Vol. 639 No. 2
95 Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he has ensured that local authorities will not allow the creation of management companies as part of planning permission conditions for traditional estates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22746/07]
142 Deputy Deirdre Clune asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government when he will ensure that new procedures are introduced for the taking of estates into charge by local authorities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22747/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 95 and 142 together.
The Planning and Development Act 2000 sets the statutory framework within which planning authorities must take in charge estates. In addition to the legal framework, my Department has also issued comprehensive policy guidance on the taking in charge of estates. In circular letter PD1/06, planning authorities were reminded of their responsibilities in this area and were asked as a priority to establish a policy on taking in charge to be approved by the members of the authority and reported on to those members on a regular basis or at least annually.
In July 2006, my Department issued circular letter PD5/06 to planning authorities stating that conditions requiring management companies should not be attached to planning permission for traditional housing estates, namely, estates of houses with individual private gardens, except in very specific circumstances. Such circumstances would include, for example, the maintenance of a particular service or shared facility that is provided for residents' use only, such as a playground.
The circular acknowledged, however, that the question of who should be responsible for the maintenance of certain shared facilities in the newer type of mixed estate needed further examination. Accordingly, my Department established a working group, representative of local authorities, architects, planners and consumer interests to consider this issue and other issues related to the taking in charge of estates. The group considered the issue of responsibility for the maintenance of common shared facilities in residential estates including small open spaces, car parking and playgrounds. It also looked at issues relating to the completion of estates and the taking in charge process. The group has completed its work and has produced suggested draft policy guidance for my consideration.
As indicated in previous replies to the House, I will carefully consider the draft policy guidance in the context of the new programme for Government commitments in this area, in order to determine the most effective course of action. I expect this process to be completed shortly.
I welcome the Minister's statement that the working group has completed its work and will shortly report on it to him. Will the Minister acknowledge there is ongoing extortion in respect of this scheme which is being used by some people to gather money for themselves rather than as payment to maintain open spaces in apartment complexes?
Will the Minister agree it is important legislation be introduced now to deal with this important issue rather than dealing with it by way of regulation in 2009, as recently indicated by him?
I have spoken to Deputy Hogan's colleague, Deputy Varadkar, about this matter. I know he is genuinely concerned about this. I am aware that as a councillor he experienced at first hand many of the difficulties involved in dealing with management companies.
I would like to reassure the Deputy that I received confirmation from my Department before coming into the Chamber that the working group has completed its work and that its report will be on my desk next week. This is a serious issue on which we must move as swiftly as possible. For this reason, I will use every ounce of my energy to ensure the matter is progressed as quickly as possible.
I thank the Minister for his response. On management companies, I have tabled a parliamentary question in respect of certain estates in my constituency. This sector is completely unregulated and people are being charged on the double in terms of high prices for homes and between €500 and €800 in management fees, depending on whether they live in a house or an apartment.
This is a serious issue. There are huge delays in the taking in charge of housing estates by local authorities. The management companies are extorting money from people for up to ten years in some instances. Will the Minister ensure the taking in charge process will be improved upon?
As I stated in reply to Deputy Hogan, this is a matter of great concern and I want to ensure is sorted out. These difficulties arose, as the Deputy will be aware, in the context of the unprecedented building programme which took place here. Estates were springing up like mushrooms all over the place, without, I acknowledge, proper facilities and where the management companies in place were exploitative in many cases. This is a matter deserving of urgent attention and it will be on my desk next week. The Deputy's colleague, Deputy Varadkar, has stopped me in the corridor on a number of occasions and I would be happy to talk to him about this matter.
96 Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to statistics produced by the Environmental Protection Agency showing that a number of Ireland’s recycling companies are dumping up to 60% of waste from some of their facilities into landfill sites; the steps he will take to deal with this situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22814/07]
I have seen the newspaper report which appears to be the basis for this question. The report makes it clear that the data includes the landfilling of unsegregated municipal waste which cannot be recycled.
