Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

I hope the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2005 will receive the support of the House. This is not the first time the House has considered a Bill to force private developers to finish housing estates properly. My Labour Party colleague, Deputy Seán Ryan, introduced a Bill on the issue of unfinished housing estates on 11 May 1999. The Bill was defeated on Second Stage by 65 votes to 58, but the Government promised to address the issue in a major planning and development Bill that was being prepared. The Government's Bill, which was published in 1999 and eventually became the Planning and Development Act 2000, acknowledged some of the work that had been done by Deputy Seán Ryan but fell short of what was required. More recently, Deputy Noonan published a Fine Gael Bill that addresses the need to refuse planning permission to developers who do not complete estates satisfactorily.

Numerous housing estates throughout Ireland, particularly in counties Dublin, Meath, Kildare and Louth, have been left unfinished by developers. I refer, for example, to estates in the commuter belts around Dublin and the other large cities. In their rush to proceed to their next building projects, builders and developers often fail to complete estates by leaving roads, footpaths, walls, fencing and landscaping unfinished. Builders often leave new homes surrounded by rubble, litter and the remains of their work because they are so keen to move to the next estate and the next job. In many cases, they do not complete essential parts of the estate such as footpaths and play areas for children.

Many new home owners have been robbed and conned by the developers who built their homes. I say they were robbed because they had to pay extortionate prices for modest homes and I say they were conned because they bought their homes on the basis of plans advertised by builders and developers. When they move into new houses on building sites, they are often abandoned by builders who fail to complete the estates. The glossy brochure that advertised a dream home as being located in immaculate landscaping and idyllic neighbourhood bliss gives way to a reality of malfunctioning public lighting, poorly surfaced roads, incomplete footpaths and block rubble where open space should be. Unfinished estates are the scourge of suburban Ireland. People are expected to live and raise their families in an unsatisfactory environment in which footpaths, security fencing and play areas are often left incomplete.

I visited Duleek in County Meath last week with my colleague, Councillor Dominic Hannigan, who is the Labour Party candidate in Friday's by-election in Meath. Councillor Hannigan has been active for some time in highlighting the issue of unfinished housing estates in his local area and throughout County Meath. He took me to visit one of the new housing estates that are sprouting up throughout the county and the rest of the Dublin commuter belt. The housing estate looks well on one level — the houses are well-built and the estate is generally aesthetically pleasing. I would describe half an acre of land adjacent to the estate, right beside some of the new houses, as a dump, however, because the remains of a speedily abandoned building site are scattered across it. Rubble, blocks and mortar have been strewn across a muddy field, a rusty digger has been abandoned and broken glass and other forms of rubbish have been scattered yards from the new houses. I do not doubt that children play beside this rubbish dump. I do not know who built or developed the estate, but I know he or she did not finish it properly. The residents of the estate, who walk past rubbish every day and worry about their children playing in such an environment, deserve better.

It is unjust that under the existing law, the residents of the estate have little recourse to rectify the situation. In such circumstances, the residents are almost completely powerless before the law. The normal contract into which a home buyer enters is for the house and its grounds alone. A normal house purchase contract does not extend to the common or public areas of the housing estate in which the house is built. Issues such as the completion of housing estates, roads, footpaths, boundary walls, open spaces and public lighting are the subject of conditions in planning permission. Home buyers depend on local authorities to enforce the conditions of the planning permission to ensure the facilities are completed to satisfaction. It can be a protracted and frustrating experience for all concerned.

A local authority will give a developer a list of outstanding works before it agrees to take charge of a housing estate. The list may be disputed or the local authority may not have the resources or the will to follow it up. Stand-offs between local authorities and developers often last several years, while those who paid large sums of money for houses are left as spectators in the tussle. In many cases, developers or builders move to another site under the guise of a new development or company, having received planning permission from the local authority with which they are in dispute about the unfinished estate. In such circumstances, frustrated and angry home buyers are left to wonder why the builder, who left them with rubble where a playground should be, an unsurfaced rumble strip where a road should be and dilapidated chain link wire where a boundary wall should be, can get planning permission from the local council for a site down the road, where he will presumably do the same to a new cohort of buyers.

Local authorities have limited powers under the Planning and Development Act 2000, which provides that they have to apply to the High Court for authorisation to refuse planning permission on the ground of a track record of non-completion of an estate. The Labour Party thinks the existing law, which places the onus on the local authority to seek to refuse planning, is unfair. Why should the burden be placed on the local authority, which may not have the time or resources to pursue High Court action to prevent the granting of planning permission? There should be an onus on developers and builders to prove they will meet their obligations.

The Bill before the House obliges a planning authority to serve on an applicant a notice of its decision to refuse planning permission if it believes there is a real risk of non-completion by the planning applicant and if the applicant has a track record of non-completion. The notice takes effect within 21 days, unless the planning applicant appeals the decision to the High Court. Under the Bill, residents who live in or move to an unfinished estate will have recourse to the law to seek damages if the estate is left in an unsatisfactory condition. In this way, the Labour Party's Bill will empower local authorities to deal effectively with developers who have a track record of non-completion and empower the affected communities and residents to seek legal recourse, if necessary, through the courts.

Let me deal with the specific content of the Bill. Its explicit purpose 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 amends the Planning and Development Act by substituting a new section for section 35, which concerns the refusal of planning permission for past failures to comply. The new section provides that where, having regard to any information available to the planning authority concerning development that was carried out by the applicant or certain connected persons pursuant to a previous permission, the planning authority is satisfied that they are not in compliance with the previous permission or any condition of that permission, it may form the opinion that there is a real and substantial risk that the development in respect of which permission is sought would not be completed in accordance with the permission or a condition, if granted, and that planning permission should not be granted to the applicant.

