I wish to share time with Deputies Haughey, Kelleher and Fiona O'Malley and the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe.
Private Members’ Business.
Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2005: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am happy to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill because I have long held the view that the planning legislation in this area, while not defective in its own right, requires supplementation. I commend Deputy Gilmore for putting this legislation on the agenda. The Bill is by no means a finished product. It is far from it and much work must be done to determine whether it fits into the general matrix of planning legislation. We must determine exactly how it affects the property rights and constitutional rights of developers and property owners. Having said that, it is a very welcome addition to the debate in this area.
At the heart of this debate is the conflict between the benefits conferred on developers and property owners by the granting of planning permission and their obligations to complete developments in full compliance with the planning permission guidelines. Having practised in this area for some years, I have no doubt that balance is firmly tilted in favour of the developer and property owner. This sort of legislation is very helpful in this regard.
I have long held the view that the existing statutory penalties simply do not incentivise developers to complete housing estates. We all know there has not been a culture of compliance with planning permission over the years. In fairness, this could have been forgiven in times of poor economic development when the building industry was on its knees. People might have turned the other way to facilitate some form of development and economic activity. However, the circumstances that now obtain are different and we must comply fully and should not tolerate unfinished estates, roads and services, including defective sewerage and water services. Every Member will know of examples.
Nothing concentrates the mind of a developer, builder or property owner who seeks to undertake a development more than a grant of planning permission. If one needs evidence of this, one need only consider the subject matters of the tribunals of recent years. The obtaining of a grant of planning permission is the key incentive for developers and builders. Legislation provides local authorities with the power, in one form or another, to withhold the granting of planning permission. This adds some strength to the substantial Act of 2000.
All of the sanctions that are currently in place put an onus on some party other than the developer to ensure compliance with planning permission guidelines. Under the roads and services indemnity which each property owner is given on the completion of an estate, the onus is on the residents or residents' association to bring proceedings against the developer. There is no obligation placed on the builder. This legislation provides, for the first time, the stick, albeit a blunt instrument, with which to ensure developers complete estates. It is very welcome and I commend Deputy Gilmore thereon.
Certain issues require very careful further consideration. For instance, one must consider the extent to which the blunt instrument might infringe upon the constitutional and property rights of developers. We must also consider carefully the possibility that local authorities using this new wide-ranging instrument might be exposed to actions for considerable damages against themselves.
In Limerick, there are serious cases of non-compliance associated with a number of developments. There is a clear and widely held perception throughout Limerick that the local authority is somehow unable and does not have the teeth to ensure full compliance with development guidelines and therefore I support, in general and in principle, this sort of legislation.
This Bill facilitates local authorities in refusing planning permission to developers who do not finish housing estates properly. The Bill provides that it is the developer rather than the local authority who must go to the High Court. The Bill will also allow residents of a new housing estate to sue the developers when their estates are left unfinished.
The Bill is effectively amending the Planning and Development Act 2000, a major Act which strengthened considerably the law in this area. Nevertheless, it is time to review its provisions. This Private Members' debate has facilitated a very constructive discussion. I commend Deputy Gilmore in that regard.
It is interesting that, under existing law, a local authority has not refused to give planning permission to a developer owing to his not having finished another estate for which planning permission was granted, as is evidenced from the fact that no local authority has gone to the High Court with the aim or refusing a permission.
All of us in public life have first-hand experience of this problem. We have all witnessed the frustration of new householders over substandard roads and footpaths, unfinished walls and fences, and greens and open spaces that cannot be mown or used in any way. We have all experienced problems associated with defective sewers and drains. When I was first elected to the local authority in Dublin in 1985, these were major issues for me. My biggest files are those dealing with unfinished estates. This is not so much a problem today because most of the estates in my constituency have been built. Nevertheless, I recognise that it is a very serious problem in the greater Dublin area generally and throughout the country. A record 80,000 units were built last year and therefore there is obviously a problem that needs to be addressed.
The legal implications of this Bill need to be teased out. I welcome the statement by the Minister last night that he would consult the Attorney General on these matters. I look forward to the outcome of this discussion.
We need to focus on the role of local authorities in planning and development. It is obvious to me and everybody else in this House that local authorities are very slow to take legal action and initiate enforcement proceedings. One must ask whether they have sufficient resources to carry out their functions under the Planning and Development Act 2000. I know the Minister is concerned about this. I welcomed his comment last night to the effect that he would like to examine the matter further to ensure local authorities fulfil their obligations under existing legislation.
There is no doubt that builders are doing well at present. Government policy is to increase the supply of housing. In 2004, 76,954 units were constructed. All of us, particularly new householders, expect fair play from builders given that they are doing well and building many houses. I am not sure we are experiencing such fair play.
I welcome the Minister's comment last night that "the primary responsibility to build good developments and finish them to a high standard rests with developers". I welcome the call by the Minister on the Construction Industry Federation to lead on this point, keep raising standards and ensure that its members stick to them. Government must also take significant action. I welcome this constructive debate and hope these initiatives can be considered and implemented in the fullness of time, following legal advice.
It gives me great pleasure to welcome this Bill and to support the good work of my colleague, Deputy Gilmore.
That is something new for Deputy Gilmore.
Having served with him on the county council, I know what an authority he is on matters of local government and housing in particular. As constituency colleagues we share the same problems surrounding unfinished housing estates, many of which date back to the 1980s and earlier. The resources provided by the developers are not sufficient to address the problems now.
The Bill is timely and I commend the Minister's magnanimity in accepting it. One drafts legislation according to an ideal but when it does not live up to that one must revisit it. That is why it is particularly useful that Deputy Gilmore presented this Bill to the House and the Minister accepted it.
The record-breaking housing output in recent successive years strengthens the case for this legislation. We have heard how many housing estates on vast tracts of west Dublin are left incomplete. It is incumbent on us to reverse the position and give the local authorities the right to decide whether it is appropriate for a developer to build a housing estate.
In my area there is a site whose planning history dates back to the 1950s. The same people have not been involved throughout but those who have occupied it for the past 20 odd years have repeatedly ignored the planning regulations. Local councillors and Deputies must deal with the consequences of that. I welcome the proposal that planning permission may be withdrawn.
Reputation is one of the most important things we carry through our lives. One likes to think one's reputation is intact but if one gets a reputation for being cavalier about planning regulations that should stick. If one has no care or regard for the citizens who will live in the development, or for the regulations, one should be penalised in some way.
I read with interest the Minister's speech of last night. He is conscious of the legal issues arising in the sections of this Bill. While I do not share his reservations, it is good advice to seek the opinion of the Attorney General. We can only hope that the Minister's letter arrives swiftly at the Office of the Attorney General and that action is taken on this Bill.
It is rather far-fetched to suggest that banks might refuse to lend money because they are afraid someone might not get planning permission. We need to move quickly on this issue because year after year there is a record-breaking housing output. People do not want to live on building sites but in completed homes and communities, as they are entitled to do. That is why I commend this Bill and wish it safe and swift passage through the House.
I congratulate Deputy Gilmore on giving us an opportunity to speak on this issue. Issues around planning and development have been to the fore for many years, not least because of the increased population and housing output. Estates being taken in charge is a frequent source of complaints at public representatives' clinics. That has been partially addressed but we often see it in a historical perspective.
All sides must acknowledge that bonding has improved in recent years to the extent that a developer is tied down to complete estates. In the event of someone reneging on a bond and not completing an estate there should be a provision whereby planners and the local council can refuse planning permission to that developer or the new company. Rogue builders have plagued us for many years.
Development charges must be further explored. Deputy Gilmore debated this at length in committees dealing with previous legislation throughout 2000. A development levy is imposed on a builder to provide for services, footpaths, lighting, civic amenities etc. and is paid to the council.
It would be more appropriate to levy the developer to provide the services directly instead of putting the money into a slush fund and letting the council debate where it should be spent. It would be cheaper and more efficient if at the start of a development planning permission provided that footpaths to the local village or within the estate, lighting and other civic amenities would be provided.
Most serious developers building large housing units are becoming professional in their approach. They make large sums of money but would be more amenable to this than to the present process of handing development charges to the local council. When the site is completed the council workers then try to provide footpaths, lighting and other services that the developer would gladly have put in place had it been part of the planning permission.
We must accept this. In Glanmire there are estates where the developers would gladly have laid footpaths and services for access to the local village. Now, however, council workers with limited manpower resources are trying to do this. It would have been more efficient for that to be a planning condition and it would have been cheaper for the developer and the purchaser. We should examine this because there are many loose ends in that area.
Another issue that broadens out this debate is Part 5 and what it entails. When developers get planning permission for large housing schemes there should be some mechanism within the planning laws whereby civic amenity areas could be set aside. A portion of the site could be given to the local authority to use in the event of a future demand for a school or health or community centre. That is one of the biggest problems we face. I represent new growth areas and one of these received a grant from the Department of Health and Children seven years ago to provide a health centre. The problem, however, is to find a site, yet developers can come in and build large housing schemes and move on. We must acknowledge this. It would be more appropriate if local authorities provided good developers with planning guidelines, and if development levies were introduced to provide facilities, rather than handing over the money to councils to provide facilities.
I look forward to Committee Stage so we can highlight some of the areas with which most public representatives have problems. We must recognise that there are rogue developers. Local authorities and planners already have many powers to address the problems relating to bonding and tying developers to completing estates but, more important, planners must be more adventurous in how they approach the provision of services when granting planning permission.
I thank Deputies for their contributions, which I have noted. I also thank Deputy Gilmore for introducing the Bill. It presents an opportunity to highlight deficiencies relating to planning and development issues within housing estates. It gives Deputies an opportunity to highlight the fact that there are inefficiencies within the system and that non-cooperation in terms of the proper development of estates cannot and will not be tolerated. There are issues within the Bill which must be referred for further legal consultation but this can be addressed on Committee Stage. Last night, the Minister indicated to Deputy Gilmore that he would like his party to examine the legal nuances. These will be worth noting prior to Committee Stage.
While the completion of housing estates is an extremely important issue, it is just part of the wider question of compliance with planning conditions in general. The introduction of a culture of enforcement is crucial to ensuring the planning control system works properly and for the benefit of the whole community. Lack of planning control enforcement can lead to damage to communities, the environment and our natural and built heritage. It can also lead to an erosion of public confidence and support for the planning system. As is the case for all laws, if people are to respect the planning system, they must be assured that all the conditions will be enforced. If planning law is not enforced, public support for planning systems as a whole will be undermined totally, and we must be very concerned about this.
We can all point to cases where there have been flagrant breaches of the planning code. At one time planning authorities did not appear to be able to tackle the issue. It was for these reasons that one of the major principles behind the Planning and Development Act was the revision the planning code. This culminated in the Planning and Development Act 2000, which sought to strengthen the enforcement provisions. It is important to look back and see exactly what this meant. In the first instance, the aim was to simplify and reinforce the weapons available to local authorities to effectively address breaches of the planning code and to allow local authorities to catch them at an early stage. It also sought to give incentives to local authorities to take action. Local authorities can now recoup their costs where they pursue developers for breaches of the planning code, and they can keep these fines. It also ensured that people who complained about a breach of the code were responded to and kept informed of the progress of the complaint.
The Act also introduced significant measures to promote enforcement of planning control throughout the country. Planning authorities are now statutorily advised to take action in response to any unauthorised development they become aware of, whether through complaint from the public or otherwise, unless the development in question is trivial. As can be seen throughout the Act, the planning authority must issue a warning letter within six weeks. It must investigate speedily any unauthorised development. It must make a decision on whether to issue an enforcement notice within 12 weeks if possible and, most important, it must keep the complainant informed of progress. There is a very strong legal framework already in place to deal with enforcement of planning control.
The enforcement provisions of the Act commenced on 11 March 2002. While it is still very early to establish the impact on the overall level of enforcement activity by the authorities, the 2003 information supplied by the planning authority indicates a 28% increase in the number of notices issued. There is also an increase in the number of notices complied with, which now stands at 24%. There is almost a doubling in the number of convictions from 100 in 2002 to 196 in 2003. In her 2003 annual report, the Ombudsman acknowledged that there appears to have been some improvement in local authority performance in regard to enforcement generally.
My Department will continue to keep the implementation of the enforcement provisions of the 2000 Act under review. Local authorities will for the first time this year report on their performance against 42 service indicators, covering the full range of local government services, including indicators regarding enforcement of planning control. The indicators will allow members of the public and elected representatives to compare the performance of their local authority with all the other local authorities, and how their local authority is performing in terms of its duty. The process is intended to facilitate the identification of good practice and to encourage all local authorities towards improved performance. Issues such as enforcement are regularly raised through formal consultation mechanisms established between the Department and the city and county managers association, the representative body of the managers of the planning authorities. We will continue to press the planning authorities to improve their performance on planning enforcement. An opportunity also exists for members of the various local authorities to examine the progress being made, including the unsatisfactory practice in some local authorities in terms of pursuing developers who do not comply with the planning code, and ensuring that county or city managers ensure compliance with the Act.
As previously stated, there are significant measures in the 2000 Act to specifically address the issue of completion of housing estates. Planning authorities may now attach a condition to a planning permission requiring the giving of adequate security for the satisfactory completion of the development. If the development is not completed satisfactorily, the planning authority may use that money as security to have the estate completed. The Act also provides that, where estates have not been completed to the satisfaction of the planning authority, and the authority has not taken enforcement proceedings within seven years, the planning authority must take the estate in charge if requested to do so by the majority of residents. This is clearly an incentive for local authorities to ensure estates are completed.
They have no staff or resources.
Under the law, local authorities are obliged to pursue these issues. Under the Act, members of local authorities must ensure that, if complaints are lodged, city and county managers must ensure this happens.
That is grand on paper.
I say to Deputy Gilmore that the debate is worthwhile. Serious legal and constitutional issues will have to be considered when examining this Bill but we can make progress on these matters on Committee Stage. At the same time, it is an important exercise that we send a clear signal from this House that there must be compliance with the Planning and Development Act.
I welcome the opportunity to address the issue of developers failing to fulfil their obligations to finish housing developments properly. The failure of the Government and many local authorities to act on this issue is inextricably connected to the detrimental and cosy relationship between the Government parties and developers.
Sinn Féin seeks devolvement of power and then blames the Government for local authorities carrying out their functions.
Is the Minister of State denying it? He cannot deny such a relationship exists.
The Deputy cannot have it both ways. This is typical of Sinn Féin. It has a hand here, there and everywhere.
Is the Minister denying the relationship between Fianna Fáil and the developers? For goodness sake.
The Deputy should not make me go into the relationship between Sinn Féin, the IRA and criminal activity in this country.
I recognise that the Government's acceptance of this Bill is a positive step but the Minister of State should not lose the run of himself.
The Deputy is in no position to lecture anyone in this House having heard an interview he gave recently.
I must have struck a raw nerve.
In his lifetime, the Deputy has struck many raw nerves with tragic consequences.
The failure of the Government and many local authorities to act on this issue is inextricably connected with the detrimental and cosy relationship between the Government parties and developers that has resulted in an unwillingness to take on the greedy and unscrupulous developers.
Builders and developers regularly fail to complete work in common areas within housing developments, as has been evidenced by everyone who has spoken in this debate. The main problems centre on footpaths and road surfacing, road markings, drainage, landscaping and building rubble being left all over sites when the builders leave. This is a particular problem affecting the commuter belt and the counties surrounding Dublin, such as Louth and Meath, where new housing estates are being hastily built with little care for the quality of life of those who will end up living in these estates.
I have ample experience of this problem in my own constituency in Louth. A case currently being pursued by one of the Sinn Féin councillors in County Louth is that of Inis Linn in Dromiskin, a 50 house scheme. Footpaths and proper road structure have not been provided and residents are left to traverse a surface not unlike what one would expect if one were traversing a section of the moon.
There is also the case of a 35 house scheme at Collon in County Louth where no final surface was put on the road. The most alarming feature of that scheme was the storm drainage system. A system of sorts was put in place but it went nowhere — there was no provision for the water to escape. Lovely pipes went around the houses in the scheme but they came to a stop and, consequentially, the entire scheme floods every time there is any significant amount of rain. In that case the developer left a bond of €26,000 with the local authority but it cost €33,000 to complete the project. In fairness to Louth County Council, it moved quickly, provided the additional funding and organised the completion of the project because the builder had gone out of business.
Councillor, soon to be Deputy, Joe Reilly, brought a number of particularly bad cases in County Meath to my attention. Having fought this cause at local authority level for some time, he asked me to raise the issue in the Dáil.
Dream on.
Deputy McHugh should watch this space on Saturday.
I will not move from my seat here.
Deputy McHugh will give a lesson in Galway mathematics.
I do not know what connections Deputy McHugh has with speculators, I will let him answer that. Springfield Glen in Navan is a development of 45 houses and the developer is reported to be in New Zealand. Roads, footpaths and public lighting have all been left incomplete. The developer deposited a bond of €38,000 with the local authority yet conservative estimates suggest that it will cost in excess of €200,000 to complete the scheme.
Joe Reilly also brought to my attention the case of Rossnaree in Navan, a 100 house scheme where lighting and roads have been left incomplete. The builders were so reckless they welded a fence to a metal ESB cabinet. This dangerous recklessness is found in many developments.
I commend the Minister of State and the Minister on accepting the Bill. It is an unusual move. I hope that unfortunate people will not continue to be left in these situations.
As always, Deputy Morgan is being magnanimous.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this timely and opportune Bill. It will go a long way to crack down on the problem of unfinished housing developments. The Bill is the perfect remedy to the scandal of unfinished housing developments throughout the country. The developers appear totally indifferent to the concerns of residents, they are not put out by them at all. Thankfully, under the terms of this Bill, local authorities will be empowered to refuse planning permission to developers with bad track records. That is a welcome measure because unless sanctions are imposed, these cowboy developers will not comply with the authorities' requirements for completion prior to the estate being taken into the charge of the local authority.
It would be unfair to give the impression that all builders are the same. There are small numbers who are solely driven by profit and greed. We know who they are, their record is there for all to see. Regrettably, they can face the penalties that can be imposed and they do not deter them from doing the same thing again. They pay the fine and go on because it is well covered by the profit. A key component of this Bill, however, is that the local authority can deny planning permission to the developer who has a bad track record without having to go to court. This is important because if a county council must take on a builder in court, it costs the taxpayer money.
These developers buy properties in towns and then let them lie there and become derelict. It is a way to bank their money and by doing so they have destroyed many towns across the country. In Counties Cavan and Monaghan, no matter what town a person goes into, there will be five or six derelict houses. The developers have bought them and will let them lie there. It is better than money in the bank because they do not have to pay tax on them. They then get some relief for building on the derelict sites.
It is also important that infrastructure, such as schools and shops, is put in place for every housing development.
I compliment Deputy Gilmore for bringing forward this Bill. It is a no-nonsense practical approach, focused and explicit in nature and devoid of red tape and unnecessary complications. I congratulate Deputy Gilmore for being one of the few Opposition Deputies who has had a legislative proposal adopted by Government, albeit in principle. I also compliment the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for his open and receptive approach to the Bill. It is refreshing to see for once a responsible and mature attitude towards the workings of parliament.
The idea behind the Bill is so simple that it defies belief that it is not legislation already. It proposes to hit the rogue builders and developers who renege on their responsibilities where it hurts by denying them the benefit of any further planning permission while they remain guilty of leaving estates unfinished. I fully support that principle.
While the 2000 Act set about dealing with the issue of unfinished estates, the result was too convoluted. It placed a further burden on local authorities that have proved themselves incapable of dealing with the less onerous regime that existed previously. The provision looked good on paper but was useless in reality because local authorities, for various reasons, were not doing the business.
The Bill before us deals with the position for the future but there are many problems with unfinished estates now. The Minister has accepted the Bill in principle and indicated that amendments will be forthcoming on Committee Stage. I invite the Minister to come forward with a simple enforceable regime to deal with unfinished estates where the developer has, perhaps, gone bankrupt, out of business or has died. If a bond exists it is so small that it is useless.
A specific time limit must be set down in the grant of a planning permission by which time the estate has to be completed. I am not referring to the life of the planning permission but an obligation placed on the builder to complete and provide such notification as deemed necessary to confirm completion. In the event of the developer not providing such confirmation within the specified timeframe his bond for the satisfactory completion should be confiscated and used to complete the outstanding works immediately.
This is a good Bill with which I agree. The problem in our neck of the woods is the difficulty in getting started in the first place, never mind to complete what has is already constructed. I am a founding member of the Irish Rural Dwellers Association. I congratulate the Minister on his proposal to make the Irish Rural Dwellers Association a prescribed body so it can nominate people to An Bord Pleanála. I welcome that because An Bord Pleanála needs to reflect the rural point of view, even though it is an independent organisation. Recently, my wife was refused permission for a house by An Bord Pleanála.
There are those who have a vested interest in driving a wedge between environmentally aware groups such as the Green Party and rural dwellers. I spoke here on a debate on planning last year, after which I spoke to Deputy Sargent. The result of that was a meeting today between the Irish Rural Dwellers Association and the Green Party. There are those who are using the once good name of An Taisce in a witch-hunt against rural dwellers. An Taisce is being manipulated into objecting to certain developments in rural Ireland. In particular, it is being set upon like a mad dog on certain bodies for political reasons and is being used and is swallowing the bait, hook, line and sinker. It is being used by blow-ins, casual visitors who when they are lucky enough to get planning permission for a house which they visit twice a year, pull down the drawbridge on anyone else building in the area, including local people.
There is a terrible unfairness and a democratic deficit in the planning system. How is it that community not-for-profit developments are being rejected by planners in favour of totally commercial developments in the same area which enrich developers? Commercial housing developments are getting the go ahead with no objections from anyone. It is time to bring back fairness to the planning system. I have no crib against developers. The crib I have is against the bias towards the developer versus the community.
An Bord Pleanála is supposed to be independent. It is not independent of Government policy if one looks at its decision on the Ringaskiddy incinerator. That strikes fear into the people of Mayo in regard to Killala. An Bord Pleanála said it was bound by Government policy on incinerators. Am I missing something here or, is An Bord Pleanála not as independent as it would like to think?
The purpose of the Bill is to amend the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2000, dealing with unfinished estates. I welcome and support the Bill.
Section 2 is important. I wish to record my support for residents, home-owners and tenants on this important issue. I have always challenged wildcat developments and developers who leave unfinished estates or do not do their job in a professional manner. It is expensive enough nowadays to buy a home without having to put up with this type of nonsense.
Many of our citizens and residents have major concerns about planning and development particularly following the tribunals and the corruption of the planning process. These concerns still exist and many feel these revelations are only the tip of the iceberg. I mention this because we, as public representatives, have to be vigilant about sleaze and corruption in politics. It has damaged politics and politicians are constantly getting the wrap on this issue.
