I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
May I share my time with Deputies Wall, O'Sullivan, Broughan and Higgins?
Private Members' Business. - Local Government (Planning and Development) (Amendment) Bill, 1999: Second Stage.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
At the outset, I thank my colleagues in the parliamentary Labour Party for affording me the opportunity to give a Second Reading to my Private Members' Bill, the Local Government (Planning and Development) (Amendment) Bill, 1999. The fact I secured the support of such an experienced group of politicians from different parts of the country is indicative of the extent of the problem of unfinished estates.
Since I first published this Bill I have received letters of support and telephone calls from people throughout the country complimenting me on and wishing me well with the Bill. There was a consistent message in the communications – that the scandal of unfinished estates must be removed from planning and housing developments and that the existing legislation is totally inadequate to deal with the problems. I am pleased and encouraged that various local authorities support the principle of this Bill, and that includes politicians across the political spectrum. I hope that will be the case tomorrow night.
There are three elements to this Bill. It enables the planning authorities to take the previous track record of developers and builders into consideration when considering new planning applications. In effect, the Bill, if enacted, will facilitate the refusal of planning permission if, in the opinion of the relevant planning authority, previous planning permissions were not carried out and completed within a specific period and in accordance will all conditions contained in the permission. That includes the standard of work on the houses, the completion of roads and footpaths, the provision of public lighting, the taking in charge of the estate, the dedication of the open space, when required, and the implementation of the relevant health and safety standards for building workers during the construction period.
The Bill provides for the planning authorities to condition in planning permission the payment of a financial contribution to the planning authority towards the development of community facilities, including buildings and football pitches, for the benefit of the community within which the proposed development is situated. That is what I classify as the community benefit of developments and planning. The Bill also provides for house purchasers who have suffered loss or damage as a result of the failure of the person who secured the planning permission to comply with the conditions of that permission and to enable them to bring and maintain an action for damages and costs.
Since I first became a public representative in 1983, the problem of unfinished estates has always been on the agenda of numerous residents' association meetings in my constituency. I would hazard a guess that is also the case in the constituencies of many TDs. The most frustrating aspect of the problem as far as I was concerned was my inability, as a public representative, to deal satisfactorily with the issue due to the inadequacy of current planning legislation in this area.
Given that I was frustrated and knocking my head against a wall in endeavouring to deal with the problem, how does one think house owners feel having mortgaged themselves to the hilt? They are struggling to make repayments and find they have to wait in many cases three to eleven years for the estate to be taken into charge. For example, there is an estate in my constituency in which a generation of young people have grown up without the benefit of an open space in which to play; children were obliged to play on the roads. I could give many examples but I do not believe it is necessary as Members of all political hues have their own experiences in their constituencies.
We are consistently asked by frustrated and angry residents at meetings how can a developer, who has failed to complete an estate within a specific time and who has refused to comply with planning conditions, apply for and be granted a further planning permission on another site, whether in the same county, down the road or elsewhere. We all know of cases where builders, in such circumstances, have left a trail of havoc in their wake, yet there was nothing the planning authorities could do other than initiate enforcement action, which is a long drawn out process.
In the light of the crisis in the housing market with spiralling and unrealistic house prices, is it satisfactory that a small group, which I classify as cowboy developers, are allowed to drive a coach and four through the existing inadequate planning legislation? That is the question which must be posed to the Minister and the Government and which the people who have suffered down the years ask us. Given the experience of thousands of householders caught up in this situation, I undertook to do everything within my power, as a TD, to highlight this issue and to bring about change, if at all possible. The Minister knows the situation as he is a practical politician. It is time to respond; it is time for action, which is long overdue.
Irish people have a tradition of aspiring to home ownership. We are unique in this regard among EU member states. Over 80 per cent of dwellings in this State are owner occupied. Couples and single people are willing to take out huge mortgages to achieve the dream of owning a home of their own. Over the years this has been a great boost to the State as the demand for local authority housing or social housing was kept relatively low. Unfortunately, like many other things, this has changed in recent years as a result of the Government's totally unsatisfactory response to the housing crisis. The average price of a new house – a three bedroomed dwelling – for which loans were approved in Dublin has increased from £62,500 in 1992 to over £120,000 in 1999 and still rising. For the unfortunate people who are making efforts to secure a house of their own, the repayments are in the order of £650 per month. In most cases both partners have no option but to work outside the home. What can these people expect in return for the biggest investment of their lives? I do not think it is too much to expect that houses are constructed to an acceptable standard, that roads and footpaths are useable, that public lighting is operable and that open spaces are developed, planted and maintained so that the children of these people can play in safety. I wonder what the Minister's view is on this matter.
In recent months I came across a case where a builder constructed dwellings which were not in accordance with planning permission. The gradient of the houses is excessive and the residents are experiencing difficulties reversing out of their driveways, and in many cases find it impossible. The planning authorities asked what they could do as the houses had been built. Is it any wonder the house owners are angry and demanding changes in legislation?
I acknowledge that the scandal of unfinished estates is being caused by a small minority of builders. However, this group is not only causing grief and stress to householders, but is giving the building industry in general a bad name. It is my opinion that the CIF and the Irish Homebuilders Association, which are well aware of the problems, should be more pro-active in endeavouring to clean up their industry. In all fairness how can these organisations continue to register builders whom they know fail in their duty to properly complete estates? Both organisations have questions to answer. Given their inaction to date it is imperative that legislation be enacted to deal with the problem.
