Debate contribution: Unadopted Housing Developments and Roads

Debate contribution by Mr John O'Dowd on 11 November 2024.

MLA

Mr John O'Dowd

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

11 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Unadopted Housing Developments and Roads

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4668151

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion and the Members who have spoken on it. I am conscious of the private Member's Bill to be introduced by Deborah Erskine on the subject. My officials are gathering information to inform her proposal, and I look forward to working with Deborah as that private Member's Bill makes its way through the Assembly. There may well be a need for a change in legislation on some matters, and I am sure that some of the ideas and, indeed, knowledge from the 2012 report will help to inform that. At the outset, it is important to note that the majority of housing developments pass through the processes of planning consents, construction and adoption with relatively few issues. DFI Roads data indicates that approximately 92% of housing developments are adopted with no need for my Department to engage in enforcement action or for the development to be added to the list of unadopted sites. However, I fully recognise that, despite the fact that most developments are constructed successfully, a significant number of developments are not completed to the correct standard and remain unadopted. I also recognise that each unadopted development has an impact on the residents and the families who live there. My Department defines an unadopted backlog development as one with at least 80% of houses occupied but infrastructure that remains unadopted. Currently, 839 developments are designated as backlog developments. For a long-term comparison, the 2012 inquiry into unadopted roads found that there were then approximately 1,200 unadopted sites. While the number of unadopted developments remains significant, my Department continues to work with developers, stakeholders and homeowners to further reduce the backlog. I acknowledge the point raised in the motion that some developments have been left for decades without full adoption. It is important to state that it is the developer's responsibility to ensure that the infrastructure is constructed to the correct standard to allow the adoption. However, it may be useful to highlight the powers available to my Department in seeking to facilitate adoption of a development. The statutory basis for the adoption of private streets by the Department is in the Private Streets (NI) Order 1980 and the Private Streets (Amendment) Order 1992. The Private Streets Order requires developers to take out a bond surety, which is a financial guarantee that the developer will meet its obligations or that, if the developer defaults, the authority may draw down the bond in order to have the works completed to the required standard. I will return to the issue of bonds. There is a similar mechanism in the Water and Sewerage Services Act 2016. Where a developer has defaulted on its agreements by leaving a site incomplete or the company ceases to trade, DFI Roads and NI Water have the discretionary option to commence enforcement by using notices under the relevant legislation and using the bond moneys to complete the works necessary to bring the infrastructure to the required standard. If the value of the work necessary to bring the development to an adoptable standard exceeds the value of the bond, my Department has no funding stream to bridge the gap. Unless alternative funding can be identified, the development will remain unadopted. It is likely that the majority of the developments that have been left for decades without full adoption fall into that category. I understand the significant challenges faced by homeowners on unadopted sites who seek to sell their property, and I share Members' concerns about the situation that homeowners have been left in by developers. My Department is ready to work with other stakeholders to identify solutions that may help overcome those challenges, including strengthening the rights of homeowners, being more proactive and engaging in enforcement action. One of the benefits of this debate is that it highlights to potential homeowners the liabilities they may take on when they buy a new home in a development. Understandably, many people do not understand how the system works and rightly expect that, when they buy a home in a new development, the basic amenities will be available to them when they move in. They do not understand the danger that those may not be available. One legislative option, which may not necessarily fall under the remit of DFI or a private Member's Bill, is that we may have to strengthen the consumer rights of home purchasers. We have to look at that. Members have mentioned that there is a potential for pollution from incorrectly constructed sewerage works. I note Tom's comments about the inspection process for pipework, and that model needs to be followed up. My Department increased the bonds after a significant period when there was no increase in the value of the bonds. The increase came about following an instruction that I gave when I was in post as Minister for a short time in 2022. The increase became a reality in 2023. Again, it is something we should look at to ensure that bonds meet the right value, especially if a site develops over three, five, seven or 10 years. How will we ensure that the bond that my Department holds will meet the value of the repairs or installation works required, if, for whatever reason, the developer does not complete the works? I am more than happy to undertake that work. There is a necessity to look at the legislation that protects homeowners, although it may not all fall into my Department's remit. I can confirm that my Department is not responsible for the inspection or maintenance of unadopted alleyways. It is the Department's policy not to adopt alleyways and pathways that are not essential for safe vehicular and pedestrian access. As a Minister and a public representative, I am more than happy to take on more roads and improve the lot of the people we collectively serve. However, Members will also understand that, if I take on unadopted alleyways or, indeed, unadopted developments, I would take on a huge financial burden for the public purse. The money that I would need to bring those up to standard would mean less money for my Department to carry out other services and less money for the Departments of Health, Education and Communities. There is a cost.