In my constituency I have always challenged wildcat developments in Clontarf, Killester, Artane and Drumcondra. We need houses and developments that are in tune with the local areas and the local environment. For example, I have major concerns about a proposed development at Seapark in Clontarf by Sherborough Enterprises. The 55 new apartments in Seapark along with the apartments in Mount Prospect Lawns and Red Court will lead to a major increase in traffic in Mount Prospect Avenue. This road is already used as a rat-run to escape traffic congestion on Clontarf Road.
The developer has made no proposals to protect and retain the trees. The seven storey building does not respect the view of neighbouring blocks and will lead to a reduction in natural light. It will also lead to a reduction in recreation facilities. There is concern that it will lead to an excessive reduction of trees which are important landscape features. The building will conflict with the building line on Mount Prospect Avenue. The new buildings do not respect the character of the existing architecture and do not enhance the character of Seapark and the surrounding community.
I raise these issues to highlight the need for quality and sensible planning and urge all Deputies to support this progressive legislation.
I welcome the Labour Party's contribution to the planning process in the Bill before the House. It is worthy and the Green Party will certainly recommend that it be approved by the House. It seeks to remove the step of going to the High Court and that is welcome. It will scare the living daylights out of anybody working on a building site given that it targets all persons involved in the direction, management or funding of the project but we have to accept that as a step in the right direction. On that basis it is a worthy Bill.
To expand the argument, not only do we need to place a greater duty of care on those involved in a building site but we need to revise the building regulations, the planning regulations and provide a decent standard of enforcement of the planning and building regulations. There is a need for better design guidance. We have to ensure a more considered relationship exists between developers and the local authority. I am not talking about councillors, although I could speak at length about elected representatives at local level, but county managers and their staff. That relationship can be perceived as unhealthy.
For example, advertisements in the local authority yearbooks and diaries are often placed side by side with the contact details for the relevant officials. I note in the frontispiece of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown yearbook and diary that Castle Park Construction Limited wishes Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council continued success in the coming year, as I am sure we all do. The bookmark provided by McGarrell Reilly Homes has been placed with the contact details for the planning and development department. Across the page is an advertisement for Ballygowan Developments.
That is not appropriate to the Bill.
I am using it to aid my argument. I suggest we improve the relationship between the local authority and developers and ensure a clear division. That division arises elsewhere. I have used it before in referring to the glorious testimony of the good days of Fianna Fáil. Dunloe Ewart has taken out the front page advertisement and Treasury Holdings the back page. I suspect that is a little too close to the body politic and that something similar can exist within the local authority. Certainly the developers can get straight in with pre-application consultation in a number of cases and local communities do not have that right. Most local authorities do not keep a record of that pre-application consultation and the names of those who attend those meetings are not placed in a register. I suggest there must be a much clearer and sharper line in the sand drawn between the developers and their lobby groups and the local authority staff and officials. The planning regulations date from 1981 and need to be revised. I am aware that a revision is in hand but after 25 years they date from the age of comely maidens and must be revised to reflect the reality of the 21st century.
The building regulations should include an increase in energy performance and provide every home with an energy label. Brussels has told us to do so by the end of next year and I do not see any evidence of this happening. The resources must be provided for decent planning enforcement. Lack of enforcement is the reason family and communities are left without lighting on their estates, landscaping and other basic amenities. Better quality must be provided in the 77,000 homes to be built this year.
I wish to share my time with Deputies O'Shea and McCormack.
I compliment my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, on bringing this Bill before the House. It is long overdue and any Member active in his or her constituency will be aware of the necessity for it. Over recent weeks I have been canvassing on behalf of Councillor Paddy McNamara, our candidate in Kildare North. With him I visited several unfinished estates with footpaths not properly surfaced, fences not properly constructed and play areas strewn with rubble and skips. These are the problems on new estates but I also cite two older estates, Courtown Park in Kilcock and Castletown in Leixlip. These estates have been built for many years. They are in suburban Kildare and are excellent places in which to live in most respects but, sadly and to the frustration of the residents, many elements of the estates have not been completed and there is no sign of them being completed, despite that they have matured and families have grown up and left the area. As the developer is obviously not going to do so at this stage, the local authority will have to finish the estates to ensure the residents receive the facilities that were promised when Kildare County Council gave planning permission to the developers many years ago.
The Labour Party wants to put an end to this practice and acknowledges that the Government will not oppose the Second Stage reading. I hope this Bill does not end up in some legislative limbo without advancing to Committee Stage. This would be a very retrograde step which would come back to haunt the Government in later years. It will be of little advantage if it is not proceeded with to Committee Stage to give all Members of the House a further opportunity to develop something that is representative of every constituency. All Members will be aware of incomplete estates within their constituencies where residents suffer accordingly.
Deputy Gilmore outlined the contents of the Bill which is as simple as it is comprehensive. Under the current Planning and Development Act 2000, a local authority must apply to the High Court for authorisation to refuse planning permission on the grounds of a track record of non-completion. Under the existing legislation, the onus or burden of seeking to refuse planning permission is on the local authority. The Labour Party is of the view that this is unfair. Why should this burden be placed on the local authority which does not always have the time or resources to pursue High Court actions or prevent the grant of planning permission? It should be up to developers to prove they will meet their obligations.
Most local authorities have an unauthorised development section but that often consists of only one or two officials. It is not feasible or possible to meet the demand. I visited the offices of Kildare County Council recently to speak to an official. There were so many files that it was almost impossible to get into the man's office. It was obvious that this official had little hope of addressing all the matters within the period that would reflect some responsibility by the local authority to the persons who made the complaint in the first place.