The planning authority is required to consider only those failures to comply that are of a substantial nature. Where the planning authority has formed the opinion that there is such a real and substantial risk, it is obliged to serve on the person to whom the opinion concerned relates a notice of its decision to refuse planning permission for that reason. The notice takes effect in accordance with its terms 21 days after the day on which it is served unless, within that period, the person to whom the opinion concerned relates applies to the High Court, by motion on notice to the planning authority, for an order setting aside the notice. The High Court, on hearing the application, may confirm the decision of the authority to refuse permission for that reason, may set aside the decision of the authority to refuse permission for that reason and shall remit the application to the authority for decision, or may give such other directions to the authority as the court considers appropriate.

It is provided that the deadlines for deciding an application for planning permission set out in section 34 of the Act of 2000 do not apply where application to the High Court is made under this section. Where the decision of an authority to refuse permission is confirmed by the court, no appeal shall lie to An Bord Pleanála from that refusal. The section applies not only in cases where a previous permission was granted to the applicant but also where it was granted to a partnership of which the applicant is or was a member. Where the applicant for permission is a company, the section applies to cases where the previous permission was granted to a related company within the meaning of section 140(5) of the Companies Act 1990, or a company under the same control, within the meaning of section 26(3) of the Companies Act 1990. Where the previous permission was granted to a company, the section applies where the present applicant controlled that company or was a shadow director of that company.

The existing section 35 enables a planning authority to refuse permission on "track record" grounds, but the authority must first apply to the High Court for authorisation to do so. Under this Bill, the authority will be obliged to refuse permission on track record grounds and it will be up to the applicant, within 21 days, to apply to the High Court against that decision.

Section 3 provides for a duty owed by a person granted planning permission that is made subject to conditions requiring the satisfactory completion of the development within a specified period. The duty is also owed by all other persons involved in the direction, management or funding of that development and it obliges those persons to take all reasonable steps to ensure the satisfactory completion of the development in accordance with those conditions. The duty is owed to those who acquire an interest in the development or any part of it. A person who suffers loss or damage by reason of a breach of the duty may bring and maintain an action for damages, in any court of competent jurisdiction, in like manner as any other action in tort.

In summary, this Bill has two effects. It shifts the onus of proving that a developer has a good track record on completion of housing estates from the local authority to the developer. It thereby gives greater powers to local authorities to combat this problem. Second, it empowers people who move into a new estate or who are living in an estate to sue the developer for damages if work has not been completed on their estate. This Bill is a real commitment to consumer power. If enacted, it will combat a blight on the Irish landscape, namely, the unfinished housing estate.

Yesterday the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government who is responsible for housing and urban renewal told the country of the record number of house completions last year. We all welcome this but the completion of houses is only one part of the story. In many cases the completions of which the Minster of State spoke are in housing estates that are not completed in themselves and may not be completed for very many years. The builders or developers may have already left to commence work on other projects on foot of other planning permissions.

We all know of the very high prices house buyers, particularly first-time buyers, are now paying for their homes. We know that, in most cases, they will be paying for those houses for most of their working lives. It is simply unfair that they are conned in the purchase of their houses. They respond to an advertisement in a newspaper, pick up a glossy brochure about a development with a very grandiose title, turn up at the show-house, see a set of plans on the wall and pay their deposit. A little red sticker is placed on the plans indicating where their house will eventually be built.

In some parts of the country people pay on an ongoing basis for the construction of their house through the system of staged payments. They move in when the house is completed but in many cases they are literally moving into a building site, namely, the estate in which their house is being built. They entertain the hope that within a reasonable period that building site will eventually measure up in some respects to the picture they saw on the brochure.

It is only after a period that the penny begins to drop. They find that the builder has gone, the roads, footpaths, planting, screening and boundary walls are not completed and it is not safe to let children play in the open spaces because they are still full of builders' rubble and bits of steel sticking out of the ground. The residents then form a residents' association, call a meeting and go to see somebody, such as a Member of this House, to find out what is happening. They discover that the planning permission guidelines were such that all the aforementioned works should have been completed by the builders. There is a taking-in-charge process through which the local authority must go. Notices are served and the outstanding works are listed. It sometimes takes several years before the estate is completed. Meanwhile, the builder or developer from whom the affected individuals bought their houses has gone, having pocketed their money and commenced the same kind of project elsewhere.

It is time to put an end to this. The only way to do so is to give the local authority the very clear power to refuse planning permission to a developer who does not finish off a housing estate, irrespective of whether that developer is developing again under the same name, company or title. A legal duty must be placed on such developers not only to meet the requirements of the local authority but also those of the people who bought the houses. At present, the developer's only obligation to comply with the planning conditions is to the local authority. The developer should be legally obliged to complete not only the house, its grounds and curtilage but also the estate, to the satisfaction of the home buyer. On the one hand, this would give the local authority power to refuse planning permission and on the other give the buyer, making the biggest purchase of his or her life, the right, if necessary, to sue the builder for not completing the housing estate.

This is a reasonable Bill to propose on Private Member's business. It will protect the home buyer and I ask the Minister and the Government parties to accept it and allow it to proceed to Committee Stage where it can be considered in greater detail.

See this speech in context