Michael Finneran (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fianna Fail)

Section 23 replaces section 42 of the principal Act. The section provides for the extension of permission for a period not exceeding five years in circumstances where substantial works have not been carried out but where there were commercial, economic or technical reasons beyond the control of the applicant which substantially mitigate against either the commencement or the development of the carrying out of substantial works. On Committee Stage, I outlined the general purpose and intent of section 23, which provides for the extension of planning permissions in certain circumstances where substantial works have not been carried out. I undertook to come back on Report Stage with an amendment which would set out more explicitly the conditionality attached to these provisions. Amendment No. 22 now substitutes section 23 and will require the planning authority having to satisfy itself that there have been no significant changes in development objectives in the development plan, or in the regional development objectives in the regional planning guidelines, for the area of the regional authority since the date of the permission, such as the authority would not, as a result of these changes, grant an application for permission for the development as being in material contravention of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area of the authority.

On amendment No. 23, I can confirm I have sought the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel with regard to Senator Coffey's proposed amendment to delete "each of" from line 8 of page 31. As I understand it, Senator Coffey's concern that the use of the aforementioned "each of" could possibly conflict with the use of the word "either" in paragraph (a) on line 9 and with the use of the word "or" in line 19. I am satisfied, having received legal advice, that no such conflict arises as the use of the word "either" and "or" arise only in the context of paragraph (a). It remains the case under the amended section 42(1) that each of the requirements under paragraphs (a) to (d) must be complied with.

While I can see where Senator Coffey is coming from in regard to amendment No. 24, in practice it would be very difficult for a planning authority to determine the number of jobs that the use of a proposed development would create. However, I would propose to use the statutory guidelines that will accompany this provision to ensure that the planing authorities have regard to the employment potential of developments where applications for an extension of permission are being considered.

On amendment No. 25, as I indicated on Committee Stage, there are many instances throughout the planning Act where entries must be made on the planning register. Generally, no time limit is prescribed for making entries on the register or it is stated that the entry must be made as soon as may be, that is, as soon as possible. I do not see any reason why a time limit of one week should be put on the entry of these particular details on the register when the registration of other details is not subject to a time limit. Accordingly, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 23 to 25, inclusive.