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 4668178

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister and Members for their comments and support of the amendment. Members raised various concerns about the plight of unadopted housing developments. The increase in the Strabane area was mentioned. The Member for Foyle said that there had been an almost 50% increase in eight years, if I heard him correctly, and he made scathing comments about the Department, some of which were warranted, but I gently remind him that his party held the post for two years. The fact that a number of Members reported living in, or being about to live in, areas where the housing development was not adopted points to how much of a problem it is. It was useful for Members to say that. If I picked him up correctly, the Member for South Down asked a question about workers who work on the enforcement powers aspect of DFI. I reported earlier in the debate that, in 2015, there were 43 workers in that team, and now there are only 22. There has, therefore, been an almost 50% cut in the number of workers who could enforce the bonds and enforce proper payment. The Minister mentioned new staff being employed in other sections of his Department. That is welcome, but I am not sure why we need consultants, albeit, I know that he said that it would be temporary. I am happy to give way if he wants to clarify that.

I thank the Minister for that, but I still express concern. We need permanent workers rather than, what are usually, overpaid consultants. I have a concern about that. Members raised wider issues, such as the fact that the number of unadopted roads and developments points to a lack of investment. Other points that were made referred to: a lack of investment in the services and the sector; the people who can make sure that those bonds are adequate and paid; and about investment in the water and sewerage infrastructure not keeping pace. I appreciate that I am probably in a minority of one in the House, but I say that the state of the unadopted roads and alleyways is a perfect illustration of the failure of the private market and of our over-reliance, in a general sense, on developers. Why not go back to the wide-scale public building of homes, so that we do not have to rely on developers, chase after them, get nowhere — in many cases — and, obviously, have people left in the lurch in the process? If it is more profitable for a developer to abandon a housing development than it is to finish or fix the infrastructure, the developer will, obviously, abandon the development, as we have heard. There is some legislation in that regard, but there is nothing meaningful or strong enough to compel them against doing so. There is a role for councils in that, as well. If private companies cannot work out a way to make profit from our footpaths and alleyways, and the state refuses to adopt them, which is a reality, places will lie derelict and unsafe until communities take it upon themselves to transform the space. Fair play to people for doing that across the board, but that should not fall on their shoulders, solely. Mrs Erskine raised a point similar to this: the Executive are happy to take in money from domestic rates, but, in many, many cases, they fail to take responsibility for adopting the roads and alleyways that surround the homes. It is not a radical idea to suggest that the state has a duty to take responsibility for the basic upkeep of public spaces. The Minister previously said that he had implemented the vast majority of the 2012 recommendations from the Regional Development Committee inquiry. I do not think that he mentioned which recommendations have still to be implemented, so a bit of clarity on that would be useful. He also stated that, in 2023, his Department increased the bond calculation rates, but I do not think that he stated what the increase was. I am happy to give way to the Minister if he can give a general figure on that. He might not have it at hand.

Yes, no problem. I would appreciate it if we could be informed of that. To expand on the point, do the bond amounts really reflect the current price of works? Is there still a gap in the cost between the works that need to be completed and the bond, with inflation and the cost of materials? Has the Department done a wider review of the bond process? We need some information on that as well. I thank Members for their contributions, and I commend the amendment to the House.

798 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