I beg to move

That this Assembly expresses alarm at the high number of unadopted housing developments across Northern Ireland; regrets that some roads and footpaths have been left for decades without full adoption; highlights the significant challenges faced by affected homeowners when seeking to sell their property; is concerned that unfinished and unadopted sites are contributing to pollution in our waterways; stresses that those who have purchased a home in good faith must not be left to foot the bill of bringing their development up to an adoptable standard; further regrets the significant number of unadopted alleyways locally, which raises health, safety and public hygiene concerns; calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to proactively identify high-priority and legacy sites for adoption and to bring forward plans for more meaningful enforcement against developers who have entered into bonds but fail to bring roads and sewerage systems to a satisfactory standard; and further calls on the Minister to work alongside Northern Ireland Water and Executive colleagues to develop, and publish, a new strategy to address the backlog in unadopted roads.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

At the outset, I declare an interest as a homeowner living in an unadopted housing development. Today's motion is nothing new to the Chamber, but it is an issue that I know Members deal with on a regular and frequent basis. To date, we have been unable to fully implement a road map on it. We are failing our constituents if we do not act on the issue. We must make progress on it in the here and now and in this mandate. I feel strongly about the issue, and I know all too well about the impact that it has on homeowners. That is why I am developing my private Member's Bill on it.

Roads and footpaths have been left for decades without adoption. It is not just the fact that they are aesthetically unappealing; they are a major health and safety concern, from the potholes that damage vehicles, to the poorly lit streets that increase the risk of accidents and the footpaths that are so poorly maintained that they pose a risk to pedestrians, particularly those with mobility issues. The neglect of those developments has far-reaching consequences. The residents who have done nothing wrong other than buy a home in a development that they believed would be finished are left carrying the financial and emotional weight of unfinished work. However, the situation is even more troubling. Unadopted housing developments are contributing to environmental damage. We have seen how unfinished and unadopted sewerage systems and drainage networks are affecting our waterways and polluting the very environment that we all depend on.

Beyond the environmental and safety concerns, a very real and urgent issue faces homeowners who wish to sell their properties. Unadopted infrastructure makes properties difficult, if not impossible, to sell. Many buyers are wary of purchasing homes that are in developments in which roads and paths are not adopted and where they would be left financially liable for the costs of repairs and upgrades. That creates a stagnant housing market for affected communities and places an unnecessary burden on homeowners who are unable to move forward with their life. In order to protect homeowners, we need to have an enhancement of property certificates to offer greater protections when those properties are being resold. Therefore, I am calling for a clear and strategic plan to address the backlog of unadopted roads in order to ensure that legacy sites are identified and prioritised for adoption. It is crucial that the Minister works alongside Northern Ireland Water, councils and other relevant bodies to identify the sites and ensure that they are brought up to an adoptable standard without further delay. We will support Mr Carroll's amendment.

In Northern Ireland, there are 1,868 unadopted sites. I obtained the list of housing developments across the country. It is a substantial document that highlights each street and development, behind the names of which are those who are in the predicament of having poor infrastructure right outside their door. Hundreds of thousands of residents across Northern Ireland are affected. Quite rightly, residents are angry. "I pay my rates and my taxes", is a cry that I hear often. They are right. Many work hard, do their jobs for a living and have bought a house in good faith. I will give an example. A person who bought their house 30 years ago complained about a pothole in their development, but it turns out that it cannot be fixed because the development is unadopted.

Another prime example is a first-time homebuyer. The first phase of the development goes live, they purchase, and they know, as anyone would, that, whilst building work may go on, on another stage in the development phase, they have the hope that, one day, the development, which is in construction, will be completed, and they will have street lighting, better footpaths and roads. However, a year or two after all the construction has finished, houses are built and purchased, everybody starts to notice that nothing has changed. We might get a call to our constituency offices from residents in the development, checking in to see what the relevant authorities are saying, but it becomes clear that the residents are living on an unadopted site.

In the majority of cases, it could be a simple matter that it is an elongated process, but, for a huge proportion, there seems to be an issue that brings logjam to the process. Developers believe that the bond that they have in place is sufficient. Meanwhile, at the end of the development construction period, DFI or NI Water attest that it is not. The developer, in most cases, points to the fact that the guarantee bond is a tripartite agreement between the developer, their bank insurer, which provides the funding for the bond element, and DFI and NI Water. The value of the bond is determined by DFI and NI Water and is based on what costs they would incur if required to complete works.

I recognise that there is already legislation whereby, if construction of a private street is not progressing properly, DFI can intervene and issue a notice under article 11 of the Private Streets (NI) Order 1980, which requires the execution of all works necessary to bring the street into conformity with the regulations. If the notice is not complied with, DFI/NI Water can proceed to carry out work using contractors and recover the cost of the work from the bond and bring the roads and sewers up to an adoptable standard. However, how many cases has that happened in? It seems to me that powers are not being implemented and, indeed, that they are not tough enough.