The Bill also provides for what I call a community benefit of planning whereby an applicant securing planning permission may be required as a condition to make a financial contribution to the local authority towards the development of facilities such as buildings and football pitches. This concept is enshrined in planning legislation in England and has been of great benefit to the community. It is of particular benefit in the years after a new development has been completed when the children of the new occupants are growing up and need safe, open spaces for sport and recreation, a youth club or community centre.
Swords, in my constituency, is one of the fastest growing towns in Ireland with a population in excess of 27,000. While the people have witnessed the negative and positive aspects of development, there is a major shortage of football pitches and there is no community centre, apart from the facilities provided by some of the local sports clubs. Let us imagine the developments which could have taken place if developers had been required to contribute £300 per house for the provision of facilities. Small community facilities could have been provided at strategic locations throughout the town, thereby providing a network of high quality sport and recreation facilities for the growing population of Swords. This community benefit of planning could be applied to every town.
I am satisfied that the provisions in the Bill are the way to move forward and should be enshrined in legislation. I have no doubt that some Deputies, hopefully a minority, when they walk through the division lobbies tomorrow evening, will endeavour to find fault with the Bill. Some may say that a further financial contribution in terms of granting planning permission would hike up the cost of houses. This point has already been put to me and I reject it out of hand. The cost of housing is the most important social issue in the country. The huge jump in house prices, particularly over the past few years, has nothing to do with such things as a community charge of, for example, £300 levied on a builder. The crisis is much broader, and if the Government was serious about tackling the issues it would adopt the radical proposals contained in the housing commission document recently published by the Labour Party. One recommendation of the commission, namely, the introduction of a price certificate, would rapidly reduce astronomical house prices which are crippling so many young couples. I will not accept the spurious argument that passage of the Bill would increase prices, while the Government has sat on its hands for the past two years as house prices went through the roof.
Certain developers endeavouring to advance rezoning proposals in a development plan have no difficulty in doing a deal involving a financial contribution towards the provision of sporting facilities. This is catching on throughout the country. It depends, of course, on the success of a rezoning application. I am totally opposed to developers or builders using the legitimate needs of a community as an added incentive or a carrot to influence rezoning. Builders and developers are engaged in using the legitimate needs of communities to enhance their rezoning proposals. In many places they have pitted communities against each other; this is wrong. However, I have no difficulty whatsoever in encouraging a community planning benefit as put forward in my Bill and on the basis of legislation. Let everything be above board and accountable.
I wish to briefly refer to the recent moves to facilitate high density development in an attempt to relieve pressure in the housing market. On the basis of the Minister's proposals, more houses per acre will require a reduction in the size of private gardens and that implies that apartment living may well become an everyday reality for some families. It is imperative that if high density proposals are to work – there are questions in this regard – they must be first class developments and tie in with the proper planning and development of the area in which they are located. In this regard we cannot afford to have cowboy developers walking through the system and abusing the concept we are now trying to put forward.
Tomorrow night I will have an opportunity to close the debate. Not everything in the Bill is perfect. How could it be when it is introduced by a backbencher? However, the principle of the Bill is worthy of the support of the House because it is the demand of the people and the duty of the House to do that. I hope the Minister of State takes on board the concept of the Bill.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and congratulate my colleague, Deputy Seán Ryan, on publishing this timely and important legislation. Housing is quickly becoming the most pressing national problem and threatens to undermine the success of the booming economy. The provision of affordable housing is one matter the Government has failed to tackle meaningfully. Even for those fortunate enough to be in a position to secure a home, loopholes in the legislation have resulted in a situation where basic construction work on homes and facilities in housing complexes have been left unfinished and those responsible can continue this practice with impunity.
The legislation is consumer-driven. It places a legal responsibility on construction companies to carry out the work central to the application for planning permission and which was promised to the consumer prior to the sale of the home. It promotes best practice in the industry and seeks to compel all constructors to raise their standards to those equivalent to the best in the industry. Despite all the efforts of councils, county and urban district, there are still developers who are solely profit-driven and are prepared to ignore the basic legal requirements of their applications.
Statutory limits, both financial and legal, must be set to prevent rogue developers using unfortunate, in many cases, first time buyers as their guinea pigs. These unfortunate people, driven to buy by the tremendous increasing demand for housing and purchasing in almost all cases where estates have not been completed, are dependent upon the responsible attitude of the developer to fulfil the conditions attached to the permission granted by the local authority. In too many cases, unfortunately, they find the developer has no intention of completing the estate within a reasonable time of the purchaser taking up residence.
I regret my experience in south Kildare is that young families buoyed by the Celtic tiger who have bought houses there now find themselves residing in estates where no green areas have been developed, there is no street lighting and no basic road structure in many cases. These problems cause great concern for the people involved in terms of their safety, that of their parents and those who visit them and in terms of security and safety problems. It is something that must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
As legislators, we must ensure the Celtic tiger does not devour its own in the interests of profiteering by those developers who are only interested in personal gain and who ignore the lawful right of the purchaser to their entitlement to a properly completed home, environment and serviced infrastructure. There are many things Deputies find difficult to put right but this is not one of them. The Government is already on record as recognising that this is an important issue. It should not do what it did when my party raised this issue in the Seanad through Senator Seán Ryan, as he then was, vote down the Bill. It should accept it, bring it to Committee Stage and implement this necessary and reasonable proposal. I have no problem in commending the Bill to the House.
