Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)

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.

See this speech in context