This Bill proposes that where a planning authority forms an opinion that there is a real risk of non-completion by the applicant or the developer and there is a track record of non-completion, it is obliged to serve on the person concerned a notice of its decision to refuse permission for that reason. The notice will take effect within 21 days unless the planning applicant appeals the decision to the High Court. The Labour Party also wants residents who live in or move into unfinished estates to have recourse to the law to seek damages where their estate is left in an unsatisfactory condition. One can see the value put on homes and the cost of housing, particularly in my constituency. Young people must take on high mortgages to ensure they can create a home for their families. They must then suffer because the estate is incomplete. They do not regard the local authority as being in a position to ensure that the estate is completed. I am aware that in Athy, four or five High Court cases were taken in respect of one estate and it is still the same today as it was the first day the local authority went to the High Court.
This 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 is promised to the consumer prior to the sale of the home. It promotes best practice in the industry and seeks to compel all contractors to raise their standards to those equivalent to the best in the industry. It would be preferable if people came together to create a community rather than fighting to ensure the estate is completed. The Bill is designed to ensure the protection of the person who takes out a mortgage and becomes involved in the community. I welcome Deputy Gilmore's initiative. I hope the Government will not put the Bill on a shelf to gather dust and that it will be back for Committee Stage before the end of this year.
Molaim an Teachta Eamon Gilmore, urlabhraí an Lucht Oibre ar chúrsaí chomhshaoil, oidhreachta agus rialtais áitiúla, as ucht an Bhille thábhachtach seo a thabhairt os comhair na Dála.
I 1999, chuir comhghleachaí eile de Pháirtí an Lucht Oibre, an Teachta Seán Ryan, Bille os comhair na Dála ag baint le heastáit tithíochta nach raibh críochnaithe. Theip ar an Bhille sin dul thar an Dara Céim nuair a buadh air le 65 vótaí in aghaidh 58. Thug an Rialtas geallúint dom go dtabharfadh sé faoi deara ghnéithe den Bhille sin i mBille cuimsitheach pleanáil agus forbairt a bhíá ullmhú ag an am. I ndeireadh na dála, foilsíodh an Bille úd i 1999 agus tháinig sé i bhfeidhm faoin dteideal An Acht um Pleanáil agus Forbairt 2000. D'aithin sé obair an Teachta Ryan agus Billí eile. Le déanaí, d'fhoilsigh an Teachta Noonan Bille atá ag tabhairt faoin gceist cead pleanála a dhiúltú d'fhorbairtheoirí nach gcríochníonn eastáit tithíochta suas go caighdeán sásúil.
I congratulate the Labour Party spokesperson on the environment, heritage and local government, Deputy Gilmore, not alone for bringing this timely legislation before the House but for securing the position that the Government will not oppose it. This is a tribute to the effective work of Deputy Gilmore in seeking to strengthen the Planning and Development Act 2000 in regard to protecting the rights of citizens in respect of what for many will be the largest investment made in their lifetime.
Unfinished estates reduce the value of the investment of families and individuals who purchase their homes in them. A properly finished housing estate with completed roads, footpaths, public lighting, green areas, road signs and so forth has a pleasant overall effect. We have all encountered cases of people who have moved into new estates in which building work has been completed but many other general features are either neglected or poorly finished.
I recall being asked by residents to view a disused communal septic tank beside a new estate. The tank was a source of grave danger, particularly for children, because its top was open and the deep chamber was filled with filthy water, a health hazard in itself. The more immediate and visible danger was that small children could, without much effort, climb up the part protruding from the ground. If a child had fallen into the chamber of vile water, the chance of him or her being rescued would have been slim. In fairness, as soon as I brought the matter to the attention of the local authority in question, it was rectified. It was incredible, however, that this major hazard had not been attended to, although, thankfully, it did not result in a serious accident or tragedy.
Deputies will have encountered cases in which the bond sought from a developer was ridiculously small and would not nearly cover the cost of completing outstanding work. We have all witnessed the cat and mouse game which ensues between developer and local authorities. As the former do not want the bond called in, they complete the estate piecemeal to an incremental schedule until it is finally taken in charge by the latter. If, however, a local authority were to call in the bond, it would have serious implications for the financial future of the developer. Equally, it would spell the end of the completion works being carried out by the developer.
What does Deputy Gilmore's Bill propose? It addresses two central issues. Section 35 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 enables a planning authority to refuse planning permission on track record grounds. Before taking such action, however, it must first apply to the High Court for authorisation. The Bill proposes that local authorities will be obliged to refuse planning permission on track record grounds and places the onus on a developer who wishes to oppose such a decision to go before the High Court within 25 days. The proposal is practical and effective and gives much greater protection to home owners who, in a majority of cases, will have made their largest lifetime investment in a new house.
The Bill will also contribute to quality of life in two major respects, the aesthetic sense because the surrounding environment will be properly completed and in terms of contentment by eliminating what can often be years of campaigning and agitation on the unfinished development. It places the onus for full conformity with all conditions of the planning permission firmly with the developer. If shoddy work is carried out or work is not completed, the developer will bring about his own dismissal from the pitch. Good conscientious developers have much to gain if cowboy developers do not clean up their acts and are thereby prevented from operating in the future. This must be beneficial.
The other central issue relates to section 3. It provides for a duty owed by a person granting planning permission which is made subject to conditions requiring the satisfactory completion of the development within a specified period. This duty is also owed by all other persons involved in the direction, management and funding of the development in question and obliges such persons to take all reasonable steps to ensure the satisfactory completion of developments.
As Deputy Gilmore has achieved the unique distinction of being praised by Government, Opposition and Independent Members, I will not heap further praise on him. He was even complimented by two of his constituency colleagues from other parties, a distinction not readily achieved in the House.
Buying a house is the largest investment most people will ever make. A legislative change such as that proposed in the Bill alerts us to the problem of unfinished estates in our areas. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2000 dealing with unfinished estates. Section 1 is a standard provision dealing with the Short Title and collective citation and construction of the Bill.
