Debate contribution: Unadopted Housing Developments and Roads

Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on 11 November 2024.

MLA

Mr Gerry Carroll

Party at the time

People Before Profit Alliance

Date

11 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Unadopted Housing Developments and Roads

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4668056

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am happy to support the motion, obviously. I think that the amendment strengthens it: I am glad that the proposers of the motion accept the amendment, and I hope that the House does as well. The issue of unadopted roads, developments and alleyways is one that affects our communities on a daily basis, my constituency included. Unadopted roads and alleyways present major health and safety issues for local communities, such as deep potholes, raised manhole covers, bad paving, poor or no street lighting, flooding, poor drainage and backed-up sewers: the list goes on and on. Those are all health risks as well as a nuisance to experience and live with. As the proposer of the motion mentioned, some residents who live in unadopted streets are forced to take measures into their own hands that they would not normally do, including wheeling full bins of rubbish down steep lanes, causing all sorts of problems and health risks. The private streets Order provides DFI with powers to begin enforcement action, using a bond, as was mentioned, provided by the developer to fund the completion of roads and footpaths. However, what use are the powers to begin enforcement action if the Minister and the Department fail to use them enough? I do not think that they are being used adequately. The Minister previously said:

"enforcement action can often be a protracted process, and liaison with developers to achieve completion of infrastructure works to an adoptable standard is the preferred approach."

I would ask the Minister how well that approach has been working. I do not think that it is working very well. We are talking here about private developers who fail to complete basic infrastructure works on a development because, often, they have gone bust or, as has been mentioned, because they simply lose interest and move on to the next project. Those developers primarily care only about one thing, which is maximising their profits. They do not care about the chaos that they leave in their wake: those are problems for the residents or us, in this Building, to deal with. Private companies are literally profiting from the chaos that developers leave in their wake. Mortgage holders are locked into relationships with unscrupulous management companies, which can charge uncapped fees for maintaining communal unadopted areas, and that is completely unacceptable. People, including those with disabilities who need a more accessible home, are left unable to sell their homes, as are those who need to downsize or who are growing their families or those who just want to move somewhere with basic functional infrastructure. What takes more resources, time and effort: gently persuading private developers to finally finish or fix the job that they started, or starting enforcement action, using the bonds that are provided by developers for their intended purpose? I suggest strongly that it is the latter. The reluctance to use enforcement powers may be connected to budget cuts. In 2021, there were just 20 workers overseeing 3,470 live bonds plus enforcement cases. In 2015, there were 43 workers in the same team. Fewer workers means less action, with almost a 50% reduction in the number of workers in that section of the Department. Maybe the lack of enforcement action against developers is a bit of a conscious strategy and a consequence of austerity budgeting and efficiency savings as well. I think that we need a crackdown on developers in order to stop them from moving from one site to another until they can show that roads, street lights and sewers are in an adoptable state. We need to stop granting planning permission to developers who repeatedly abandon shoddy developments, leaving residents to pick up the pieces. There needs to be more of a role for councils: that is relevant to this debate. I commend the work of the local communities in my constituency, which have stepped up to clean alleyways and back entries and make them safe and welcoming places, such as in the St James's area of west Belfast, the Three Sisters group in the Cavendish Street area and many more residents in south Belfast and beyond who are doing similar very important and valuable work. It is important that the proper level of funding is given to councils on an equitable and consistent basis, so that it does not fall solely to volunteers to do that work in the main. Residents know their areas best, so they can identify the local alleyways that are most in need of investment and work out ways in which to clean them up and make them useful for the people who live there. DFI and councils should work together to support community-led development and to give local communities the investment that they need in order to bring alleyways up to an adoptable standard. That is why I tabled my amendment. Grants should not be solely for cleaning and greening. Although those measures are important, grants should cover ways in which to upgrade unadoptable and unsafe alleyways to a safe and better standard. I urge Members to support the amendment.

853 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:35 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification