M J Nolan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)

We have all learnt from the experience of developers particularly in the 1980s and early 1990s when the economy was starting to take off. At that time many housing estates were left in an inadequate state of repair by developers, and householders in the main found that roads were not completed, public lighting was not to the standard required and they had problems with waste water and sewerage facilities. Therefore, the tabling of this motion is timely.

I was pleased to hear the Minister of State say that under section 180 of the 2000 Act which deals with the taking in charge of estates obligations are placed on developers and that is only right. In the past too many cowboys, so to speak, have left estates unfinished, moved on and applied for another planning permission which was granted. Under the Planning and Development Act 2000, local authorities and planning offices can insist that where a developer has not completed a previous development to the standards requested by that local authority, further permission can be refused with the consent of the High Court.

While some people may be of the view that apartment blocks are the preserve of the larger urban areas of Dublin, Cork, Waterford and Limerick, most county towns have seen a large increase in the number of apartment blocks being completed. Planning applications currently on hand suggest this is the way housing developments are proceeding. Management companies are necessary to deal with the management and maintenance of apartment complexes because of the extent of shared elements involved. It would be unfair if the Government did not address this issue through local authorities.

From time to time, every householder must meet the cost of routine maintenance, be it for repairs or refurbishment, as well as insurance and some level of security. For too long when an estate or apartment block has been completed it was taken in charge by a local authority which was landed with the responsibility of looking after the routine maintenance of the properties. In the case of an apartment complex, the management company must make financial provision for the maintenance of corridors, lifts and roofs, which appear to be a major cause of concern to many apartment owners. Obviously, management fees should be reasonable but they must also be sufficient to provide against possible future costs. In some instances when costs have arisen, management charges have been increased steeply because insufficient funds have been put aside. As apartment blocks get older, the cost of maintenance increases.

Because of the importance of having a system of collective management in operation in apartment complexes, apartment buyers are legally obliged through the conveyancing process to become members of management companies and to pay the appropriate rate. It is interesting when we live in a time of record house building — more than 70,000 units were completed last year and somewhere in the order of 75,000 units were completed this year — that this motion should come before us. Local authorities in particular are concerned about their exposure when they take housing estates and apartment complexes in charge. Sometimes the bonds entered into by developers in negotiations for planning permission do not cover the costs involved and individual apartment and household owners have to dip into their pockets again to pay the cost of repairs. This happens, in particular, in cases where developers get planning permission but sit on it for a couple of years before commencing the development. In the meantime, the cost of construction has increased to such an extent that the bond provided is insufficient. It is not good enough to simply put the onus on local authorities. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has a responsibility and I note it is being lobbied by local authorities in this regard.

See this speech in context