Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for some of the clarifications, particularly with regard to precedent, which is useful to have on the record. However, I continue to disagree regarding the question of incentivisation. The Minister outlined that there is a risk in applying for substitute consent and said that is the main caveat. The concern is that at the moment, a local authority can require a developer to seek a substitute consent but the Bill as set out basically leaves that decision about whether to apply for substitute consent to the discretion of a developer, which is not appropriate in itself. Regarding the additional difficulty that has been suggested by the Minister and the fact that the developer has to take the risk by applying, the fact that there is discretion as to whether or not to apply is something granted by the Bill itself. Previously, a local authority could tell a developer to seek substitute consent for this unauthorised development and the developer would have to seek that consent and would then be able to apply for new planning permission. Again, this is the key point. It is not a matter of planning permission versus planning permission and seeking substitute consent. Under the current scenario, there is a requirement for somebody with an unlawful development to apply for substitute consent. The developer can then apply for planning permission. Under the Bill, the developer is able to choose whether to apply for substitute consent and apply directly for planning permission. It is an incentive.

I really appreciate the clarification in terms of precedent. It is something that needs to be monitored very closely in terms of what decisions are made. However, I will bring forward a new version of this amendment that removes the reference to precedent and simply deals with our substantive difference, which is the fear of incentivisation. I will withdraw the amendment and bring forward a new version on Report Stage.