Michael Finneran (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fianna Fail)

As regards amendment No. 15, the current position allows a planning authority to take account of any information concerning a development carried out by a person to whom the section applies pursuant to the granting of planning permission when deciding whether to refuse permission to a developer on the basis of past performance. To insert the word "connected" would mean that the planning authority could only have regard to development carried out pursuant to a permission granted to the applicant or a connected person. It would mean that the authority could not have regard to development carried out pursuant to a permission granted to a person other than a connected person. The proposed amendment would therefore limit the scope to refuse permission on the basis of past performance and I do not accept it for that reason.

My Department has sought the view of the Parliamentary Counsel on amendment No. 16. Section 18(c) of the Interpretation Act provides: ""Person" shall be read as importing a body corporate (whether a corporation aggregate or a corporation sole) and an unincorporated body of persons, as well as an individual, and the subsequent use of any pronoun in place of a further use of "person" shall be read accordingly". I therefore consider the proposed amendment to be unnecessary.

The Parliamentary Counsel believes amendment No. 17 would lead to inconsistency in the use of the word "any". Amendment No. 18 was discussed at length last week and, as I explained previously, under the current provisions planning permission may be refused to a developer who has substantially failed to comply with a previous permission. A development which is left substantially unfinished would represent non-compliance with the permission. The proposed amendment is therefore unnecessary and I do not propose to accept it. I acknowledge the concerns expressed by Senators about unfinished estates but this is a question of planning enforcement. My Department will further consider whether the enforcement provisions in the legislation require amendment to strengthen the requirements on planning authorities and, if appropriate, I will bring forward an amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil.

In 2008, my Department issued comprehensive policy guidelines to planning authorities which emphasised the importance of taking all possible steps to compel the completion of estates. These steps include the attachment of appropriate conditions to planning permission on the standards for roads, drainage and public lighting. The guidelines also urged planning authorities to inspect residential developments during or shortly after construction to ensure they are properly completed.

My Department's guidelines on bonds, which were discussed at some length last week, state that the amount of the security and the terms on which it is to be given must enable the planning authority to complete the necessary services in the event of default without giving rise to costs to itself. The guidelines also state that the conditions must require that the lodgment of a security be coupled with an agreement that would empower the planning authority to realise it at an appropriate time and to apply it to meeting the cost of completing the specific work. My Department has not been made aware by planning authorities of any current problem in regard to bonds. However, my officials will liaise with the County and City Managers Association to determine whether problems have arisen and, if so, whether they can assist through, for example, the circulation of relevant advice. Data obtained by local authorities for the recently published fifth annual report on service indicators in local authorities indicate that more than 300 estates were taken in charge by local authorities in 2008. Senators will agree this was a reasonably good performance.

Senator Glynn asked whether I would table a Government amendment on Report Stage to give locally elected members a role in directing county managers to take action against rogue developers. As Senators will be aware, section 140 of the Local Government Act 2001 allows elected members to direct managers to take any action which they may lawfully take as an executive function. The Planning and Development Acts already place clear statutory obligations on planning authorities in regard to unauthorised development. A planning authority must issue a warning letter in response to written complaints about unauthorised developments except in the case of trivial or minor issues. A statutory obligation also exists to carry out investigations and expeditiously decide whether an enforcement notice should be issued. The planning authority's decision on whether to issue an enforcement notice must be entered on the planning register and, in cases where a decision is made not to issue a notice, the complainants must be informed.

Amendment No. 19 is a Government amendment which inserts "accordingly" whereas Fine Gael's amendment No. 20 proposes to insert "on that basis". It is the view of the Parliamentary Counsel that the word "accordingly" is more appropriate and would achieve the same effect as the Fine Gael amendment. I commend amendment No. 19 to the House.