There is no redress for homeowners. In fact, they are the middleman stuck in a back-and-forth between the developer, DFI and NI Water, and that is if you are lucky enough that the developer is still in business. Where the bond is not sufficient to bring the development into an adoptable standard and they have ceased trading, DFI and NI Water have no funding mechanism or legal responsibility, I understand, to bridge the shortfall between the bond and the cost of the necessary works. That leaves homeowners literally picking up the pieces of the broken streets and footpaths, and, even worse, the site reverts to the homeowners.

We have been here debating this issue before. In 2012, a former Assembly Committee, which was then the Committee for Regional Development, held an inquiry into unadopted roads. It was then estimated that it would take £300 million to bring roads up to an adoptable standard and somewhere between £41 million and £100 million — quite a range there — to allow for adoptable sewerage and waste water schemes. What does the Department believe that the costings will be now?

In 2021, the Infrastructure Committee brought a motion to the Assembly that pointed out the lack of progress made in addressing the failures in adopting sites since the report in 2012. It called on the Minister to formulate and implement a more robust and time-constrained package of guidance and enforcement. I ask the Minister this: what has his Department done since, and why has that crucial element not been addressed?

Time is critical. I have seen situations in which housing developments have been built, homes purchased, developers go bust and leave homeowners in the lurch; or, indeed, developers go bust and then, frustratingly, pop up in another area or, as is the case in the past, even just down the street from the last unadopted site, under a different company, and start building again. That brings me to a key question: how is that allowed to happen? In my view, developers should face a penalty for that.

Poor infrastructure is surely something that nobody in the Chamber wants to see outside the doors of our constituents.

We need a review of the main statutory instruments. The Private Streets (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 and the Private Streets (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 are outdated and require amending in order to update them, to ensure that they offer protection to consumers and, furthermore, to ensure that they adequately address the issues that surround unfinished developments and roads. I trust that Members will join me in calling for greater action and urgency on this matter this evening in the Chamber.

I beg to move the following amendment:

Leave out all after "Minister to" and insert: "take a joined-up approach, working alongside Northern Ireland Water, Executive colleagues and local councils to develop and publish a new strategy to address the backlog in unadopted roads and alleyways."

Thank you, Gerry. You will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes.

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.

I welcome the motion and the opportunity to speak on an issue that affects each and every constituency in the North and that, in turn, impacts on the lives of real people in our communities. Our communities deserve to have good-quality public services and infrastructure, including proper roads, footpaths, street lighting and sewerage. Having roads and footpaths that are not adopted not only causes a health and safety issue for those affected but creates inequality for people who are trying to access the same level of public services across our society.

I welcome how the amendment seeks to include councils as a key contributor to the joined-up approach that is asked for in the motion. It is important that we do all that we can to ensure that there are no barriers to people accessing basic yet vital public services. In 2021, I spoke on that topic in the Chamber during a debate on a cross-party Committee motion that was similar. At that time, we highlighted the fact that the issue affects our constituents' everyday lives. During the debate, it was roundly recognised that the issues relating to unadopted roads and footpaths in developments were yet another example of British Government austerity. I know that the Minister is well aware of the issues that we are discussing, and I am confident that, given the correct support, he would act to address the barriers that many of our constituents face. It is imperative that we continue to press for adequate funding for public services so that they are delivered properly for everyone.

It is also important to remember that developers have a responsibility to bring developments up to an adoptable standard. Having more sites that are adoptable would reduce the need for departmental intervention and lead to the situation improving.

It is imperative that a collective approach be taken on those issues and that we speak with one voice on the need to have proper funding, to a level that ensures that we can transform and support public services.

I welcome the motion and thank the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee for proposing it. As we have heard, it is not a new issue. To my knowledge, it was discussed here in 2012 and 2021, in councils and at the Infrastructure Committee, so the Minister and his officials will be acutely aware of the issues faced by homeowners across the country who live on those sites. I find it frustrating that we are today discussing something that has gone before.

From what we heard from the proposer of the motion, it is also clear that the developer-led process for the adoption of roads and other associated infrastructure falls short of its intended purpose. Bonds, which are almost like a deposit for a developer and insurance for the homeowner, should be an incentive for developers to complete construction. We are all aware, however, of developments that are not finished, not finished on time or not finished to a financially reasonable level for DFI to adopt. That is key to the argument, with one of the issues highlighted being that the value of the bonds is not adequate to cover the costs of the remaining works, should a developer default. That leads to developments not being constructed as expected, the developer going bust and the responsibility for unfinished work reverting to homeowners, and that presents a major dilemma for families and homeowners, with their largest asset facing increased expenditure and an uncertainty that did not exist at the time of purchase.

For that reason, and given that he is here today, I would be grateful to hear the Minister's thoughts on reviewing the bond limit, with inflationary pressures built in, and on the process for invoking a bond. I know that the previous Minister spoke about that in 2021, so I would like to hear from the current Minister and his Department about where we are at with that. That is essential because a house on an unadopted site is almost impossible to sell, which leaves the owner stuck where they are, with a house that is unlikely to reach its full market value and represents a loss on their investment. Moreover, it is surrounded by infrastructure that they cannot use. Street lighting, pavements, pedestrian crossings, speed restrictions, parking enforcement and proper sewerage and drainage infrastructure are all completely unusable. Not only is that an issue of equality in the provision of services, it is a risk to physical safety and public health. I am aware of residents who are consciously navigating those sites to avoid injury. That becomes even more difficult for those who live with disabilities, which raises equality-of-access issues.

