Mr. Conor O'Connell:

In terms of the effectiveness of the development bond that is usually submitted by the developer, what needs to happen is that a timeline needs to be put in place for a development bond and stricter procedures are needed in regard to the taking in charge of estates. The Deputy outlined some instances of historical perspective but, unfortunately, there are more recent examples of the difficulties of getting estates taken in charge and the difficulties of getting the bond released by the local authority to the developer. We find that the timelines are too lengthy.

We also have the problem that there is no financial instrument or product available to the industry that can be issued to a local authority. In other words, unfortunately, there is no insurance company that will provide a development bond. The option is not available in the financial marketplace at the moment. As we have consistently said, if more stringent guidelines or a more stringent statutory process are put in place for the taking in charge of estates, that will automatically allow the industry to secure a financial product for a development bond. The practice at the moment is that, generally speaking, the developer must pay cash, which ties up resources unnecessarily on both sides. One of our submissions on the proposed Bill is that there should be stricter procedures for the taking in charge of estates for both sides. There can be a plebiscite seven years after the expiration of planning permission. However, seven years after a five-year planning permission, the estate, roads and playgrounds will be worn down and the engineer comes out and says, "Sorry, Mr. Developer". That will be a considerable period after the estate has been constructed.