The most recent national waste report, published by the Environmental Protection Agency states that the recovery rate for municipal waste in 2005 was 34.6%. This was almost four times the equivalent figure for 1998, which was 9%. The recent media reports appear to suggest that waste management companies have reported even higher diversion rates to the EPA in respect of 2006 although this information is subject to analysis by the agency prior to publication. The national waste report 2006 will be published in early 2008 by the EPA. The ever-increasing recovery rates being reported by the agency would indicate that municipal waste presented for segregated collection by businesses and householders or collected through civic amenity sites is indeed being diverted from landfill.
I fully recognise that despite the improved national recycling performance we need to continue to improve our performance. The programme for Government commits us to establishing new ambitious waste management targets for maximum prevention, reuse and recycling with a view to ensuring that we match the best performance in the EU with the objective that only 10% or less is consigned to landfill as opposed to the current rate of 66%. The programme also provides for a comprehensive review of waste management planning which I have directed my Department to initiate. This review will ensure that our waste management plans reflect best international practice and that we have the policies and infrastructure to meet ambitious environmental objectives.
The Minister is aware of the statistics which are referred to in the question but he has not stated the steps he intends taking. Many of the companies involved in sending as much as 60% of waste to landfill are the big waste companies such as Oxygen, Thornton and Panda. There is big money to be made by waste recycling companies who are enjoying huge profit margins as private companies are entitled to do. This Minister is a member of the Green Party and his policy should be that of the polluter pays but the Government of which he is a member is actually paying these companies to pollute.
A question, please, Deputy Tuffy.
This means that our targets for climate change are being obstructed because we continue to send waste to landfill and produce methane gas. How can a Green Party Minister stand over a policy which is basically paying private companies to pollute, especially when residents are doing the opposite?
The story on which the Deputy bases her information is incorrect. The issue is unsegregated waste. It could be inferred from the newspaper article that 40% of waste is now being recycled. It gave the impression that materials which could be recycled were going to landfill and this is not the case. This is the crucial point which I bring to the Deputy's attention and which she needs to understand.
On the question of the principle of the polluter pays, I accept this principle and it is a core issue for my party. We were always brave enough, when it came to making these decisions at local authority level, to say that waste charges were needed. The same cannot be said for the Deputy's party because I have direct experience of that where people——
The Minister should not be political in his comments.
I will not be political.
Some of the Minister's councillors voted against waste charges.
It is unfortunately the case. Consistency is required because the principle of the polluter pays actually works. We know now that more people are using the green bin. The waste to which Deputy Tuffy and I are referring is waste that goes into the grey or black bin.
The Minister has one minute for answers to Other Questions and he has already taken up two minutes in this segment.
I will be happy to continue because there is an important point to be made.
What measures will the Minister consider to stop quarries from extracting contaminated stone which is used in landfill and housing and which is a significant issue in my constituency of Dublin North East? I refer to the issue of pyrites which is affecting hundreds, if not thousands, of homes. What measures will he take to ensure a departmental task force is established immediately?
I rise to support my colleague, Deputy Terence Flanagan. I do not believe the Department has grasped the importance or serious nature of this issue with regard to what is extracted from quarries and what goes into landfill and also into the infill under the foundations of houses. This is a significant issue affecting up to 30,000 homes. A working group is required on this issue, a point I ask the Minister to consider.
This is not related to the question in the name of Deputy Quinn. I addressed this issue in some detail in an Adjournment debate when the matter was raised by Deputy Broughan. I informed Deputy Broughan that I shared his concern. I wish to establish as quickly as possible the location of the use of this pyrite and whether it was used in other areas. It is an important matter but it is not related to this question.
I will allow Deputy Tuffy a brief supplementary question.
The Minister has given the House a rose-tinted version of what is being sent to landfill. He probably would not give this version if he were not the Minister.
