asked the Minister for the Environment the new measures, if any, he proposes to introduce to ensure that developers complete housing estates in accordance with the requirements of the planning authority.
34.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Housing Estates.
9.
asked the Minister for the Environment if his attention has been drawn to the serious problems with unfinished housing estates and the difficulty of ensuring adherence to the planning approval in many cases; if he has any plans to amend section 27 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 34 together. The Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts give planning authorities considerable powers to secure the satisfactory completion of private housing estates. Advice in regard to the framing of appropriate conditions in planning permissions has been given to planning authorities by my Department to allow for effective action to secure completion of estates to be taken at a later stage, if required.
I have asked planning authorities to redouble their efforts to eliminate the problem of unfinished estates by using the legislative provisions to the full and by following the advice available to them. I have arranged for the precise extent of the problem of unfinished estates to be ascertained by way of a questionnaire to planning authorities. I will review the position in the light of the response to see what, if any, new measures might be proposed.
Section 27 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976, which enables the planning authority or a member of the public to seek a High Court Order in planning cases is one of a number of enforcement measures available under the planning Acts. The section has been used effectively in a large number of cases. I intend that any problems that have come to light in the operation of the section will be addressed in the context of the next appropriate planning Bill.
The Minister obviously recognises this is a continuous and ongoing problem and that there are a great number of estates throughout the city and country that are in a deplorable state. The powers the local authorities have are either inadequate or are not being exercised to the extent that would eliminate this problem. In view of that, would the Minister consider first that local authorities should be encouraged to take these estates in charge on a phased basis? It would seem to bring more control into the whole area if that were done. At the same time, would the Minister also consider a system whereby a local authority would issue a certificate to the builders confirming that the estate either was taken in charge or, indeed, capable of being taken in charge and that such a certificate or document would be passed over as one of the normal conveyancing documents at the closing of a sale? That system would, at least, have the effect of protecting purchasers of private houses from finding themselves in the appalling position in which many of they find themselves at present, in unfinished estates.
I can sympathise with what the Deputy is referring to. It is just too bad that many people who in good faith buy houses find suddenly that their estates are not completed. They then find themselves in difficulties as to who is responsible for completion. So concerned was I about that matter, because I am familiar with some of the difficulties in my own constituency, that I sought to get an exact detail of how difficult the position is nationally. That questionnaire should be back before too long and whatever action is necessary at that time the Deputy can rest assured that it will have my full support in dealing with the matter finally. The section 27 arrangement has worked reasonably well in some cases. Quite a number of applications have been granted under section 27. At the same time it is not the complete solution. I will take note of what the Deputy said in that matter and when the time comes to devise a new method of getting developers to finish estates properly I will keep it in mind.
Would the Minister consider it desirable that in relation to the purchase of new houses, a certain proportion of the cost of the house should be deposited with the local authority until the infrastructure of the estate has been completed? Would the Minister also agree that in order to allow local authorities to take proceedings against developers in a less cumbersome way, the section 27 powers should be extended to the Circuit Court? In relation to section 27 proceedings which prohibit the continuance of an unauthorised development, would the Minister agree that no power exists to have the lands reinstated to their original position? There are no positive action powers under section 27 proceedings. While developments can be halted the courts do not seem to have the powers to require the developer to reinstate the property.
I readily agree with much of what the Deputy has said. It was understood in discussions in this House some years ago that we would tackle this matter and that everything would be resolved. That did not work out. Some of the options put forward will have to be considered when we get a complete national breakdown as to the extent of the difficulty. I am not sure that withholding a proportion of the cost of each house would be the most appropriate way of doing this but certainly we should have some system whereby developers have to give a binding commitment to provide enough money, irrespective of what happens to the developer, to allow some authority subsequently to finish off the job if the developer cannot complete it. Any suggestions made by Deputies should be forwarded to the Department. When we are talking about new planning legislation I will be delighted to consider their suggestions carefully and to seek the support of the House to clear once and for all what I would regard as nothing short of a national disgrace.
Does the questionnaire which the Minister is circulating to local authorities include reference to situations where not only roads and services are not provided by the developer, but where houses have not been completed, where there are, for example, shells of houses in certain estates and the companies have gone into receivership? Does the Minister know to what extent that is a problem and can he suggest how it might be resolved?
I take it that the Deputy is referring to unfinished houses in estates as distinct from unfinished estates in so far as services are concerned?
Yes.
I do not have a copy of the questionnaire here but the point the Deputy is making is a good one and should be included in the questionnaire so as to establish the position not just in relation to unfinished estates but in relation to unfinished houses. Perhaps we can get a national trawl on that as well. It could be useful.