At the moment, there is a lot of talk about building more homes. That will require access to waste water treatment, which is linked to the underfunding of Northern Ireland Water. The sites that we are talking about cannot be allowed to be maintained at present levels or to degrade further. As we look to increase housebuilding to accommodate demand, it is important that the issues that we see with unadopted sites are not replicated. Not only do we need to ensure that new sites are not left unadopted but we need to tackle the long list of legacy sites that have remained unadopted for several years.

That is why it is incumbent on the Department, alongside statutory partners, to develop a strategy for the adoption of private infrastructure. On that note, I add that we will support Mr Carroll's amendment, which pragmatically includes councils. When I saw it come though in my emails, I was reminded of taking part in a debate a number of years ago, when I was a councillor on Belfast City Council, on unadopted alleyways. One of our councillors tried to address the issue at the time, but, four years on, I am conscious of several alleyways and roads near where I live that remain littered from fly-tipping and are a health hazard to the public.

I thank the Member for giving way and for raising the issue of alleyways. Being a Belfast rep, he will know that it becomes an issue because nobody seems to want to take responsibility for it, yet it has a huge impact on residents, with health and safety concerns. There is a lot of fly-tipping and nobody is taking responsibility for it.

The Member has an extra minute.

I thank the Member for her intervention. I completely agree with her. Having spoken to the estates team at Belfast City Council on several occasions, I know that there are a lot of historical issues. With ownership probably being recorded around 100 or 125 years ago, it is difficult to establish. It is important that the Department comes on board to ensure that we are able to find a way forward, because issues remain when no solution is in place.

Will the Member give way briefly?

Of course.

Does the Member agree that some of the alleyways that he talks about contain infrastructure that could only have been placed there by DFI or its predecessors, and that, therefore, it cannot deny that it has something to do with them?

I thank the Member for his intervention. I thought that it was going to turn into a Belfast City Council love-in.

[Laughter.]

As a former Belfast city councillor, I am always proud to talk about the council. I completely take your point, David.

Trust me, Peter: it will not.

[Laughter.]

The motion is practical, ambitious and would deliver real value and impact for constituents across Northern Ireland. I appreciate that the Department's capacity and available resources are limited and that it has a multitude of competing priorities, so it will be difficult to allocate funding in the immediate term to the adoption of roads and sewers. However, several focused recommendations in the 2012 report would reinforce the process of adoption in order to mitigate loopholes that developers are exploring.

The Assembly is in a better place. The fact that we are talking about these issues should remind us all of the importance of long-term, sustained government, with Ministers being able to drive issues for residents across Northern Ireland. I look forward to the Minister's response and to working on the issue more in the Infrastructure Committee.

The Ulster Unionist Party will support the motion and the amendment.

The sponsors and the Minister will know that I, too, have been raising the issue in the Chamber, at Committee and at any other opportunity that I get. As elected representatives, we know that, at the best of times, it is hard to get roads repaired, sewerage facilities sorted and lights fixed, but, when you do not even exist on the system, it is impossible. Last week, I stood in East Antrim with some of the many hundreds of people who live on one of those 1,600 developments as they had just managed, after six months, to get lights switched on. That was a result of their own efforts, but they remain without any proper sewerage facilities and road repairs. They are some of the many thousands across the country who are in that situation.

We all know that buying a home is one of the most important and biggest steps that you will take. Many, thankfully, go through without any difficulties, but, sadly, thousands of people across Northern Ireland are left in a limbo land where they cannot get access to services and are not on the grid.

I agree with much of what has been said today. One of the many things that has been covered is frustration with developers. I called in a Member's statement for a two-pronged approach, which would fit with what has been proposed today regarding a strategy to tackle the backlog. I would be interested in hearing from the Minister how much that would cost. I know that it would be significant and that money is tight. The 2012 report, for example, suggested that it could be in excess of £300 million. There is no doubt that it would be significantly more than that. There is nothing more frustrating for the people who are living in those developments than seeing developers starting to build elsewhere while their own cannot be finished. Some of those developments are 20 or 30 years old, and they —

Thank you for giving way. I appreciate that developers want to get the final surface on and be done with it, but, in the Ayrshire development in Lisburn, the developer has been allowed to build multiple phases without the sewers even having been agreed for approval, which then causes exactly those problems. Do you agree that there should be a limit on how far developments should be allowed to go and on developers moving to other places without looking after those who have purchased first?

John, you have an extra minute.

Thank you.

That is exactly the point, and that is the frustration. I think that there is a development in my home town of Carrickfergus that remains unadopted after 24 years. Ninety per cent of the bond has been drawn down by the developer, but it has transpired that the money that is left over will not even touch the sides of the repairs that need to be done. Where did the system break down? How on earth was that developer allowed to, effectively, draw back 90% of the bond without having done any of the adequate works underneath the ground? When the homeowners contact me, other representatives or the Department, they are, invariably, told to sort it out with the developer, who does not engage. After 20 years, the cycle continues, and they remain totally frustrated. Their house price is affected. Their ability to sell the property is affected. They feel, like so many other people do, that they are totally in limbo and nothing is being done. That is why we need to see some sort of change. I am open to having the discussion about what that looks like.