I also commend my colleague, Deputy Seán Ryan, for bringing this timely legislation before us. It concerns the basic elements of human living in that much of the ability of families and individuals to pursue a good life is concerned with their environment. The House should address the issue of people living in an environment without adequate lighting, where roads are in a dishevelled state for five, six, seven or more years, where there is inadequate green space, where an estate has not been adequately laid out or finished in accordance with the granted planning permission, is developed house by house or a few houses at a time, as happened in my constituency. Our predecessors should probably have dealt with this over the past 36 or 37 years. Bad design and a badly planned environment can have negative effects on our lives. Many of the anti-social and other difficult problems society faced in the 1980s and the early years of this decade resulted from the condition of the built environment. It is in that context I welcome the Bill.
As Deputy Ryan said, it may well be that the rogue builders who construct a number of houses, who disappear having only completed a basic snagging list and who spend decades fleeing from the rightful demands of residents' associations are in a minority, but there is an obligation on the House, the Construction Industry Federation and other agencies, such as the Irish Home Builders' Association, to ensure there is a legislative approach to the matter. My colleagues referred to the fine tradition of home ownership, something we have struggled to maintain in recent years because of the massive doubling of house prices and the lethargic reaction of the Government in coping with the crisis.
At a meeting of Dublin City Council in the Mansion House last night, we struggled to come to terms with the first estates being planned under the affordable housing scheme. One of the difficulties was that neither councillors nor officials knew the exact dimensions, criteria and carry-through of the scheme. I hope when the Minister of State speaks with his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, he will bring that to his attention.
Large areas of my constituency, such as the estates in Clonshaugh and the Grange Abbey estate and environs in Donaghmede, have suffered for 25 to 30 years from the phenomenon of unfinished estates. My area of Clonshaugh has been plagued in that period by the problem of derelict sites and laneways throughout unfinished estates. It has been the responsibility of management committees and residents' associations to try to unravel, usually slowly and painfully, the mistakes made by the builders of the 1960s and 1970s.
The Grange Abbey estate had for 25 years a massive road reservation through it, with the public sector and the builders who constructed it making no plans or preparations to allow the 500 householders to live in that type of dispersed estate. Estates in the Sutton area have been built house by house resulting in the phenomenon of people paying huge mortgages for expensive houses and, in one case, living for seven years in what was effectively a building site. That is an outrageous state of affairs.
A major new estate has been developed in Clare Hall on the northern fringes of my constituency, also the northern fringes of Dublin city. It is effectively a new parish for the city and the constituency. Many of the conditions in the original planning permission for that, in many ways, meritorious development relating to boundaries of green areas, railings and the historical monument on the site were not implemented.
This is a Bill I am happy to commend. Deputy Ryan has certainly done his homework. His Bill provides a legal framework in sections 3 and 4 whereby a rogue builder who has misbehaved and caused heartache to householders over a number of years may be put out of the business if he does not change his ways. Perhaps that is a strong measure but many householders feel this kind of legislation is needed. I commend the Bill to the House and I congratulate my colleague, Deputy Ryan.
I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Sullivan.
I thank Deputy Ryan for introducing this Bill which is important to people in many parts of the country. As the Deputy stated, there is a problem in practically every local authority area. Galway Corporation, of which I was a member for 18 years, once dealt with one builder regarding six unfinished estates. The builder manifested several different titles to his company, which had developed each estate in turn. I recall that complaints about one of the estates went on for 13 years. As a councillor for the area I was regularly asked when would the corporation provide facilities ranging from lighting and grass-cutting to maintenance and my reply always had to be that the corporation had not yet taken over the estate. I was totally unsatisfied in all those years with the response of the local authority, which gave the impression that it was involved in secret negotiations with the builder to exercise some kind of moral suasion to get him on side. I will emphasise a point Deputy Ryan made. There are builders who recognise their responsibilities and who finish estates, but I mention the builder with six unfinished estates because there are a hard core who seem to think that they will get away with it again and again.
It seemed to me the Construction Industry Federation exercised little influence on such builders. I do not know whether the builders concerned were members of CIF but I know that in at least one case the builder was a member of the federation. The time has come when we will be able to give citizens a guarantee about finishing building projects.
I agree with another point Deputy Ryan made about the text of his Bill, lest anybody suggest there is the slightest suggestion that the Bill is unconstitutional. Even under the 1963 Act, it is perfectly open to a local authority, in granting planning permission, to take into account the capacity to deliver the project for which application has been made. If there is clear evidence that those proposing the project have failed again and again and are in flagrant violation of undertakings which they have given again and again, why should they be listened to or believed when making a further application?
The issue at elections is always the same. People say they have paid for their houses, moved into virtual building sites and they cannot get the builder to come back.
The Bill has three elements. First, the track record of the builder-applicant should be taken into account. Second, there should be a levy for community benefit to sit side by side with the proper planning which the local authority might suggest in regard to provisions. Third, damages should be awarded to those whose contracts with the developer have been broken.
Anyone who votes against the Bill is voting for the continuation of these abuses and I would invite householders and people who live in unfinished estates to note that fact. The time has come to deal with this problem. If the Government is serious, it will state that it accepts the three principles of Deputy Ryan's Bill. Then if it wants to improve on the text, let it do so on Committee Stage. It would be unforgivable if the Government voted down a Bill which sought to achieve these three objectives.
There was a reference to the argument about what is happening with regard to the current housing crisis, which is denied by the Government. There is a housing crisis at every level of housing from private and public rented accommodation through to affordable housing. Couples with two incomes who must take time away from family life effectively to become mortgage slaves to purchase shelter in a highly speculative market are not assisted by the piecemeal measures introduced on foot of the first and second Bacon reports. For example, to change densities without making public provision for space is to give an additional windfall to the person who is speculating on the site already. People who advise high density development in one part of the country need to look at whether the argument is suitable in another part. In every city and town in Europe people have opted for higher density development where there was provision for public parks and where public recreational and amenity space was developed as opposed to the kind of aggregated small bits and pieces to which we have become used. Let those who are advising higher density development compare like with like properly as it is done in Europe.