Section 2, which amends the Planning and Development Act by substituting a new section for section 35 on the refusal of planning permission for past failures to comply, is the key feature of the Bill. Under the new section builders who do not complete estates will be punished. As such, the section will significantly reduce or perhaps eliminate the problem.
The Bill has two effects. First, it shifts the onus of providing that the developer has a good track record on the completion of housing estates from a local authority to a developer and thus gives greater powers to a local authority to combat the problem of unfinished housing estates. Second, it empowers people who move into or live in a new estate to sue the developer of the estate for damages if work has not been completed.
The problem of unfinished estates is one of the greatest hardships people must contend with and one of the most common problems and sources of frustration brought to the attention of public representatives. The majority of problems concern unfinished footpaths, landscaping, open spaces and other work developers have failed to complete.
Most new houses on estates are bought by landlords for the rental market or first-time buyers. The former generally live outside the estate and have little interest in anything other than receiving their rent on time and few concerns about whether an estate is completed or has open spaces. Young couples moving into housing estates have enough on their minds as they try to pay their mortgage and decorate and furnish their house. They may be expecting a first child and will not be overly concerned about whether work on the estate has been completed. However, as their children grow older and begin to take an interest in sport and so forth, they tend to look around and ask where is the open space. If they consult the plans or the glossy brochure supplied by the builder when they moved in, they may discover that the area designated as open space is an unofficial dump, as is the case on most estates. They may then find that the builder has progressed to building projects in Dublin, London, Spain, Thailand or elsewhere. In such circumstances, the hard-pressed home owner has no recourse.
Similar Bills introduced by Deputies Seán Ryan and Noonan included the key provision of the Bill before us that local authorities would refuse planning permission to builders who consistently leave unfinished work in housing estates. In their rush to proceed to the next project, builders often fail to complete housing estates and leave roads, footpaths and so forth unfinished. Once houses are sold, the builder has made his profit and while it is legitimate for him to do so, it is also legitimate for those who buy houses from brochures to expect a finished estate. Despite the brochures' images of landscaped areas and semi-mature trees, ten years after completion some housing estates have no trees or open spaces. In some cases, house buyers were robbed when they did not get the finished product they were promised. Local authorities too must have control over the houses they commission? Often local authority housing estates are not finished correctly with open spaces left unfinished. Central heating must be installed in all local authority houses. Will the Minister examine local authority housing in this regard and ensure central heating is provided?
Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. N. Ahern)
I accept the finishing of housing estates is an important issue, particularly in the greater Dublin area. It often depends on the constituency a Member represents. Powers are in place to deny, with the approval of the courts, planning permission to developers who fail in this regard. Deputy Gilmore wants this process to be speeded up. Careful consideration must be given to some of the proposals in the Bill, particularly section 3. It sets out to impose a duty of care on "all persons involved in the direction, management or funding of the development", which are wide terms. The implications of such a proposal for the supply of housing needs must be considered. Under this wording, financial institutions may refuse to give a developer a loan if they are anxious for what they might be held responsible in the future. This wording needs to be teased out.
The problem the Deputy is attempting to rectify with this provision is partly due to the record rate of housing development. Some developers and builders may move out of an estate quickly as there is so much other work on offer. On Monday I launched the housing output statistics for 2004. The figures were staggering, showing that last year was another record year for output with approximately 77,000 units built. This is up 11.8% on the previous year. We are producing houses at double the 1997 rate. The figures for Dublin were up 17%. In the past ten years, when production of new units took off, the increases were in other parts while Dublin did not keep up with the pace. In the past two years, this has changed and I am glad the number of completions in Dublin stood at 16,800 last year.
The greater Dublin area saw a 13% increase in housing unit completion. Housing output has increased in all parts of the State, even in counties where one would not expect large development. The lowest figure was 700 new units in one county. These figures are a reflection of the success of the Government's policies and have a positive effect. The construction industry, local authorities and housing co-operatives must be pleased with last year's unprecedented supply of housing units.
The Bill has many good provisions. While I understand Deputies' concerns, and we all experience the problems outlined, the question arises as to how to tie these down and improve matters. On the surface, the Bill's proposals are reasonable, but the issues of funding and directing developments need to be narrowed down.
At least we are not fudging.
I do not know if the Deputy is. I would like to see the Deputy's definition of "fudging". I understand the Bill's basis and I believe it has merit. We look forward to teasing it out more on Committee Stage.
I wish to share time with Deputy Gilmore.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I compliment Deputy Gilmore on introducing the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill. It is obvious from contributions to the debate that all sides of the House acknowledge the problem with unfinished estates, particularly in the new growth areas outside Dublin city, such as Kildare, Meath and Louth. I am pleased the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, recognised the Bill's merits and will not oppose its Second Stage reading. Given that the then Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, voted down a similar Bill in my name on 11 May 1999, the decision not to oppose this Bill could be seen as a cynical move to take the heat off the Government in the forthcoming by-elections in Meath and north Kildare.
Sour grapes. The Deputy is never happy.
However, I am prepared to take the Minister at his word. He will be judged by his actions and not his promises. The Bill, therefore, must not be buried in the list of legislative promises. The Labour Party will demand that Committee and Report Stages be taken in the Dáil's autumn session.
The Bill provides a mechanism to enable planning authorities to tackle rogue builders and developers who previously failed to properly complete works in new housing estates, or failed to complete them in a reasonable time. This includes the standard of work on the houses, taking charge of the estate, the dedication of open spaces and health and safety standards for construction workers.
The Irish people's tradition of aspiring to home ownership is unique among EU member states. Over 80% of dwellings in the State are privately owned. To achieve this, couples and single persons are willing to mortgage themselves to the hilt. The average price of a new house in Dublin, for which loans were approved, rose from €92,342 in 1996 to €334,820 in 2004.