I appreciate that there will be a backlog when addressing some of them, but we must stop it. If that means that the bond has to excessively grow, so be it. If it means that developers are stopped from selling the last percentage of their houses until everything is signed off, so be it. A debate needs to take place about what needs to be done to stop it. The good developers will continue to do the right thing, but the most frustrating thing is those who do not. As I said, when people who are stuck in that position see the developers who built their property building a mile down the road while, 15 years on, they still cannot get access to basic services, they rightly find that frustrating.

We support the motion. We look forward to hearing from the Minister. I would like to hear how much of the money from the 1,600 developments is still caught up in bonds and how many of those examples have been tapped into. In the example that I gave, in which a percentage is drawn down, what is the current value of bond money sitting in holdings, and how much of that could be used to start tackling the backlog? I am interested in hearing the Minister's thoughts.

I also declare an interest as someone who lives on an unadopted street.

Unadopted housing developments, footways, roads and alleyways are a massive concern that impacts on countless people to varying extents, but it is a problem that has evidently gone unchecked. It is frustrating that, 12 years since the Regional Development Committee presented its findings to the Assembly and three years on from a motion presented by the former Infrastructure Committee, we are no further forward. Not only are we no closer to resolving the matter; the problems that householders face around roads and sewerage systems have intensified. Currently — I think that this is right, Mr Stewart — nearly 1,900 housing developments remain unadopted. However, the Department has been unable to provide me with details of how many of those developments are stalled due specifically to issues with water and waste water infrastructure. That is indicative not only of the woeful data held on unadopted areas but of the lack of communication between the Department, Northern Ireland Water and other statutory agencies and bodies. We will happily support the amendment as well as the motion.

We have heard again today that some housing developments have remained unadopted for decades. In some cases, developers have gone into liquidation, leaving residents to shoulder the costs themselves. That is the case in Burnside Manor in my constituency, where residents have been left in a situation in which DFI holds the bonds for the site, but, due to water defects, it does not meet Northern Ireland Water's standards for adoption. The Department has now shifted the responsibility onto residents, requiring them to pay for the repairs necessary to bring the site up to an adoptable standard.

Some homeowners feel trapped and unable to resell their homes due to the poor condition of the infrastructure. That not only limits their ability to move but impacts their property value and financial stability, leaving them stuck in a worsening situation that has an extremely negative impact on their health and well-being.

Sadly, it is not an isolated situation. We have seen it repeatedly across Derry, including at Ivy Mead and other developments. In 2016, there were 80 unadopted housing sites in Derry and Strabane. That number has now increased to 147. It is clear evidence that the problem and the solution do not lie solely, Mr Carroll, with developers. I have to make the point that, believe it or not, some developers are responsible and responsive in addressing residents' concerns, sometimes, dare I say, even more so than DFI.

Will the Member give way?

Certainly.

Any site that is not adopted is unadopted for one reason only: the developer has not carried out their duty to bring the site up to an adoptable standard. It is not a case of DFI turning around and saying, "We do not want it". I know that the nature of the game that we are involved in is to have a go at the Department or whoever it might be, and that is fair enough. However, factually, any site that is not adopted has not been adopted because a developer has failed to bring it up to standard.

I thank the Minister for his intervention, but, in the space of eight years, we have seen an additional 67 unadopted sites. The number has increased by 67. That perhaps indicates a resource issue in the Department, but it certainly indicates — how should I say it — the Department's inability to adopt even the sites that are adoptable in a timely manner.

The lack of action has allowed the situation to worsen. The Department's failure to implement recommendations made in 2012, including the Law Society's call for redress options for homeowners in developments where, despite bonds being in place, roads and sewerage remain unadopted for extended periods, has only compounded the problem. Any further slippage risks us reaching the point of no return.

The recorded data on alleyways and footways is scant at best. However, daily enquiries, which, I am sure, are received by all of us, make it clear that it is a widespread concern that impacts on safety and accessibility. We receive countless reports of elderly residents slipping on moss-covered pathways or tripping over in badly lit, litter-strewn alleyways when simply trying to take out their bins. It is a concern that affects people's daily lives.

Will the Member give way?

I have a wee bit more to get through.

Most of the time, residents and agencies navigate the maze of ownership before hearing the dreaded phrase: "This is a no man's land". We definitely need to see a more strategic and centralised approach from the Department on unadopted spaces. The issue affects public safety, well-being, community pride and property values.

While there is no denying the financial challenges facing the Department, budget constraints will not absolve the Minister or the Department from a lack of meaningful intervention on the issue. Additional legislation and action is needed to grant the Department more authority, create a more streamlined approach and support the long-term sustainability of our infrastructure.

I, too, welcome the motion and the amendment. All our people deserve access to secure, adequate and affordable homes. That should be supported by good local infrastructure and amenities, accessible services and strong communities. Housing is not just about having a roof over your head but, importantly, is about improving the life and well-being of our people and our families. When we talk about "adequate homes", that simply means homes that are able to meet people's needs in terms of size, space, light, accessibility, proximity to work and support networks etc.