If the Government is serious, it will take on board the proposals of the independent commission chaired by Professor Drudy. These begin with a simple recommendation, that local authorities must have the right to establish land banks to enable them to begin to put an end to the present situation where more and more people are being driven into virtual slavery, in terms of the proportion of their income which they must sacrifice, to meet the basic needs of shelter.
This is a Bill of principle. Let the Government accept it in principle on Second Stage. Let it state how it will amend it, but let it not vote it down without knowing that if it does so, it will be on the side of the rogue builder and against blackguards in dozens of estates throughout the country.
I congratulate Deputy Ryan on introducing the Bill. Like Deputy Higgins, I hope the Government will be in a position to accept it because we are trying to properly regulate the construction of housing. No doubt a huge amount of money is being made in house building and development by a relatively small number of people. If we do not regulate the market in this way, we are allowing people to make extra money on the backs of ordinary home buyers who are simply trying to make a home for themselves at a reasonable cost. This means that good builders and developers who properly finish houses and estates are in competition with those who do not. It makes sense to regulate this as carefully and closely as possible so that local authorities may ensure that houses and estates are properly finished.
My colleagues indicated that people in all parts of the country are suffering. They come to their local representatives having bought a house in good faith. Having seen the planning application and the conditions under which planning permission was given, they must go back and forth between the residents' association, members of the local authority, local Deputies, the local authority and the builder to try to get what was meant to be provided initially according to the regulations. This is a huge waste of time. It is a great worry for people and it is costly. We are simply trying to ensure that there are regulations in place and that they may be implemented by local authorities in the interests of the consumer.
In buying a home the consumer is probably making the biggest purchase of his or her life. We offer protection to consumers in many other areas which involve relatively small purchases in comparison to buying a home, yet in respect of that central purchase people must constantly lobby their local authorities to have this work done.
This Bill is well laid out to ensure this matter is properly regulated so that rogue builders may not proceed to develop another estate without having properly finished a previous one. It seems entirely logical and it makes a great deal of sense to the ordinary person buying a home and to people on this side of the House. We simply ask the Government to accept this Bill, which will make a big difference to a huge number of ordinary people.
I wish to share time with Deputy Michael Kitt.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I condemn in the strongest possible terms unfinished estates and the builders who fail in their duty to ensure housing estates are properly completed. House purchasers are entitled to expect that the basic infrastructure of roads and footpaths are properly finished and that open spaces are properly landscaped and cleaned up.
Turning to Deputy Ryan's Bill, I sympathise with his objective as I am sure all Deputies have come across the problem of unfinished housing estates from time to time. From my own experience as a member of Cork Corporation, I recall estates which were left unfinished and in very unsatisfactory condition.
The planning system has a critical role in ensuring that developers meet their obligations in these respects. As the Deputy is aware, my colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, intends publishing a planning and development Bill to reform and consolidate the Planning Acts by mid year. In that Bill he will bring forward the Government's proposals for dealing with the problems arising from unfinished housing estates. As the Deputy is aware, I cannot pre-empt the publication of the Bill by going into its details. However, I assure the Deputy that it will deal comprehensively with the planning system from development plan stage to planning permissions to enforcement. It is also intended that the Bill will introduce important measures dealing with older estates which have been neglected for years and which Deputy Ryan's Bill will not address. Indeed, he has failed to address the most fundamental problem with unfinished estates as it is agreed that the main problem relates to those older estates.
Mr. Hayes
It also relates to modern estates.
The publication of the Bill will, of course, be one more example of the Government honouring the commitments made in An Action Programme for the Millennium which stated that "it is now time to start the process of updating and consolidating our planning laws to prepare for the challenges of the new millennium".
There is absolutely no doubt but that the minority of builders who leave estates unfinished do a disservice to their trade. The construction industry is a very important part of the economy and its output now accounts for around 20 per cent of GDP. It is unfortunate that such a major industry, in particular the house building sector, is being tarnished in the public mind by builders who operate on a "fly by night" basis and leave estates with unfinished roads, lighting and public areas. Such estates are a hazard to the safety of the adults and children living on them and seriously detract from the quality of life of residents.
Let there be no doubt that builders themselves carry primary responsibility for these matters. I believe, however, that bodies such as the CIF and the Irish Home Builders' Association have a role to play in regulating the conduct of builders. It is in the interests of the building industry that the public has confidence that builders will complete developments to the satisfaction of their clients. In this regard, I would particularly ask HomeBond whether they should continue to register builders who fail in their duty to properly finish estates.
The report on the strategic review of the construction industry which was published in June 1997 recommended that there should be a registration scheme for contractors in the building industry to ensure consumer protection, quality, health and safety and efficiency in the industry. These proposals are being considered by the Forum for the Construction Industry which is charged with overseeing the detailed implementation of the report. I trust the forum will bring forward proposals on this in due course. The report, entitled "Building Our Future Together", also recommended the introduction of a national physical development bond scheme with the fun damental aim of guaranteeing the proper finishing of developments. I understand that draft proposals have been circulated for comment and I would hope that the forum will be able to reach agreement on a land scheme later this year.
One element in the Government's "Action on House Prices" is the increasing of residential densities. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government recently issued planning guidelines on increasing residential densities for public consultation. Increased densities can deliver an increased supply of housing from existing land and infrastructure and make more economic use of future infrastructure.