The newspapers were reporting on the report of the EPA about this issue. Both the Minister and I know what goes into black bins and much of this is waste that could be recycled. In some counties, 93% of the municipal waste is sent to landfill. The residents do their part by segregating waste where the opportunity is provided to them but the Government, through the local authorities, is paying companies large sums of money to dump waste in landfill.
I will allow Deputy Naughten a final rider on this question.
Will the Minister take action regarding local authorities which make provision in county development plans for apartment blocks to have only two bins? Many parts of the country are providing additional recycling bins. What will the Minister do about it?
I was stopped short in my reply to Deputy Tuffy.
The black bag and the grey bin are very important. I believe we can do much better with regard to unsegregated waste by investing in MBT, mechanical biological treatment of waste. I had the opportunity to visit an excellent MBT plant in Austria. An MBT plant should be located at every landfill site. This is low technology rather than high technology. The waste is sorted and treated and the amount of waste can be substantially reduced. The most important point is that what goes into the landfill is then inert. This procedure takes about 12 weeks to allow the waste become inert and for the water content to be sufficiently low to avoid leachate. All metals can be removed. The most important factor in order to comply with the landfill directive is to deal with the biological fraction of the waste stream. That is why it is so important that brown bins be distributed. The local authorities must do that. It would make an enormous difference.
No provision is made in planning.
I will deal with the Deputy's point. There is a problem in two areas. One is apartment living and the other is with dispersed communities. We must deal with that issue. That is the reason I am setting up the review of waste management. Those two areas must be addressed, and I hope we will find a solution. However, the key to dealing with waste is having proper MBT facilities.
97 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the steps he will take to increase the availability of affordable housing and sites to young people; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22296/07]
The provision of affordable housing is a key priority for the Government and is a key element of the "Paths to home ownership" component of the Government's housing policy statement, Delivering Homes, Sustaining Communities. Significant progress has been made in increasing delivery under the range of affordable housing mechanisms currently in place, including the shared ownership scheme, the 1999 affordable housing scheme, Part V of the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2006 and the affordable housing initiative. In total, in excess of 3,200 affordable homes were delivered in 2006, an increase of 20% on the previous year.
In the National Development Plan 2007-13, the Government has committed to the delivery of 40,000 affordable homes over the seven year period of the plan. Under the social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, a total of 17,000 of these are to be delivered over the three years 2007 to 2009. My Department is working closely with local authorities and the Affordable Homes Partnership to achieve the significant increases in delivery required to meet these ambitious targets. While the existing delivery mechanisms will be expected to contribute substantially to achieving the required output, the Affordable Homes Partnership, at my Department's request, has undertaken a study to examine how delivery from these mechanisms can be enhanced and to consider possible additional delivery mechanisms. I expect to receive the final report from this study shortly.
In addition, a low-cost site scheme is in place through which sites can be made available, at discounted prices, primarily to approved applicants on local authority housing lists, where it is considered this is an appropriate mechanism for meeting their accommodation requirements. Decisions on the making available of sites under this scheme are a matter for individual local authorities.
Apart from the various schemes designed to deliver affordable housing, certain ancillary supports are also available to support certain applicants to realise their home ownership aspirations. Specifically, the mortgage allowance and rent subsidy schemes help lower income households access shared ownership and affordable housing by providing an annual subvention towards the repayment costs.
The Minister of State is new to his job and I wish him the best of luck with it. I wish to focus on the issue of affordable sites. I made the Minister of State's predecessor aware of a huge difficulty with such sites. Is this Minister of State aware that there is no basis in law for affordable sites? This is causing a huge problem with lending institutions, given the issues of security and clawback on the site. Will the Minister of State give a commitment to address the anomaly in the legislation with regard to affordable sites? He must ensure the system currently in place for affordable houses is also put in place for affordable sites. There is huge demand for affordable sites but the legal anomalies, which are not being addressed by the Department, are prohibiting local authorities from making such sites available.