Unadopted roads in our housing estates negatively impact on that right. We all know about the issues that have been raised today: unaddressed potholes; poor drainage; lack of basic services such as rubbish collection, gritting or street lighting; and the health and safety implications of all those. For example, in Derry, in Gort Na Si Close, which was built back in 2002, the residents are totally frustrated. They are dealing with blocked gullies and broken street lights, but the developer no longer exists. It went into liquidation. Likewise, as a colleague mentioned, residents in the likes of Ivy Mead have been totally frustrated and have been unable to sell their homes — they have attempted four or five times — due to areas not being adopted. Fortunately, after work between DFI and the developer, the developer is out now upgrading that area, which is good news.

More recently, I met Derry City and Strabane District Council building control and legal services about the issue, and they highlighted the plethora of estates that are unadopted. However, they are taking a proactive approach and are setting up a working group, so they are keen to work with all the statutory stakeholders, DFI and the developers to address the matter. Likewise, I commend our community organisations, which are supporting our local communities when it comes to unadopted alleyways and pathways. You can lift the phone to them, and they will support the residents in those areas.

As all of us across the Chamber know, 14 years of a Conservative Government in London has wreaked havoc on our vital public services, our community infrastructure and our economic development. We have been subject to a continual failure to adequately invest in society, resulting in devastating unmet basic needs, and we have only to look at the many people who do not have access to basic resources or income for food, clothing, housing or healthcare, for example. The debate is welcome, but it should be viewed in that context, and we should be collectively outlining and asking why we have some of the poorest outcomes. The British Government have failed to deliver sufficient investment to meet our critical social and economic priorities, including the delivery of adequate social and affordable housing.

I welcome the Finance Minister's work since coming into office on championing that point and negotiating a vital interim fiscal framework in May. Undoubtedly, however, continued pay and inflationary pressures and growing demands on services after decades of austerity mean that those are real issues that we collectively need to get a grip of. It is not about pointing at any one Department: ending homelessness and transforming our public services will require genuine collaboration and collective leadership.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on an important issue that affects so many parts of Northern Ireland. At the outset, I declare an interest, as I plan to move into an unadopted housing development shortly. I just want to keep myself right

[Laughter.]

We will have to hear what the Minister says. I might have to change that.

As has been said, this is not a new issue for the House, but we have a useful opportunity to remind the Minister again about the need for action. I certainly hope that the Minister is in listening mode, as he always is when it comes to us on the DUP Benches.

There are many things to consider for those purchasing a new home, and one factor is whether the roads and footpaths have been adopted. As our motion rightly points out, there are a litany of problems that can come from that, particularly, as has been said, with the public services that flow both outside and below the property. In my constituency of North Down, I have recently been working on a number of examples of problems in developments. People have invested heavily in purchasing properties in the context of ever-rising house prices, and, when they tried to get their road upgraded, they faced an extensive list from DFI to get it up to standard.

The associated costs were eye-watering for them and simply unaffordable.

That situation sometimes gives the opportunity where developers can, unfortunately, wash their hands of responsibility in getting those areas properly upgraded. Indeed, statistics provided by the Department show that the southern division, which covers my constituency, has the highest number of unadopted bonded phases of developments with 80% occupation, with 485 developments; 303 being the next highest and the lowest 205. Indeed, in my council area, we have 151 unadopted housing developments, which highlights the significant scale of the issue. That is reflected right across our country.

It is an unacceptable backlog, and, each year, unfortunately, it gets worse. Homeowners can face deteriorating road and footpath conditions and, as has been said, experience difficulties in selling on their property.

The current situation is such that, should a developer default or dissolve, the bond can be used by DFI and/or NI Water to complete the roadworks and sewers. As my colleague Deborah Erskine said, legislation is indeed outdated and ineffective. That is where there is room for improvement.

Some action has been taken, particularly on the bond rates, when they were increased by around 70% in 2023. We understand that the Department plans to adjust that bond rate at the beginning of 2025, and we look forward to hearing more detail on the Minister's intentions. Homeowners must not be left to foot the bill or be liable for bringing the development in which they live up to an adoptable standard in cases where that developer has defaulted. As has been said, some people can reappear in close proximity, under a new name sometimes. That emphasises that homeowners need to be protected.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, certainly.

Does the Member agree that perhaps the Minister should look at piercing the corporate veil legislation to ensure that developers are not able to set up shell companies and seek protection in that way, if we do not already have that legislation? Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.

The Member has an extra minute.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank my colleague Mr Brooks for that. There are opportunities to improve things for everybody in this process. That opportunity is there, and, hopefully, it will be taken forward by the Department and the Minister. That is why we call on the Minister to do more, and, in the case of unadopted alleyways, a partnership approach is needed between local communities, the councils, the Housing Executive, DFI and others to adopt those areas and instigate a programme of basic maintenance. That is why we are happy to support the amendment to bring in the councils. It certainly strengthens the motion.

