Vol. 892 No. 1
I move:
That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Planning and Development Act 2000 and to provide for related matters.
In the run-in to the budget and certainly in its aftermath, there will be a lot of discussion on the squeezed middle. Should I continue?
Go ahead, Deputy.
There is a conversation going on in the Chamber.
Deputy O'Reilly, the Deputy is objecting to your-----
I do not mind Deputy O'Reilly. I am very good friends with Deputy O'Reilly and I certainly do not mind him speaking-----
Well then, proceed with your contribution.
-----just not while I am on my feet. I think it is a discourtesy.
There will be much discussion on the squeezed middle and double taxation, but I have considerable sympathy for one particular group and that is those who in good faith bought a house in a housing development which had planning permission, on which they could legitimately have expected work to have been done properly, that the works would have been supervised, given that we live in a civilised country, and that the estate would have eventually been taken in charge. In many estates throughout the country this is simply not the case. Estates have not been finished and will not be taken in charge. The local authorities are reluctant to do so because they were not the developer and just gave planning permission, but the roads and lights are unfinished and the greens are not maintained. The residents of these estates have very little comeback.
On top of this, the Government introduced a local property charge. I have no sympathy for those who do not pay their taxes. The local property charge was introduced to fund local services such as roads, lights, open spaces, sewers and water mains. People who live in these estates pay this charge in good faith and in effect get nothing back because they must pay again on the double to a management committee to provide for this.
There are obstacles in law to the local authorities taking these estates in charge. These include that a petition can be initiated or signed by the residents to have an estate which is not properly complete taken in charge, but this can only happen seven years after the planning permission has elapsed. Seven years is a very long time to pay the local property charge and get nothing back. Another obstacle is that local authorities which are not water services authorities cannot take the water mains and sewerage systems in charge. This covers every local authority because no local authority is now a water services authority. All the functions of water service authorities have been transferred to Irish Water. In practice what happens is a local authority engages in a discussion with Irish Water on taking an estate in charge and Irish Water considers the matter over a long and protracted period, as public bodies generally engage in very protracted discussions that take a long time, and it arrives at the conclusion that the water services in the estate are not up to scratch and were not properly done so it will not take it in charge. In particular, Irish Water is refusing to take in charge developer-led sewerage developments which do not go into the main sewage system but have a separate sewage treatment plant for the estate, many of which do not work, and when they do, they are funded by the residents.
I am among the Deputies who encourage people to pay their local property and water charges because they have been legitimately introduced by the House, and regardless of whether one agrees with them, they have been introduced. It is very hard when people tell me they bought a house back in 2005 in good faith and paid an awful lot more for it than it is now worth while a fellow down the road bought another house, and in return for his water and local property charges he has the lights and the road outside his house maintained, running water into the house and the sewerage works properly. The people speaking to me are in an estate where the roads and the lights are not finished, the greens are not maintained and the sewerage system does not work and they ask me why should they pay for these. I honestly cannot say such people should pay for these. The people should pay, but the local authorities should take these estates in charge and if they incur costs in fixing these estates for which they gave planning permission - which they may well do and this is why they do not take them in charge - they can, of course, pursue the developer. At present the argument is there is a bond and perhaps residents of the estate should pursue the developer. They cannot do so because they are ordinary citizens who do not have that much money. Local authorities have money and legal departments and are in a position to remedy the situation, which is why I am bringing the legislation before the House.
Is the Bill opposed?
No.
Since this is a Private Members' Bill, Second Stage must, under Standing Orders, be taken in Private Members' time.
I move: "That the Bill be taken in Private Members' time."