I will.

I will come to enforcement because it is a valid point that a number of Members have raised. My officials have adopted a policy of engaging with developers, and, where necessary, they will bring enforcement cases. A number of enforcement cases in recent years have got to that stage. My officials are much nicer than I am, and perhaps they engage for much longer than I would in those circumstances. I hope that some of my traits will start to rub off on them. In discussions with officials, I have said that we need to provide guidance to our teams that work on the ground that says, "Yes, engagement is good, but you have to reach a point in a certain time frame when enforcement kicks in". My officials have undertaken to look at how we can produce that guidance for our teams that work on the ground. In many cases, unfortunately, you have to have a carrot-and-stick scenario, but you need the stick to make sure that the work is carried out. I have asked my officials to take that work on board. I will turn to Members' comments. Hopefully, Deborah will bring forward a new legal framework, and I look forward to working with her on that. Mr Carroll asked whether the legislation that we have is effective, and he talked about working with other agencies. Legislation is only as effective as what you use it for, and I commented on what the guidance says about when enforcement is used. The point was also made that my Department is significantly understaffed and under-resourced. We have only so many staff to carry out certain functions. We have recruited new staff for the private streets issues, and I hope to have them on the ground. I am looking at other options in the short term to see whether we need to bring in consultants for a short period in order to work our way through the backlog while we continue to recruit staff to our Department. I have answered the question on pipework. There are inflationary pressures on bonds, and that is why they need to be index-based and increase over time. I have mentioned staff levels. Mr McMurray asked about staff capacity. Yes, we have capacity issues, but we are working on them. That also answers the question of whether, if we ever get to the point of having sufficient funding for waste water treatment works and can properly resource our planning service, we will be able to deal with an increase in demand. There have been improvements in recent years, but we have a legacy issue that I do not have the answer to. Some sites have been sitting for 29 years, as Members have said, but I do not have the financial wherewithal to resolve those issues. It is a legacy issue. I am not ignoring it; I am pointing out that we do not have the resources to resolve it at this stage. There has to be a collective Executive discussion on how we start to work our way through those legacy issues. We then have the sites that have been online for five years or so. I think that we have a mechanism to deal with those, although there may be cost implications. I am also confident that, with some refinement and some engagement and resource in the current process, we can ensure that we do not fall into having backlogs of 20 years, 29 years and 10 years, that those sites come on board now and that the vast majority of developers are responsible, do their tasks and what is asked of them by the people who purchase homes from them. We need to ensure that, for those who slip behind, we have a properly resourced system with the wherewithal to hold them to account and ensure that proper processes are delivered. I recognise that Deborah Erskine is bringing forward legislation. Legislation can be useful to strengthen powers where necessary, and I look forward to working with the Member on that. I assure Members, however, that I have tasked officials with entering into enforcement as soon as it is practically possible and to ensure that we recruit, which we are doing, and get staff on board. I will work with other agencies, such as the council or whoever it might be, on unadopted alleyways.

Yes.

I am not aware of the penalty that is enforced on developers. I will ensure that officials get that information and inform the Member of it.

Whatever legislation we are using has to have teeth. Nobody wants to get to the point of using it, but it has to be available to ensure that proper procedures and protections are given to those people who are making what is probably the biggest purchase of their life — their family home. We want to make sure that we are in a position to protect them. I assure the Member that I will work with her and other Members to get to the point at which we are —.

I hope to have the paperwork with me this calendar year. I am conscious that I am asking teams who are involved in the enforcement work, and all the other work that we want them to do, to do this for me as well. I hope to have it this calendar year. Mr Speaker, that concludes my remarks.

1,958 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