The motion calls on the Minister to put the interests of ordinary homeowners first and to take the necessary steps to identify high-priority and legacy sites for adoption. As was mentioned, many of those are historical issues, and it can be tricky to get clarity on ownership and so on. There is definitely room for improvement, given the issues that we are having, as we seek to make this more effective and efficient.

The problem of unadopted roads and developments is a long-standing issue, and there is a fair number of them in Northern Ireland. I am the third or fourth MLA to point out that there are now 1,868 unadopted developments in Northern Ireland. Of those, 170 are in the council area of Newry, Mourne and Down, which contains most of my South Down constituency. It contains the third highest number of unadopted developments after Mid Ulster and the Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon council areas.

The Committee for Regional Development undertook an inquiry into unadopted roads in 2012, and the Infrastructure Committee heard evidence from DFI in 2021. A similar motion to the one that we are debating today was tabled later that year. In other words, the issue has been discussed before. It is well known and understood, but it persists nonetheless.

I understand that all new developments start out as unadopted, and often there is no issue at all: developers do what they are supposed to and the road to adoption is fairly smooth. However, where things go wrong, it can be a very significant problem for residents. We must not forget that this issue can cause real hardship for the people who are unable to sell their properties and, in the meantime, are dealing with completely unacceptable conditions. In my constituency, in Downpatrick, there is a development that is experiencing very serious problems with sewers and subsidence. It received some media coverage a while ago. The bond is insufficient to address the issues. DFI says that it wants to help to find a solution, but, because the ground continues to settle, repairs will not be possible until 2030. My constituents did not create that issue or problem but are now in the impossible scenario of not being able to sell their houses due to the inadequate infrastructure within the development. While that is the most serious of examples, it is not the only one. Putting the repairs off until 2030 seems decidedly unfair to these constituents. That example points to a bigger problem with some developers. We need to ensure that developers meet their obligations and build to an acceptable standard that does not cause problems further down the road.

I understand that DFI has increased bond calculation rates to ensure that works can be completed to an adoptable standard if the developer defaults and that solicitors are also more aware of the issues than they were in the past. That will, hopefully, act as an incentive to developers to ensure that a bond is in place before they start work. Hopefully, all that will mean that substandard roads will become less of an issue in the future, but we still need to keep an eye on it to make sure that it is working. We also need to find solutions for the existing developments that cannot currently be adopted, especially those that have very serious problems and where the bond is inadequate or non-existent and where the developer has gone out of business. We just cannot abandon the residents who bought their homes in good faith and are facing the nightmare due to no fault of their own. From a housing perspective, we cannot afford to essentially take so many existing homes out of the market because they cannot be sold.

Although the issue has been debated at length and for years, I have a couple of questions that I hope that the Minister will remark on. The first is in relation to staffing levels at DFI and the impact that that may have on enforcement and on the adoption of uncomplicated roads. The Minister intimated this in his interjection, and I am interested in how that affects capacity in the team dealing with the adoption of developments and whether the staffing situation in the team has improved or worsened in recent years. Also, is the backlog of roads to be adopted being reduced at all, or is any progress quickly being cancelled out by new cases entering the system? Finally, I want to raise the impact that capacity constraints might have in the future if we manage to overcome the waste water and planning issues that are restricting housing development at the moment. We want to see new homes being built, but is the Department actually able to cope with more new developments coming its way for adoption? Are we going to face a much bigger issue of unadopted roads in the future?

I thank my colleagues tabling the motion. A lot of the issues have been covered, so I will be as brief as I can. Unadopted housing developments are a blight right across our constituencies, with unfinished footpaths and roadways posing a serious health and safety risk to homeowners and residents in these areas. Kerbs and manholes protrude above the base coat of tarmac, leaving potential trips and dangerous and hazardous conditions for the residents, including children, elderly people and all who reside in the area. Indeed, in many cases, council refuse lorries will not enter those developments in their unfinished conditions, meaning that homeowners have to take their bins to the entrance of the developments. I know, Minister, that you will agree that that is a totally unacceptable situation.

Homeowners, who purchased their properties in good faith, with the expectation that the developments would be duly completed and adopted, are now left in a position where they cannot sell their property. Many, perhaps, are first-time purchasers who now want to move on and are unable to get a sale due to the unfinished condition of the development. When we contact the relevant authorities, we are told that it is now up to the homeowners to rectify the problem. I say to the Minister that the Department cannot simply wash its hands of the issue and leave it at the door of the homeowners. In my constituency, I have been dealing with a number of developments that have been sitting unfinished for years. In recent correspondence, the Minister informed me that, in the Omagh area alone, there are 76 unadopted developments. That is only one small area of the constituency of West Tyrone, and we are dealing with these unadopted developments right throughout the constituency, and, yet, developers are being let off the hook, and that should not be the case. Developers should not be let off the hook on this issue. When a developer comes into an area with a new development and gets planning permission for it, a bond is required. We have heard much about the bonds today. A bond is required by DFI and by NI Water, yet, on every occasion, when I request that DFI and NI Water use the bonds to make good the default, we are told that, on some of the developments, it is inadequate to cover the costs. Minister, I have to ask why. Why is a bond that is set by the Department inadequate to cover the costs when the developer defaults? I heard you say earlier that it is up to the developer to complete the development. That is absolutely right, but then there is a fallback position if the developer defaults: a bond. Yet, on a number of occasions, if the bond covers 25% of the work that is left to do, that seems to be the problem. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Department sets a bond that is so insufficient to cover a default when something like that happens. That leaves a situation where the bonds are not worth the paper that they are written on.