That surprises me. It has not come to my attention.
The Minister of State's officials are aware of it. They must not have briefed the Minister on it.
Already, through Part V, site subsidy is achieved by virtue of the fact that land components of the cost of homes reflect only the existing use value, that is, the agricultural value of sites. Under the affordable housing initiative, the site subsidy is achieved. The process is in place. Under the 1999 affordable housing scheme, a site subsidy can be provided by the Department where necessary. That subsidy is payable for the Dublin metropolitan area——
That is for affordable houses, not affordable sites.
——including the city of Dublin and for Dún Laoghaire Rathdown, Fingal, south Dublin and certain parts of Kildare, Meath and Wicklow. In the cities of Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway there is a subsidy in place and sites are being taken up. However, I will take up the issue with my officials and report back directly to the Deputy.
The affordable housing and sites scheme is fantastic but we have that problem in the parish of Carlanstown. People were approved for affordable sites but then encountered the problem mentioned by Deputy Naughten. It is everybody's ambition to own their own house. I have put forward an idea in County Meath and there have been responses from builders as well as from the people who want to own a house. Will the Minister re-examine the current housing situation? In the counties of Meath, Cavan, Monaghan and Louth there are thousands of houses that cannot be sold. In one estate, there are 40 such houses and nobody can bid on them. Ten people per day join the affordable housing scheme in Meath. Could the Department's officials examine the possibility of matching those people with the houses the builders cannot sell? These people are only short of the affordable €30,000 site with the grant on it. This idea would help the building industry. There are 7,500 empty houses in Meath and 8,000 in Cavan.
Obviously, what happened in 2005 and 2006 was unsustainable. There was a frenzy, with people afraid they would not get on the property ladder. They bought property and the amount of finance made available led to price inflation. That could not be sustained. From the point of view of people in the market at present, it is time the Construction Industry Federation learned again how to sell. There will no longer be queues for houses. There is good value for money in the market for individuals.
People talk about interest rates increasing on eight occasions by 0.25%. The last budget provided mortgage interest relief which equated to three of the ECB interest rate increases. Stamp duty was removed for first time house purchasers and income tax was reduced. In the intervening period the affordability of houses has gone from 29.9% to 24%. There is far greater affordability. People who are selling houses must realise that they are now in a different market. They must go out and sell their houses, whether it is to auctioneers or customers, and not wait for the Government. The Government will act in the interests of the consumer in the next budget through the promise of further mortgage reliefs.
I remind Members that there is one minute for a supplementary question and the Minister of State has one minute to respond.
Dún Laoghaire and the constituency of the Minister, Deputy Gormley, and Deputy Chris Andrews do not have any houses or land. There is a long waiting list for the few affordable houses available. Local authorities are the housing authorities but they cannot perform their function because there is no land on which to build houses. The only way of dealing with that is to consider establishing a housing authority. There is an Affordable Homes Partnership but all it can do, which is causing enormous problems, is approach the owners of large houses who fail to get increased density through a development plan and suggest that they sell their houses for affordable housing, which is a contradiction of the development plan already made by the local authority. We have total confusion.
The Deputy must ask a question.
Will the Minister of State consider how we will deal with the problem as it relates to areas such as Dún Laoghaire and the constituencies of Dublin South-East and Dublin South which do not have land? If one is unfortunate enough to have been born in one of these areas one moves lock, stock and barrel to Counties Meath or Cavan and commutes, which leads to other problems on a daily basis.
Deputy Barrett managed to take two minutes for his one minute slot.
I apologise.
Before I call on the Minister of State to make a final reply I will allow Deputy Naughten to ask a final supplementary question.
In his original reply, the Minister of State stated affordable sites are a matter for local authorities. This is where the inherent problem lies. The Department does not take ownership of the primary legislation required in this area. We have a successful affordable housing scheme which the Minister of State spoke about at length. We need a legislative support for the same scheme. My colleague from Meath spoke about what is happening there, in Roscommon and in other counties. Local authorities can take the initiative but not without the Minister of State's support.
