Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 69:

In page 47, to delete line 3 and substitute the following:“10. (1) Section 34 of the Principal Act is amended in subsection (2)(a) by deleting “and” in subparagraph (v) and by inserting the following after subparagraph (v):

“(va) previous developments by the applicant which have not been satisfactorily completed,

(vb) previous convictions against the applicant for non-compliance with this Act, the Building Control Act 2007 or the Fire Services Act 1981, and”.

(2) Section 34 of the Principal Act is amended in subsection (4)(g) by substituting “the giving and maintaining of adequate security” for “the giving of adequate security”.

(3) Section 34 of the Principal Act is amended in subsection (6)—”.

These two amendments are intended to address problems associated with taking into account past performance of developers in the determination of planning applications. We mentioned that earlier. Second, they address the taking in charge of housing developments by local authorities. I know these are subjects that are of interest to members of this committee, particularly Deputy Murphy, who tabled a Private Members' Bill a couple of years ago addressing the same issues. Unfortunately, she is not here but we will give her a mention anyway.

Amendment No. 69 proposes that section 34 of the principal Act be amended by now requiring that planning authorities shall, in the assessment and determination of a planning application, have regard to, "previous developments by the applicant which have not been satisfactorily completed," as well as "previous convictions against the applicant for non-compliance with" Planning Acts, either the Building Control Act 2007, or the Fire Services Act 1981, hereby taking account of the past performance of the applicant for planning permission.

In the same vein, this amendment further proposes that, instead of attaching conditions to planning permission relating to the giving of adequate security for the completion of a development, the wording in section 34 of the Act should be strengthened to allow planning authorities to attach conditions relating to "the giving and maintaining of adequate security" for the satisfactory completion of housing developments. In other words, while the development is not completed, there will be an obligation to maintain that development as well as just an obligation to complete it. We have had many examples, particularly in recent years, for understandable reasons, because many builders have got into financial difficulty, of estates not having been finished. If there is a bond which is solely linked to the completion of the estate, there is an issue around the maintenance of the estate in the meantime which is something which has not been covered in previous legislation. We want it to be covered now. We are only too aware of the thousands of housing estates throughout the country which have been left in an unfinished state by developers over recent decades, leaving it to local authorities to have to take remedial action. This situation is totally unacceptable and the new provisions in this amendment are intended to go some way to addressing this by giving planning authorities additional strength and powers in the attachment of conditions to planning permissions, requiring developers to both give and maintain adequate security to facilitate the satisfactory completion of housing estates. In recognition of the priority attached to this issue both by myself and my officials, I would like to flag that I propose to table further amendments along these lines on Report Stage.

On amendment No. 76, section 180 of the principal Act outlines the procedures relating to the taking in charge of housing developments by local authorities. This amendment is intended to improve and streamline the process. Amendment No. 76 firstly addresses section 180(1) of the principal Act as presently constituted. Subsection (1) requires that a planning authority shall, where it considers that developments have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the permission granted, where requested by the developer or majority of the house-owners, initiate the taking in charge procedures under the Roads Act as soon as may be after being requested. In light of this loose, non-specific wording on timelines, the first part of this amendment now proposes that local authorities shall initiate the taking in charge procedures "not later than 6 months after being so requested", thereby putting a specific timeline for acting on the request by local authorities.

The second change to section 180 proposed in this amendment is to provide that where a development has not been completed to the satisfaction of the planning authority, and enforcement proceedings have not been commenced by the planning authority to address the situation within four years of the expiration of the planning permission on the development, the planning authority shall, on being requested by the majority of the owners of the houses involved, take in charge the housing estate concerned. The current time limit for this is seven years, so this is a further strengthening of section 180 and the taking in charge provisions.

The third change to section 180 proposed in this amendment is that where enforcement proceedings against a developer have not been commenced regarding the completion of a housing estate within four years of the expiry of the planning permission, the authority may, at its discretion and at any time after the expiration of the planning permission in question, initiate the taking in charge of the estates on the request of the majority of house-owners. The four-year timeframe mentioned here is a reduction from the current seven-year timeframe.

The final amendment to section 180 essentially provides that where a planning authority takes and stays in charge, that will not preclude the authority from pursuing the developer for costs incurred in respect of further works undertaken on the development to bring it up to an acceptable, satisfactory state for the residents of the estate. All told, these amendments incorporate some fundamental revisions to the existing section 180, on taking in charge provisions, with a view to ensuring that housing estates are more promptly taken in charge than heretofore.

I am sure the Deputies have the same complaints in their constituencies. Particularly in the last ten years in our cities and built-up urban areas, there are many examples of estates that have not been taken in charge, there are bonds that are outstanding that are unable to be paid in some cases, and we need much more clarity for developers and for local authorities on what the rules of the game are. How do we ensure that people who purchase homes are being looked after in a way that ensures that local authorities take estates in charge? I have a number of examples where local authorities say, each year, that they cannot afford to take estates in charge and so are not going to do it. I am sorry, but that is not good enough.

There is a requirement here to start the process of taking in charge. We need to find a way of making that affordable, whether that is local authorities pursuing a developer for costs or whether, as one approaches the four-year timeframe, local authorities have to factor that into their budgets. We cannot have a situation where a local authority just says that it is ignoring the estate down the road because there is no money. Residents in such estates are in limbo. They do not have a developer that can finish the estate and look after it properly and they have a local authority that says that it cannot afford to take it on, or is not taking it on for whatever reason. I think this will put down a marker for everybody.

If people have any suggestions on Report Stage as to how we might be able to improve that, we will listen to that, but we have had the necessary discussions to try to get the balance right here with various different stakeholders. I think it is a significant improvement on where we are today.