I have contacted building control about inspecting the sewerage systems during installation. That is a role that building control officers have to play, but they only inspect the sewerage system within the curtilage of the property. When we take the main body of the sewerage and storm water systems, no checks are carried out during the laying of that pipework. In 99% of cases, it is the sewerage and storm water pipework that fails the test, which results in so many developments lying unfinished. Minister, that practice must change. Any bonds that are set must be sufficient to cover a default. There should be inspections during the laying of the sewerage and storm water pipework. NI Water has advised me that it does not do any inspections during the laying of the pipework. Again, the developer is getting off the hook and is not being held accountable. For one of the developments in Omagh, NI Water sent me a list of the defaults within the sewerage system, which is why the development cannot be adopted. NI Water has said that it does not have the money, and the bond is insufficient to repair the sewerage network in the area.

I thank the Member for giving way and for raising that point. I know that, in some circumstances, homeowners are then left with a bill that can run into tens of thousands of pounds because a developer has either gone into liquidation or gone bust. Homeowners are left counting the cost of that, which is huge when you think about the fact that they also bought the homes in the first place.

The Member has an extra minute.

I thank the Member for her intervention. I urge the Minister to be more proactive in bringing forward plans for more meaningful enforcement against developers. We cannot simply continue with a situation where a developer builds the houses and sells them but defaults on the completion of the roadway, the footpaths and the lighting. The majority of the time, it is all down to the sewerage network being incomplete and insufficient. Therefore, stiffer legislation must be put in place to hold developers to account for that. If they do default, the money should be in the bond to bring it up to a sufficient standard.

My colleague is distracting me here. I declare an interest as someone who recently moved onto an adopted road. However, the Minister will be pleased to know that my neighbours do not want the road to be adopted. That one can be taken off the Minister's list.

[Laughter.]

I do not intend to use this as an opportunity to bash the Department or the Minister, because that will not move the debate forward one iota. I am simply trying to get some answers for my constituents. However, I commend Ms Ferguson's ability to blame the Conservative Party for the Department's inability to use its enforcement powers or set bonds at a relevant level.

Minister, in a number of questions for written answer, I have raised the cases of Loughshore Manor and Willowbrook in my constituency. In your answers, you state that your Department has enforcement powers but has judged that it is not appropriate to use them at this time. All I am simply trying to find out, Minister, is when you or your Department think it is appropriate to use your enforcement powers? A bond sits in place. The longer we leave it, the higher the price will be for the adoptions. The developers clearly have no interest in ever finishing the roads. When the Department does not take action, the cost of materials increases, the price goes up and the bond level is not sufficient.

I would be grateful, Minister, if you could make clear what criteria your Department sets for taking enforcement action. Without enforcement, the list of unadopted roads and footpaths will continue to grow. The message from my constituents is that they want a simple answer on when the Department will use the powers that are available to it.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for letting my name be added to the list at such short notice. I only came in to listen, and I was getting post-traumatic stress disorder from the debate, having worked for constituents who live in a development in South Belfast and have been waiting for 13 and a half years for their road to be adopted.

The questions that Phillip Brett has just asked are the ones that I want the answers to. We keep going round in circles, with departmental officials saying, "It is maybe a wee bit early to use the enforcement powers. Maybe we will send another letter. Is there benefit in sending another letter?". It is ridiculous, Minister. The reason that I am not mentioning the name of the development is that the residents have said over and over, "We do not want to go to the media because the last thing that we want is to devalue the price of our property". They want to protect the reputation of the area, but they have spent years repairing their cars and getting stuff out of the gutters themselves; they have just been tortured. It was meant to be their dream home, but they have been left with a shambles. In many ways, it is down to inaction from the Department for Infrastructure.

Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

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.

Will the Member give way?

I will.

I gather from the short time I have been in the Chamber that it is not so much about the Department taking on the burden as about enforcement.

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.

Will the Minister give way?

Yes.

On enforcement, I think that I read somewhere that the legislation includes a penalty to developers of about £500. Five hundred pounds is a pittance for developers. I do not want to stop housebuilding in Northern Ireland, but we need to ensure that enforcement is stringent, so that things like this do not happen again.

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 thank the Minister for giving way. I sense a real commitment from him, particularly in relation to the developments of up to five years old. He does not have a magic wand and those older ones will be much more difficult. He has tasked officials with producing new guidance. When does he hope that it will be produced, brought up to him, approved and put in place? I ask that because, going by tonight's debate, people in those developments want to have some glimmer of hope that they will have a possibility of getting the upgrade that they deserve, sooner rather than later.

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.

Mr Carroll, you have five minutes.

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 do not favour using consultants, except when necessary. It is to deal with the backlog. While we work our way through the backlog, I can continue to recruit staff into my team.

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.

Sorry, I do not have it available, but I will pass it on.

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.