High quality design is essential in the context of increased density. Higher densities demand better design finishes and amenities to give residents a high quality living environment. Developers have been given fair warning of the standards local authorities will be requiring in planning applications. The finish of estates, including roads, public open space and the arrangements for managing open space, will be of paramount importance in securing public acceptance of higher densities. There can be no question of developers leaving such schemes unfinished.
Many of the unfinished estate problems arose from older permissions granted without laying down proper stringent conditions. Under section 26(2)(e) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, conditions may be imposed on granting a planning permission requiring the giving of security for satisfactory completion of the proposed development. The development control advice and guidelines, published by the Department of the Environment and Local Government in October 1982, dealt comprehensively with this issue. The guidelines emphasised the need for adequate security to enable local authorities to complete the necessary works to a satisfactory standard in the event of default by the developer. The advice has in general been followed and the use of bonds by local authorities has been shown to have been generally effective.
The Department's advice to local authorities has also emphasised the scope for attaching conditions regarding the phasing of housing estates as a means of avoiding the problem of unfinished estates. This advice was backed up by the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1990, which provided for the inclusion in planning permissions of conditions, without attracting compensation, relating to the giving of security, the phasing and completion of works and the occupation of structures.
They are not working.
It might also be noted, of course, that we have moved some way from the type of large scale housing developments we had in the past which were more prone to problems with unsatisfactory completion.
The Bill before us contains five provisions. Section 3 (a) amends section 25 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, to enable the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to make regulations requiring applicants for planning permission to submit information to the planning authority regarding previous developments carried out by that applicant or by a connected person. This provision aims to provide the planning authority with the record of the applicant and connected persons when that authority considers subsequent applications.
The second provision provides that the planning authority may have regard to any information furnished to it in relation to the history of the applicant when dealing with the application. The planning authority can consider that information as part of the assessment of the application and refuse permission where the authority considers there is a real and substantial risk that the development would not be carried out in a reasonable time and in accordance with any conditions which might have been laid down. This second provision introduces a fairly significant new concept to planning legislation, that a local authority should refuse to grant permission when the authority is satisfied that the conditions would not be fully complied with. This could have wide implications which need to be carefully considered.
Implications for whom?
Section 4(1) sets out conditions to which a grant of planning permission can be made subject. The first requires the applicant to enter into a bond guaranteeing that the development will be carried out and completed within a specific period of time and in accordance with all the conditions attached to the permission. It is not clear to me that this is in effect an extension of the provisions contained in section 26(2)(e) of the 1963 Act.
Section 4(1)(b) enables a local authority to require a developer to make a financial contribution towards the provision of facilities such as buildings, parks, recreation facilities and open spaces for the benefit of the community. Local authorities already have the power to seek a contribution towards the provision of open spaces. The forthcoming Bill will bring forward new proposals on contributions.
Section 5 provides that a developer and other persons involved in the direction and management of funding of the development owe a duty of care to those who become residents in the proposed estate, to ensure that the development is carried out and completed in accordance with all the conditions of the grant of permission. Section 5(2) states that a person who suffers loss or damage by reason of the failure or refusal of another person to comply with this duty of care can take an action in any court of competent jurisdiction in like manner as any other action in tort.
As the law stands, a person who does not comply with a condition of permission is guilty of an offence. In addition, under section 27 of the Planning and Development Act, 1976, any person may seek a High Court or Circuit Court injunction seeking that development be carried out in conformity with the planning permission. The provision in Deputy Ryan's Bill does not add to the existing law.
The solutions put forward in this Bill, especially sections 3 and 5, pose complex legal questions. The Bill raises significant issues related to planning and company law.
A standard Government reply.
It would not be possible to accept this Bill without carefully examining these complex legal issues in detail.
That is why there is a Government.
The Minister must be allowed to make his contribution without interruption.
For example, while the definition of "connected person" from the Ethics in Public Office Act may be suitable in the context of disclosure of interests, it may not be a suitable base for making decisions on planning applications. Could the brother or sister of a rogue developer be held accountable for that brother or sister's past failure where the two companies are unconnected? I acknowledge the perception that problems arise from the practice of setting up separate companies for each development. Although the principals of the companies are the same people, the companies are separate legal entities. In looking at these issues we will need to consider if the extensive provisions of the Companies Acts on reckless trading and the disqualification of directors are of relevance.
It could be easy to circumvent the proposals as land can be held in the name of company A and the applicant for planning permission can be in the name of company B. However, the real developer is company C which had been in breach of previous planning permissions. Once company B obtains planning permission, it can transfer the same to company C.
Local authorities and An Bord Pleanála will have to ensure that the principles of natural justice are not infringed when deciding that it is reasonbale to infer "that the development in respect of which permission is sought would not be carried out and completed within a reasonable period of time and in accordance with any conditions to which it might be subject".
A detailed examination of the constitutionality of this proposal is needed as any blanket right to refuse permission on the basis of a previous breach of any planning condition could constitute an unjustified attack on a person's constitutional rights. Section 5 also raises substantial legal issues which need careful consideration.
It is also worth noting that the main problems relate to older estates and it does not appear that any new legislation can do much for them as there is a limit to what can be done by way of retrospective legislation.
Tell that to my constituents.
Mr. Hayes
We are talking about the future
Deputy Ryan does not attempt in the Bill to deal with the problem of older estates. It would only apply to planning applications received by planning authorities after the Bill is enacted.
We have to make a start.
The solution lies in planning permission which has all necessary conditions attached and which is enforced by the local authority. The provision of an adequate bond also means that where a local authority must finish an estate, there would be sufficient moneys to meet the costs of the works.
