Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)

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.

See this speech in context