I call Keith Buchanan. Keith, you have up to 10 minutes.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I do not think that it will take me 10 minutes. I am going to rattle through this very quickly, because, to be fair, other comments have covered it. I was looking at my notes, and I think that some of you have spotted them and taken notes from them. A lot of points have been covered, but I will make a point broadly. I have dealt with several of these issues, from Maghera right down to Newmills in Mid Ulster. The Minister talked about 82%, I think that it was, if I am correct, of developments having no issues. Not all developers are bad. It is only very few, and I think that they just need a little bit of focus at times. We are all guilty of it. There are probably some phone calls that you did not make today that you should have made this morning, and you put the awkward ones off until tonight. You are all smiling. Developers just need a little bit of focus, a little push or a little bit of persuasion. They are not all bad. That has to be taken into account, because I do not want to be referenced in those remarks.

I will briefly go through the comments that different Members made. Deborah Erskine referred to health and safety issues and mobility issues. There are a large number of people in those affected houses across Northern Ireland. The Minister, to be fair, touched on the value of the bond. We talked about article 11 being instigated and the current legislative upgrade of that.

Gerry Carroll talked about health and safety issues. Moving heavy wheelie bins is a big thing, believe it or not. A lot of people are moving large wheelie bins down to the end of their estate, which can be a fair distance. You get to some housing developments and there are 30 or 40 wheelie bins at the end of the estate. It is a big issue for people, and it is a very practical thing for them. Councils will not go up those estates; we know that. There are trip hazards, and they have done risk assessments etc. They will not go up there with a bin lorry to collect the bins. That is one issue relating to that.

Gerry also talked about management companies charging for grass cutting etc in areas that are not adopted. That is a point, and I have heard that before in relation to many issues. He also talked about volunteers tidying up alleyways.

Cathal Boylan referred to having inadequate funding for some developers. That goes back to that bond issue. That will be an interesting piece of work: how much does that bond actually need to be and how will you manage it, Minister, for three, five or seven years? It is difficult to get that piece of work correct, to have some control over it.

Mark Durkan talked about the residents having to pick up the pieces: 147 unadopted developments in Derry and Strabane. I think that he referred to the community pride issue — it was Gerry's point as well — and about people having to go in and tidy up their own areas. There is nothing wrong with that, but they should not be the sole people to do that. They should not be tidying up something that has not already been, to some degree, tidied up.

Ciara Ferguson talked about gritting, health and safety and developers going into liquidation. She mentioned funding from the UK Government. I do not know how that is relevant when the Department is not holding developers to account, but she made the point, which is valid enough.

Stephen Dunne talked about high numbers in the southern division, selling properties and bond rate increases. Then I have written down "house-warming", so maybe Stephen is going to invite us down to his house-warming party.

[Laughter]

We will put that in our diaries, if you give us the date, Stephen.

[Laughter.]

Send it out in time, if you do not mind.

Andy McMurray talked about high numbers, developer responsibility and, again, the bond values. To be fair to Tom Buchanan — I am not defending Tom as my colleague — he made some good points about the installation work and building control only monitoring the pipework until it leaves the curtilage of the house. Who actually polices the developer? Not that they are all bad, but, sometimes, it is not tens of pounds or thousands of pounds but tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pounds to put those issues right. Who is actually going to do that? It is about who polices that work outside the curtilage of the house. The houses are good enough to sell, but it seems that when you leave the curtilage of the house, the developer gets into a land of confusion and no responsibility. Some other very good points were made, such as checking the storm and foul pipework, getting meaningful enforcement and asking when that is going to happen. To be fair, the Minister covered most of those points.

Phillip Brett talked about the criteria for enforcement action. Paula Bradshaw made the valid point that people are not going to shout to the media for obvious reasons; it is going to be counterproductive for them. The Minister is last in my notes. I usually refer to Gerry Carroll last, but he got his touch earlier. The Minister talked about the 92% that have no issues, which is fair enough, but that leaves 8%, which is still a lot and is a big issue for the people who live in those areas. The worrying part is that there is no funding stream to bridge the gap and to look at the bond levels.

To summarise, it is about how you police the developers to make sure that they finish the work to a standard that does not leave people in the position that others are in now. It was a good debate: a lot of things were covered several times over, but most points were covered. The Minister has, to be fair, made some commitments.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly expresses alarm at the high number of unadopted housing developments across Northern Ireland; regrets that some roads and footpaths have been left for decades without full adoption; highlights the significant challenges faced by affected homeowners when seeking to sell their property; is concerned that unfinished and unadopted sites are contributing to pollution in our waterways; stresses that those who have purchased a home in good faith must not be left to foot the bill of bringing their development up to an adoptable standard; further regrets the significant number of unadopted alleyways locally, which raises health, safety and public hygiene concerns; calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to proactively identify high-priority and legacy sites for adoption and to bring forward plans for more meaningful enforcement against developers who have entered into bonds but fail to bring roads and sewerage systems to a satisfactory standard; and further calls on the Minister to take a joined-up approach, working alongside Northern Ireland Water, Executive colleagues and local councils to develop and publish a new strategy to address the backlog in unadopted roads and alleyways.

Adjourned at 7.26 pm.