Deputy Ryan's Bill is well intentioned and I sympathise with his objective. His Bill, however, is a piecemeal approach to solving this problem. I am convinced that the problems of unfinished estates can best be dealt with in the context of the comprehensive review of planning legislation which is close to finalisation. Drafting of the Bill is at an advanced stage. The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, the Department and the Office of the Attorney General are all working hard to ensure that we can bring forward a Bill which will give us a better planning system, one that will cope with our changing times.
The issues which Deputy Ryan raised today and previously in the Seanad are being addressed seriously so we can come forward with effective solutions. I share his frustration with estates being left unfinished for many years but, as I have explained, the present planning code ensures that adequate bonds can be lodged with the planning authorities to ensure that estates are finished. A proper enforcement of planning and the use of bonds has meant that estates built in recent years have generally been finished and taken in charge.
The problem, as Deputy Ryan recognised, relates to older estates.
I did not mention older estates.
However, this Bill does nothing for existing estates. This Government will ensure that the issue of existing estates will be comprehensively tackled. The Government Bill will also contain major reforms to planning enforcement controls in general. While Deputy Ryan's Bill is worthy, it will not deal comprehensively with the issues which concern him. The proposed Government Bill will deal with a num ber of other points raised by the Deputy, including the issue of the provision of community and social facilities.
I agree that introducing higher density housing development requires top quality design. The draft housing density guidelines which my Department has published recognise this aspect as critical to the concept of higher density development. My Department recently held a number of seminars with local authorities and has stressed the importance of this issue.
Deputy Broughan mentioned the problem of estates being built in stages. The present law allows for the phasing of development to ensure that each phase is completed before the next phase commences. It is a matter for the local authority to properly enforce the powers it already has. The proposal will not alter that.
Deputy Higgins pointed out the difficulty in dealing with builders who change company names each time they propose a development. This type of evasion makes it very difficult to take the past record of the builder into consideration. The answer for estates which are being developed is to require an adequate bond to ensure that the estate can be finished to the full extent. The historical problems cited by Deputy Higgins will not be resolved by this Bill but will be tackled by the Government in the Bill it will publish shortly.
When the Bill is published in the summer, Deputies will agree that the Government has endeavoured to address the issues raised today. Given that this comprehensive planning reform Bill will shortly be before the House, I ask the Deputy to withdraw his Bill.
Crocodile tears. The Minister is showing on what side his bread is buttered.
I congratulate Deputy Ryan for publishing this Bill. Like the Minister I sympathise with his objectives. As public representatives we are all aware of the difficulties faced by constituents when estates are not finished, particularly with roads, footpaths and lighting.
Since I became a Member of this House, every Government and political party has said in an election manifesto that local authorities will take over estates which are not finished. Our manifesto in 1977 set out such a proposal. The same issue comes up in every election and it is relevant to what the Minister of State Deputy Wallace said about older estates. At that time fly by night builders were working and bonds were not available to local authorities, denying them the opportunity to use that money to complete the estates. I hope the CIF will play a more active role and that use will be made of home bond because the bodies mentioned are important. To be fair to the construction industry, a more enlightened approach is being taken and there are stricter guidelines on planning permission at the start of the process.
Like the Minister of State, I look forward to the planning and development Bill which will be introduced in the House by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey. I hope it will deal with the issues we have discussed and which Deputy Ryan has highlighted.
There has been much talk on the part of the Minister and in the media about high density building as a solution to the problems of estates and planning and development. I represent a mostly rural area and high density building is being put forward as a quick fix solution. In housing estates in smaller towns, one access road is used for different phases of building and that can lead to a great deal of disruption and hardship for the people living in the first phase of the estate. Phasing in developments is not a solution to the problem.
The Minister of State and Deputy Higgins referred to the question of companies changing their names. That is an issue not just in relation to building but in the whole area of company law in that, by simply changing its name, a company can set up in business again with the same personnel. That is an issue across the business world, not just in the housing area. Hopefully the Government will investigate that matter further in terms of what can be done about it.
I mentioned the difficulties for local authorities because it is the function of local authorities to deal with estates that are not completed. We know that a bond must be taken out and while the position has certainly improved, there is a serious problem with some of the older estates. I feel sorry for families with young children living in estates where play areas are not completed and real frustration is being experienced. In addition, there are problems in some local authority areas with the safety of playground equipment, insurance and so on. That is a nightmare for the people who have to address the problem.
I look forward to the debate on the planning and development Bill when it is published.
Mr. Hayes
I wish to share my time with Deputy Naughten.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Mr. Hayes
It is clear from the comments of the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, that the principles of natural justice to which he alluded do not apply to home owners because, once again, the Government, in response to this excellent proposal from Deputy Ryan, has dodged the central issue behind this Bill. As most Members of the House will be aware, the Bill, in a modified form, was first introduced by the then Senator Ryan in Seanad Éireann in November 1997. It was fascinating to listen to the contribution of the Minister of State tonight—
I am glad the Deputy was impressed.
Mr. Hayes
—by comparison with the contribution of the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, in November 1997. The script has not changed. There is no change in the Government's position and I would encourage it to think long and hard before it comes into the House in response to Private Members' time, whether it is legislation of this kind or motions, and get its act together. If we refer back to the contribution of the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, in the Seanad on 19 November 1997 on the then Senator Ryan's Bill, the same arguments are rehearsed but there is no advancement of the intent of the legislation.
This is a good Bill and it should be supported on all sides of the House. Every Member of the House agrees with and supports its principles and, as Deputy Higgins said in his contribution, if the Minister has substantive difficulty with certain aspects of the Bill – I have questions about some aspects of it – let us put it to the committee. That is the reason we have committees of the Dáil. We are not here to railroad legislation through the House at the whim of the Executive. All 166 Members of the House have rights in terms of putting Bills of this nature to the Dáil. It is not just the prerogative of the Executive to determine at its will which Bills it chooses to accept or reject. That is the reason we have a committee system.
There was no major opposition in the Minister of State's contribution to many of the sections in the Bill because he and the Government have a proud hands-off record when it comes to the construction industry. That was evident last autumn when we dealt with the gazumping issue. I had the privilege of introducing the home purchase anti-gazumping Bill and the same spurious constitutional arguments were made then, that the Bill could not be accepted because it was fraught with constitutional difficulties. That is hogwash. If the will existed to address the problem of gazumping, the Bill would have been accepted. If the will existed on the opposite side of the House to take on a small element of the construction industry, we could easily deal with this matter by way of legislative change, in particular by way of a debate on Committee Stage. Unfortunately, the will does not exist and for whatever reason the Government does not want to take on a certain rogue element in the industry.
It is not good enough for the Minister of State to simply rehearse the arguments his senior colleague made in 1997.
That is not true.
Mr. Hayes
In the Seanad debate in 1997, the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, said that when the national convention, the convention established to consider the issue of planning, was over, it was his intention to complete the review as quickly as possible and to bring forward legislation. That was November 1997 and it is now May 1999. Where is the legislation? Once again the Minister of State has told us it is on the way but when will we see it? Why was this legislation not introduced earlier? The national convention has long since passed and the Minister has not acted quickly as he told Senators he would in 1997. There has been consistent foot dragging on the part of the Government on this issue.
This is a good Bill and Deputy Ryan should be congratulated on the manner in which he has attempted to change the law in this area. In opposing the Bill, one of the central arguments put forward by the Minister of State was that because the Bill does not deal in a retrospective way with older estates, we should not be concerned about it. I represent a constituency in which the bulk of housing development took place in the past ten to 15 years. I consistently come across developments which are two or three years old in which basic standards have still not been adhered to – streetlights not working, dubious pavements, and large mounds which are supposed to be open spaces left in an appalling condition. This Bill does not just deal with older estates. It deals with the future as we are setting down basic consumer protections for the purchase of a house – the most fundamental transaction in which any family will ever be involved.
Why is it that people feel they do not have the same consumer protection rights when they buy a house as when they purchase a car or a holiday? Why does that basic consumer protection not exist with regard to the purchase of a home? That loophole is addressed in the Bill and that is why the Bill should be supported.
It is not a case of arguing that this concerns only estates built 25 or 30 years ago. The taking in charge lists of local authorities are growing every day. South Dublin County Council has five categories of housing developments set aside for taking in charge. Many of these developments will be taken in charge in three or four years but this is not good enough when people are making such a massive investment.
The Minister of State repeated the comments he made in 1997 when he encouraged the Irish Home Builders' Association and HomeBond to establish a register. What has he done about this? He gave the same line in the Seanad in 1997. Why is he saying the same thing in May 1999? What discussions has he had with the Irish Home Builders' Association about establishing a register?
Did the Minister of State write to or telephone the association?
Mr. Hayes
What discussions has he had with HomeBond? Once again we see the Government's persistent foot-dragging when it comes to dealing with any aspect of regulation or control in the building industry. Why has this Government in particular consistently failed to introduce firm regulations regarding the construction industry?
What did the previous Government do about it?
Mr. Hayes
The people will have their say in a few weeks and the Deputy will have nothing more to say about it.
The Minister raised a number of arguments concerning section 3, particularly section 3(b). His argument is that one could not have a situation where, in order to obtain planning permission, local authorities would have to trawl the developer's record before determining whether they were fit to build houses. I accept the Minister of State's argument on this issue. I would have proposed recasting this subsection so that the local authority would accept the planning application but would stipulate a time-frame in the permission whereby one could not build for one or two years after this date until all the commitments undertaken to the authority were adhered to. That is the kind of amendment possible on Committee Stage and why the Government is wrong to vote against the Bill.
We are living in a time of high house price inflation – prices have increased by 50 per cent or 60 per cent over the past three years. Housing output has dramatically increased as a result of the demand for houses due to demographic changes. There is a need for clearly thought-out consumer protection legislation to ensure that people who purchase a home know what they are getting for their money, that they will not have to chase developers, councillors or residents associations and that all aspects of the planning permission are implemented.
The Government is wrong to vote down this Bill and to proceed on a course of action which will fly in the face of hundreds of thousands of young couples who have purchased their homes and ensured that the mortgage, which accounts for a substantial amount of their income, has to be paid. The Government should think again about this Bill. It should put it to the appropriate committee of the House so that it can be teased out to ensure proper consumer protection can be provided for all.
I welcome this Bill which will tackle a growing problem in urban constituencies but also, sadly, in rural counties. The current provisions regarding bonding have failed to ensure that developers complete work on estates. Developers are getting away with blue murder.
There are many problems with the bonding system. The bond is fixed when planning permission is granted. By the time the council forecloses on the bond the cost of completing the work will have risen greatly and the bond will not cover the cost. Some developments drag on for years which makes the bond non-viable. We will have to consider index-linking bonds.
There is also the problem that county councils are unwilling to take over the work and foreclose on the bond. Councils are dragging their heels on this issue. Roscommon County Council has never foreclosed on a bond even though there have been a number of problems with different developers.
