Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)

Amendment No. 22 is a substantial Government amendment. We on this side of the House outlined on Second Stage that we felt this Bill was not complete and we forecast it would be heavily amended by the time it would leave the Seanad. That has transpired and, as the Minister of State said, it will be amended further by the time it gets to Dáil Éireann.

I referred earlier to bonds and the extension of the planning permission, and I wish to clarify the point further. Bonds generally remain in place until an estate is taken in charge by the council. In some cases, developers got into difficulties after a year or two of development and there were calls for the council to call in the bond in order to finish works on lighting, paths, green areas and even sewerage networks. The bond does not allow for this and the legal advice is that unless it is specifically made a condition that something must be done by a particular date, the bond will last for the full length of the planning permission, which is normally five years. Once a development has substantially commenced, a developer is entitled, by law, to seek an extension to complete it and the council must grant such an extension, usually for up to two years. The legal advice is that the council cannot try to use the bond unless it has given the developer the opportunity to finish the development in the extended period allowed.

We have the case that the period will be increased by a further five years under the new planning Bill. Local authorities will be caught in a catch-22 and residents will not be able to understand why they cannot act. Legal advice indicates that it would also be pointless for local authorities to try to acquire the bond if they have not gone down the enforcement route first. In some instances, heavy enforcement by the council would put many developers out of business, which would be in nobody's interests, as the council would still not have the money to finish the estate. There are implications in this for those living in unfinished estates with the extension of the period of planning permission from two to five years. I can understand why an effort is being made to do this from an economic perspective. I presume that in the current economic climate the hope is the economy will recover to a degree and enable developers to finish estates. The downside is that local authorities will be restricted in trying to secure bonds when developers do not finish estates and where the extension of the period of planning permission is required. I am marking the issue for the Minister of State's attention.

I take on board the legal advice given to the Minister of State on amendment No. 23. We were trying to ensure clarity on the wording and did not consider there was a need for the inclusion of the words "each of" and "either". In the light of the Minister of State's comments, we are willing to withdraw the amendment.

The Minister of State referred to amendment No. 24 and has said he understands from where we are coming. Planning authorities should not be limited to considering factors which conspire to prevent development, be they commercial, economic or technical. They should be entitled to consider the proposed use of the development and whether such use is likely to lead to the creation of long-term and sustainable employment. Within the current economic climate the generation of employment is critical. Development which stimulates long-term job opportunities must be protected and encouraged by the planning system. That is the reason we are proposing amendment No. 24, as it would allow planning authorities consider whether the proposed use of a development would lead to the creation of at least ten full-time jobs. The Minister of State has indicated that the thrust of the amendment will be considered in guidelines. We look forward to such a provision. Will the Minister of State clarify his intentions in that regard?

Amendment No. 25 is proposed in an effort by the Fine Gael Party to bring further clarity and a definitive timeframe to the Bill. All planning practitioners, including planners, architects and draftspersons, and the general public should be clear on the defined time limits specified in the planning Bill.