I will investigate this and will report back directly.
The previous Minister stated the same. He sat there for two years.
I will give a commitment to Deputy Naughten to investigate and report back to him.
With regard to the point made by Deputy Barrett, I did not have the housing brief in the last Government when Deputy Gilmore was a spokesperson on housing and the environment. One place mentioned because no effort was made to provide housing there was Dún Laoghaire. The funny thing is that when the affordable housing partnership made a suggestion for the possibility and delivery of 100 houses, the local authority in that area refused to zone the land.
The Minister of State missed the point. It is a planning contradiction.
I asked the affordable housing partnership to report back to me on how we can have better delivery mechanisms and how we can better equip ourselves to obtain houses in the areas Deputy Barrett mentioned. The report is due to be given to me this week and we can discuss this matter in further detail at a later time.
98 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the penalties he will impose on developers who do not bring estates up to necessary standards; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22748/07]
As I indicated in the reply to Questions Nos. 197 and 198 of 27 September 2007, the non-completion of any development in line with the planning permission for that development is unauthorised development, which is an offence under the Planning Acts. Enforcement of planning control is a matter for the planning authorities, which have substantial enforcement powers and duties under the Planning Acts.
Section 156 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 provides that a person who is convicted of carrying out unauthorised development or of not complying with an enforcement notice will be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €12.7 million or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both. In the case of a summary conviction, the person will be liable to a fine not exceeding €1,905 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both.
Section 156 also provides for substantial penalties for a person who, having been convicted of unauthorised development, continues the offence. These are a maximum fine of €12,700 for each day on which the offence is continued or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both on conviction on indictment, and on summary conviction a fine not exceeding €508 for each day on which the offence is continued or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both.
The substantial powers already given to planning authorities to deal with unauthorised development have been significantly strengthened in the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006. This effectively reverses the burden of proof in the refusal of planning permission to a developer who has substantially failed to comply with a previous planning permission. Under the amended provisions the authority may refuse permission in such a case and the developer will have to go to the High Court if he or she wishes to apply to have the decision annulled. I am satisfied that planning authorities now have substantial powers to compel the completion of housing estates by developers in accordance with the terms of the planning permission.
I thank the Minister for outlining the substantial powers of local authorities. As the Minister correctly pointed out, these were strengthened under the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act. However, two things are evident, namely, there is no enforcement and local authorities fail to put enough money into the fund to have estates taken in charge. Does the Minister's experience lead him to agree that the latter is because they do not want to be saddled with the costs of maintenance and other aspects of estates in local authority ownership? It is not a question of a lack of power but the will of the local authority to take these estates in charge and deal with them. They are not doing so. Will the Minister instruct local authorities to take a more proactive approach to taking in charge estates and allocate more resources for this on an annual basis?
This is an interesting problem. Often, people insist I micro-manage. However, giving more power back to local authority members is also discussed.
I understand this.
The Green Paper on local government reform is about getting the balance right on this. Some people suggest a command and control system and I believe we have a centralised country as it is.
I agree. The Minister is misinterpreting.
I happen to believe it and it was often stated that we do not have real local government, we have local administration. We must trust local authorities to carry out their functions properly. They have the powers, and the essence of what Deputy Hogan stated is that they do not carry out those functions properly.
On a point of clarification——
The Deputy knows well there is no such thing.
I agree with the Minister that we have local administration, not local government, and I accept what he states. However, who will act in the event of a local authority not enforcing the powers they have?
In exceptional cases where I feel I am compelled to act——
Shades of Monaghan.
Exactly, that was the instance I was going to give the House. In this case a rezoning took place which I felt was out of order, would have increased the population threefold in the area and would have had disastrous consequences for generations to come. It represented bad planning. In instances where I see bad planning I will intervene.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