There are also added VAT and other charges.
It is about affordability, not price.
The payments for such loans are astronomical, with little or no alternative for both partners to work outside the home. What should home buyers expect in return for this, the largest investment in their lives? They should expect their houses to be constructed to an acceptable standard, roads to be left in a safe and usable condition, public lighting to be operational and grass verges and open spaces to be planted and maintained so their children can play in safety. Is it any wonder residents are angry when any or all these items, which are normal conditions of a planning permission, have been delayed or, in many cases, deliberately ignored by a small group of unscrupulous builders and developers? Since I became a public representative in 1983, the two main planning issues which have consistently been brought to my attention are indiscriminate rezoning and unfinished estates. At the early stage of my political career, I committed myself to doing something about these issues and I am pleased some of the comments we have made over the years have been taken on board by Government.
The scandal of unfinished estates is being caused by a minority of builders. Apart from causing grief to the purchasers, they are also giving the building industry in general a bad name. I firmly believe the Construction Industry Federation, which was well aware of these problems, should have been more forthright in endeavouring to deal with these people who I would classify as cowboys, some of whom were members of its organisation.
The former Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, in voting down my Bill in 1999 indicated that he would address the principal objectives of it in the major planning and development Bill he was preparing. The Planning and Development Act acknowledges and contains some of these objectives but it fell very much short of what was required to deal with the scandal of unfinished estates.
Last night the Minister, Deputy Roche, referred to the fact that under the Planning and Development Act 2000, the planning authority can refuse to grant planning permissions subject to the consent of the High Court to any developer who has seriously failed to comply with a previous planning permission. The process does not work. The previous Minister in drafting this section of the Act knew very well of its shortcomings in that respect but he proceeded with it, and I wonder why. How many planning authorities have taken the steps provided in the 2000 Act? I cannot recall any local authority going down that road.
Why not?
The Minister of State knows why not. The net effect of section 2 of this Bill enables the planning authority to remove permission subject to an applicant's right to appeal to the High Court. This reverses the current position and, by its nature, puts the onus on the developer to complete the estate rather than go to the courts. I do not accept that this could be construed as an attack on constitutionally protected private property and on the individual's right to earn a living, as outlined by the Minister last night. There is no logic to that argument.
Under the Planning and Development Act 2000, which was approved by the Attorney General, no constitutional issue is at stake should a planning authority refuse the permission in accordance with the Act, that is, in accordance with a decision of the High Court. If, as we propose in this Bill, an applicant rather than a planning authority is required to go to the High Court with the same result, how can one be called constitutional and the other unconstitutional? It does not make sense and, as far as I am concerned, it is a cop-out.
It is about time the rights of householders were given equal consideration to those of developers. This is where we differ with officials in the Minister's Department and we make no apologies for saying that. Unfinished estates are a major issue in Meath, Kildare and Fingal. The Minister had better take this on board because the people who have mortgaged themselves up to the hilt are not prepared to stand idly by and they can be assured of the full support of the Labour Party to ensure adequate legislation is enacted.
I thank Members on all sides of the House for supporting this Labour Party Private Members' Bill, the purpose of which is to deal effectively with the scourge of unfinished housing estates. I welcome the decision by the Minister, Deputy Roche, to agree to the Second Stage reading of the Bill and the commitment he made to facilitate early consideration of the Bill on Committee Stage. I noted that he looked forward to the debate. In doing so he has done a service not only to residents living in unfinished estates who are looking to this House for some relief and to the Legislature to change the law so they can get that relief, he has also done a service to Parliament itself because it is good that where there is a problem in the community which requires a change in the law, any Member of this House can propose a legislative measure to deal with it and that a Minister is big enough to accept it and have it referred to a committee. I acknowledge the Bill can be improved and I look forward to the debate on Committee Stage.
As the debate progressed this evening, I became increasingly nervous about the Government's commitment to have the Bill considered on Committee Stage. I caught some of the caveats entered yesterday by the Minister. I was a bit concerned by the reference of the Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, to the need to get additional legal advice on the provisions of the Bill. It is not the best of days for Ministers to talk about referring matters to the Attorney General, particularly when we wonder how long it will take and when the advice might eventually be given. What really concerned me was the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, who appears to be so anxious to claim personal credit for the entire 79,000 houses built last year.
It was 77,000.
The Minister of State would have us believe he carried the hod for all of them. He almost ended up taking credit and clapping himself on the back for the number of unfinished housing estates. I hope that does not signal reluctance to have the Bill dealt with on Committee Stage.
It always interests me that the issue of the constitutional right to property is advanced when the right to property is that of property developers and land speculators. It never seems to get the same airing when we speak about the constitutional right to property of people who pay large sums of money to buy homes. The people who pay for houses in an estate pay to have that estate finished, and their constitutional rights to the property for which they have paid and to the completion of the housing estate which, by extension, is also part of their common property must be vindicated. I doubt very much if the framers of the Constitution had in mind the kind of two-tier view of property rights that seems to be implied in that type of approach. Section 3 of this Bill, which would give to householders legal rights and which would impose duties on developers, emphasises and gives effect to the constitutional right of home owners to the property they buy and the property rights they acquire as a result of the sums of money they pay to purchase their homes.
I am anxious that the Bill is dealt with in committee as soon as possible. The Labour Party has had a few bad experiences with Private Members' Bills which were accepted on Second Stage. A few years ago, I introduced a Bill on electoral matters which was accepted on Second Stage but I could not get it into committee. The Whistleblowers Protection Bill, introduced by my colleague, the Labour Party leader, was accepted on Second Stage but it has still not been taken in committee. I am encouraged by the commitment the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government gave yesterday to have the Bill referred to a committee as soon as possible. I thank the House for its agreement to the provisions of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.