Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)

These amendments have wide implications. The Minister of State may correct me if I am wrong but the thrust of this change in the law is due partly to the legacy of incomplete developments. It will afford some leeway to developers or NAMA to ensure over time that developments which have been commenced but not finished are given appropriate time for completion. A balanced view would suggest it is better to give that time rather than allow the planning permission to run out and have unfinished estates and all the associated problems that come with them. This is my understanding. However, there is another side to this matter. It relates to unfinished estates or estates finished to a relatively good level but not to a level required by the local authority such that it could take over. I realise we will return to the taking charge of estates at a later stage. However, these amendments deal with permission extensions and they are relevant for the reasons I will outline.

Where permission is extended on a particular development, the local authority does not have the power to enforce or take over that development until the full planning time has elapsed. This will have implications in cases where residents are lobbying to have estates taken over and properly managed by local authorities. If the permission has been extended, the local authority cannot take over such an estate until the full term of the permission has elapsed. It will have implications for those residents and groups which seek for their estates to be taken over sooner rather than later. Will the Minister of State take this into account? The taking charge of estates is a significant issue.

I refer to the issue of bonds. While the intention of a bond system is to ensure a developer finishes an estate, anecdotal evidence suggests these bonds relate only to the superficial finishing of estates such as footpaths, public lighting and the final surface. The bonds do not cover the infrastructural deficits in unfinished estates at present such as sewerage and water schemes.

During the cold snap in January and February this year it was discovered that water mains and the main, fundamental infrastructural elements of housing estates were not installed to proper standards. Local authorities are limited in the extent to which they can enforce the law in this area. They can go after the bonds but this represents only a small percentage of the cost of correcting and rectifying the problems which have arisen.

Much of this comes down to enforcement, proper management and ensuring proper installation of infrastructure when estates are being developed. We can learn from other jurisdictions in this regard. A local authority inspector is allocated to any large estate in Northern Ireland but in this country we rely on engineer's reports. Unfortunately, many of these engineer's reports have been found sadly lacking, to the great detriment of the residents, local authorities and the State. I fully acknowledge this. Councillors did not create this problem. Professional bodies certified infrastructure that was not up to standard and this is a major problem. I agree with the Minister of State that we have inherited many problems and legacy issues but councillors are not the only ones at fault. Professional planners, engineers and officials were involved. I do not point the finger at a specific person but we need to learn from the mistakes and ensure they are not repeated. Let us not point in only one direction. A range of mistakes were made and I have cited one example regarding unfinished estates and permission extensions that has implications. Professional bodies that certified substandard infrastructure have a great deal to answer for.