Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a very simple question on planning legislation passed by the previous Government whereby those whose planning permission was about to expire were able to apply to a local authority by way of a very simple mechanism to have it extended for a period of up to five years. Obviously, it was hoped that banks would begin lending and that people would be able to build on those sites in that five-year period, but many have found that they are unable to commence building. If planning permission lapses, the cost of reinstating it is quite large. There is always the issue of whether it will be granted for the same site again. Is there any proposal by the Government to amend the legislation by ministerial order or Act of the Oireachtas to allow for multiple extensions of a five-year planning permission?

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for raising this important matter, which I take with the permission of the House on behalf of my colleague, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

The Minister of State considers it appropriate that planning permissions be subject to a time restriction to ensure that only bona fide developments likely to proceed to construction in the short to medium term are submitted for planning approval. Accordingly, the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, provides that, unless otherwise specified, the duration of a permission is restricted to a period of five years beginning on the date of the granting of permission. This five-year limitation, which is aimed at ensuring regulated development control, is considered reasonable in the circumstances.

Section 28 of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010 amended section 42 of the 2000 Act to provide that the duration of a permission may be extended for a further five-year period where substantial works have not been carried out or where the development has not even commenced in cases where the planning authority is satisfied that there were factors of a commercial, economic or technical nature beyond the control of the applicant which substantially militated against either the commencement of development or the carrying out of substantial works on the development in the original five-year timeframe. This provision is, however, subject to the submission of an application for extension of the duration of permission prior to the expiry of the original permission. Where an application is submitted, the planning authority must be satisfied that there have been no significant changes in the development objectives in the local development plan or in regional development objectives in the relevant regional planning guidelines since the date of the original permission such that development would no longer be consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. It is also subject to the requirement that the development is not inconsistent with proper planning and sustainable development of the area, having regard to any planning guidelines issued by the Minister under section 28 of the Act after the date of the granting of the original permission. Where the development has not commenced, the planning authority must also be satisfied that an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment, or both of those assessments if required, were carried out prior to the granting of the original permission.

While the possibility of obtaining a second extension of permission was previously available to all holders of planning permission under the provisions of the 2000 Act, this was considered too open-ended. Consequently, the provision was removed via the 2010 Act on the basis that it was considered reasonable that a development should be completed within ten years of the original permission being granted. Where a development proposal is not completed within this timeframe, it is considered appropriate that it be required to go through the planning process again in order to ensure that it remains a viable and sustainable development and to give the public the opportunity to make submissions and observations on the proposed development, having regard to the time that has elapsed since the original granting of permission. Accordingly, the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, has no plans to review the current practice of only allowing one five-year extension to planning permissions at this time.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his reply and wish him the best of luck in the election. The issue here is not only one for private developers who have zoned lands and planning permissions, but also for those who hold single permissions for one-off developments in the countryside. It is also an issue for the Government, because NAMA has a large number of properties which are subject to live planning permissions, as do the banks. Hopefully, they will have been diligent and extended the full five-year period. If a permission in respect of lands held by NAMA was granted in 2005 and extended in 2010, there is now the prospect that a huge amount of value will be lost, incurring for the taxpayer massive fees to reinstate planning permissions.

In Kerry County Council, it costs €89 to extend a planning permission. That could apply to NAMA. In the event that the Minister does not consider it prudent to allow for an extension, the burden of the loss will be borne by the taxpayer. If someone applied for planning permission in 2004, it would have lapsed in 2009 but for the extension period of five years. It may not have got the entire period, but in any event that five years will start to run out. Whether it is for a developer who has retained his portfolio and is hoping to build - we have a housing crisis - or a one-off development in rural Ireland, an entire planning process will have to be undergone. If the planning permission were allowed to remain live, the holder could start to build much more quickly. NAMA and the banks will sustain the largest losses, and huge fees will be incurred on behalf of the taxpayer simply to reinstate planning on land that is currently covered.

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I listened carefully to what the Senator said. I thank him for his good wishes. There are competing imperatives here in terms of public policy. The planning system must have its own integrity. There is a general proposition that a five-year limit makes sense. Of course, things can change objectively in an area. That something is a sustainable proposal in a particular year may not make it a valid assumption in another year. It may not be acceptable from a planning perspective five years later. New issues may have arisen. There is a general proposition there that it is a good idea to have a restriction. There is also a case for allowing extensions for five years. One must balance the planning imperative with the issues the Senator rightly raises in terms of costs and commercial matters.

Overall, the Minister of State considers from a planning point of view that the correct balance has been struck by establishing a five-year limit and a single extension of five years. These are issues that the House and the community can keep under general review, but for the time being there is no proposal to make a change.