letting to local authority tenants. However, there is an insecurity in the sense that the time allocated for permission is running out and no substantial works have taken place on the site.

Section 23 states "the authority is satisfied that there were considerations of a commercial, economic or technical nature beyond the control of the applicant which substantially mitigated against either the commencement of development or the carrying out of substantial works pursuant to the planning permission". It is important that very clear guidelines are issued to local authorities in respect of this section and I am confident this will be the case. I welcome the measure, as it is a major step forward that an individual, for example, a developer of a shopping centre or hotel, can seek a five year extension. We all know of many young couples who cannot proceed because they cannot obtain finance for their development. Such persons cannot go on site and section 23 would allow them to obtain a five-year extension.

The Bill may not be enacted until the new year. It is going through the Seanad and from here will go to the Dáil but it may be January or February before it is enacted. I recommend that consideration be given to respection for a period of six months in respect of this section. If that were applied, the measure could date back to six months prior to the enactment of the Bill. The Minister of State should consider this proposal.

I wish to refer to two other issues in respect of planning and development plans. The new Bill does not take any consideration of objectors to planning applications. I refer to counties such as County Donegal in which there are large volumes of holiday homes. I have spent hours dealing with individual applications for local people and while the planning authority might be satisfied to grant permission, owners of holiday homes object and often such objectors forward the application to An Bord Pleanála. People should be obliged to pay a high fee if they wish to object to a development that does not interfere directly with their permanent or principal place of residence. If possible, this suggestion should be considered in the context of this Bill. While it may need to be considered as part of future legislation, it is a matter of grave concern to many local people who live in areas in which there are large volumes of holiday homes.

While the other issue to which I wish to refer also relates to planning, I understand it may be coming down the tracks through other legislation. I refer to the issue of access to national roads and, in particular, the difficulty being experienced by individuals living in close proximity to national secondary roads. The legislation does not distinguish between national secondary and national primary routes and the National Roads Authority is objecting to all applications for access to a national secondary route. A clear distinction must be made between national primary and national secondary routes. While my understanding is that this issue is being dealt with by the Departments of Transport and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I would appreciate an update on the issue from the Minister of State.

This is great legislation, which I welcome. I have raised a number of issues for consideration and it would be excellent if this were possible.