I would be grateful for a final question from Deputy Cullen.
Would the Minister not agree that the ultimate solution to this problem is that the infrastructure of an estate should be completed before the development can go ahead? This happens in many other countries. It is really the only way that we can guarantee that roads, lighting, footpaths, etc. are properly completed. Should not private developers be forced to do what many local authorities are doing at the moment?
I can see some logic in what the Deputy is saying but there might be some difficulty in relation to the funding of the overall scheme. At the first stage of the development a developer might not be aware of how well it would go and if he had the total cost of the services——
Is he not rejuvenated?
——as a primary cost, it might not make it feasible for him to complete the whole deal.
(Interruptions.)
He could do it piece by piece.
I can see the Deputy's point. At the moment many developers carry out the total servicing. Local contractors tell me that if they did that first there would be a lot of traffic because of the building and consequently, they would often have to re-do the surfaces of roads, thereby involving further expenditure. I take the Deputy's point but for small contractors it might pose a large burden which they might not be able to carry. It would be better if we could get an established binding agreement that irrespective of what happened to them, at least money would be there so that some agency could complete the work should they not be in a position to do so.
Deputy Lawlor.
While recognising that there has been a fundamental shift in the house building sector where site development and house building tend to be divorced within the context of the planning legislation, should there not be much greater powers to pass on the responsibilities? In County Dublin there are vast housing estates which have been left unfinished. Builders build houses and the site developers do not comply with the requirements. While the High Court has been reasonably satisfactory the procedure is far too cumbersome. The Minister should consider making it a less cumbersome proceeding to retrieve the bond so that the county councils can take action much sooner. Some estates in County Dublin have been there 15 or 20 years and have not yet been taken in charge.
It was with that in mind that I decided once and for all to establish the extent of the problem so that we could bring forward a package of measures to deal with it. Planning authorities have considerable powers available to them now under the planning Acts. They have enforcement notices, prosecution procedures under the 1963 Act, warning notices and High Court proceeding notices under the 1976 Act. Despite all this we still have the problem. Obviously there is slackness in the arrangements in so far as the planning schedules are concerned and in relation to the enforcement of bonding and availability of money to finish estates. The problem seems to be escalating despite all this legislation. When we get the final report on the questionnaire we will be in a position to know what we have to do and how to tackle it. At that time I will welcome the support of the House in achieving what we all wish to achieve.
I was hoping to have the final question from the Deputy who tabled the question.
May I ask a short question?
I shall hear a brief question each from Deputies Boland, Taylor and Pat O'Malley.
Since taking office how many meetings has the Minister had with the Construction Industry Federation to point out to them his displeasure at the failure of their members to complete estates and what undertakings did he receive from them at any of these meetings?
I have had two meetings of a formal nature.
I bet they were not about this.
This matter was not high on the priorities. I admit that, but I had decided before the meetings to take the initiative so far as the questionnaire is concerned. As soon as I have the information I need, I will meet them again.
Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread belief in the planning authorities that the legislation to which the Minister referred is too cumbersome and that the burden of proofs which the planning authority must provide in the courts is expensive, time consuming and difficult to assemble? Perhaps the Minister would consider in advance of amending legislation, issuing revised guidelines to the planning authorities suggesting that any bonding arrangement entered into is not of an annual and renewable nature but is a bond which must remain in existence until such time as the estate is satisfactorily taken in charge? If that were considered it might help to alleviate some of the problems which emerge at present through bonds going out of existence.
While I have been in touch with the planning authorities about certain aspects of this I take the Deputy's point that perhaps I might resubmit revised guidelines to strengthen the position until such time as we get the new body of legislation. A statistic worth putting on the record shows the success rate of section 27. It relates to the rate of injunction applications under section 27 by planning authorities. The number of applications in 1985 was 67 and the number granted was 62. A fair amount of legislative power is available there to planning authorities at present, but I agree with the consensus of the Deputies that it is not good enough and needs to be strengthened.
Will the Minister consider amending the planning laws to ensure that applications for planning permission that come from an individual or a company connected with an individual who has failed under a previous planning permission to comply with the terms and conditions of that planning permission, such as completion of housing estates, would be suspended or not dealt with until the applicant had complied with the conditions of previous permissions? That might be one stick that could be used to get errant developers to comply with their obligations.
I would be a little hesitant to go down that road. That it might be unconstitutional is my initial reaction to such a suggestion but the Deputy can rest assured that I see the consensus that exists between us all in this regard. We want to see this matter finalised once and for all. The measures that will be taken will be stiff and will, I hope, produce the final result we all want.