Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1507: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he has considered the possibility of administrative sanctions rather than criminal sanctions in relation to planning enforcement, allowing penalties to be imposed without a criminal record being created. [33426/10]

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1509: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his plans he has to improve the enforcement of the Planning Acts; if he would consider a Statutory Instrument defining the purposes of the enforcement powers and the duties of local authorities, including the level of evidence required, to ensure that enforcement powers are not used as a method of circumventing the legal requirements of development consents. [33429/10]

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1511: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if planning enforcement officials in the local authorities are part of a network enabling them to increase their abilities and share in their knowledge of their legal responsibilities; and if not if he has any plans to assist in the establishment of such a network. [33431/10]

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1507, 1509 and 1511 together.

A range of legislative reforms in the area of enforcement were introduced in the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010, including:

removal of the 7-year time-limit for taking enforcement proceedings against unauthorised extractive industry developments;

an increase in the minimum fines for persons convicted under section 156 of the 2000 Planning Act; and

new requirements on planning authorities to issue enforcement notices or seek an injunction where unauthorised development has taken place and no satisfactory action has been taken.

My Department is initiating a wider review of the planning enforcement regime to determine what further steps need to be taken to improve the system. Among the measures under consideration is the scope to develop specific enforcement standards or a statutorily-based code of practice for planning authorities with the aim of delivering more consistent enforcement approaches throughout the country and highlighting statutory requirements and standards to be complied with. Consideration is also being given to enhancing the existing Planning Enforcement Extranet Site which enables planning authorities to share information on key planning enforcement issues and to develop best practice approaches to addressing problems in this area. The need for specialist training for planning enforcement staff to ensure that policy reforms are being implemented consistently and effectively, especially in the context of complex extractive industry enforcement cases, will also be explored.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1508: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if any instances have come to his attention of retention being permitted by a local authority for a project falling under the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive since his circular letter Circular PD 5/08 of 15 August 2008 detailing the illegality of such consents. [33427/10]

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In light of a July 2008 ruling by the European Court of Justice in Case C215-06, planning authorities were advised, through Circular Letter PD6/08, to return applications for permission for the retention of unauthorised development, where such development should have been subject to mandatory EIA, on the basis that retention planning permission cannot be granted in those circumstances.

In respect of applications for permission for the retention of unauthorised sub-threshold development, planning authorities were advised to proceed to decide whether the project should have been subject to EIA. If the project would not have required an EIA, then the planning authorities were advised to proceed to deal with the application in the normal course. If the planning authority decided that an EIA would have been required, the Circular advised that the application be returned as invalid.

The Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010 has amended the legislative provisions in relation to retention permission to provide that applications for retention may not be accepted in relation to applications which would have required EIA, or appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive, or would have required a determination as to whether EIA or appropriate assessment was required. It is intended to commence this provision as soon as possible. The implementation of the law in individual cases is a matter for the planning authority. It would be a matter for the courts to decide if the law had been applied correctly in any case which came before them.