Some areas consist of pre-bond estates which house an elderly population who have still not been taken over by councils. In some estates, work on footpaths, roads and public lighting has not been completed. Elderly people in these estates, some of whom are in wheelchairs, cannot afford to pay for the necessary development work from their pensions and the developer has disappeared. Most of these developers are building in some other part of the country and no control is being placed on them.
Other developers have disappeared completely. I know of one case in which there was no public lighting or footpaths in an estate for ten years. The developer could not be found. Eventually the council provided funds to carry out the work but the developer was gone and there was no bond in place.
There is no protection for home purchasers. This is the biggest, single investment a young couple will make. There is protection in the banking system and other sectors but there is no protection for young couples starting out in life against the developer going off and starting work on another development.
There are plenty of cowboys. I will give the Minister of State one example of the type of situation with which county councils are dealing as he does not seem to be aware of the difficulties for which some of these developers are responsible. One developer built two additional houses on an estate without planning permission. He is now using the non-completion of the estate as a gun to the council's head in an effort to get planning permission to build on the green areas within the estate. He also tried to charge families for the building of a wall around the estate. Since then he has had two further developments, both of which have yet to be completed. He has already obtained planning permission for two further developments which he has started. He has still not completed the original estate and the people are involved in a vain attempt to get him to complete the work. The piers of the wall for which he was attempting to charge the young couples are falling down and there is a huge risk that one of them will fall on a child playing in the area. The so-called green area is more like a swamp in Central Africa than a green area in Ireland.
This is the position in which that developer has left this estate. I have spoken with him and he is not worried about it. One might as well be talking to a brick wall. He does not care about the bond. It is small money to him. He has left three estates looking like a war zone and he is not willing to complete them, yet Roscommon County Council has given him planning permission for two additional estates and there is nothing it can do about it.
The Minister tells us he will do nothing about it. He had an ideal opportunity this evening. He could have accepted this legislation and amended it if necessary. The only way to stop this type of cowboy is to ensure he can be caught with the next planning application as suggested by Deputy Ryan or Deputy Hayes. That is the only way to control these cowboys. It is the only thing that hits their pocket. The bond is only small money to them. They do not care about it. The situation in which they have left numerous young couples throughout the country is nothing short of a disgrace.
Mr. Hayes
Hear, hear.
There are outflow pipes from drains and from the roadway running into rivers here, there and everywhere and there is no control whatsoever. In one estate the developer put a mains water pipe along one side and another along the other side. That means when there is a shortage of water and the water is turned off all the silt and dirt comes to the end of the street and, for the next ten or 12 days, the people in the estate have nothing but brown water. That is not acceptable in any area of the country, particularly where there is mains water. The county council has to come out and flush out the pipes using funds it should be using to upgrade rural water systems. We have no control on this type of developer.
There is one such estate in Ballaghaderreen in the north of the county. The Taoiseach was there during the week opening Dillon House and it is a pity we did not bring him to see this estate. The estate in question has 20 elderly residents. Two of them are wheelchair users and they cannot use the footpath because it was not completed. The residents cannot walk down the street at night because there is no public lighting. The developer cannot be found. He has done a runner. He is probably building in some other part of the country now. These elderly people come to me and other local councillors looking for public lighting and for the footpath to be completed. The council says it is the responsibility of the developer and that until the works are completed it cannot take over the estate. All that is left is for the residents to pay money to put in the services. I would like to see the Minister ask old-age pensioners for £500 or £600 to put in a footpath and another £500 or £600 for public lighting, which should have been put in when the estate was developed. There was a development charge in place which was included in the cost of the houses. However, there was no bond in place as this happened before bonds were introduced. This type of thing is happening up and down the country. It is frustrating for councils and for county councillors. Unless we have the legislation to back us up there is nothing we can do against these cowboys.
I welcome Deputy Ryan's legislation. It targets what we are looking for, but the Minister is not willing to accept it. He should look again at this legislation, before his colleagues come in here tomorrow night, to see if there is any way he can accept it. It is crucially important for those young couples and for other young people who pay up to £120,000 or £140,000 for a house in Dublin and £70,000 or £80,000 in any rural county only to find that the developer has gone on to flog another 40 or 50 houses, making huge profits, and they are left high and dry with nothing they can do about it. It is infuriating that these builders can put in a further application for planning permission. After causing problems for 20 or 30 young couples, perhaps with young children, they can do the same thing to another 20 or 30 families in another part of the county or in the next estate.
This is what we are dealing with and nothing is being done about it. The Minister talks about promised legislation but we have seen the delays there are in bringing legislation to this House.
Hear, hear.
There is a pile-up of legislation in every Department. It is like the traffic jams in the streets. I do not know why there is such a bottleneck. Perhaps we need to build a bypass around the Bills Office to get this legislation through. No priority is being given to this type of legislation when young couples are being scalded. When a Member proposes ingenious legislation which tackles the core issue, the Government is not willing to accept it because it plans to introduce its own legislation, but how long do we have to wait for that legislation?
Another two years.
It is crucially important that we start tackling these issues because this problem is growing throughout the country. In every rural village in Ireland there are individuals who are milking the system. I approached the individual of whom I spoke earlier and tried to talk reason with him, but he laughed at me. He asked me what we could do. I told him we could foreclose on his bond. He said that is only "Mickey Mouse" money, that he would make that in another couple of months and that he was not concerned about that. That is the man who built two extra houses in an estate and it took council officials two more years to discover that. That is what we are trying to deal with. However, the council's hands are tied in trying to target these cowboys, to root them out, make sure they get out of the county and out of the country and go somewhere else.
Debate adjourned.