Northern ireland assembly Monday 21 May 2007 New Assembly Member: Mr Alastair Ross Acoustics and Heating in the Chamber Private Members’ Business The Assembly met at 12.00 noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Mr Burnside: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before the main business of the day begins, I wish to raise a very serious matter. Can the Sinn Féin Minister for Regional Development be asked to appear before the House to explain whether he is in breach of the ministerial Pledge of Office following the directives that he has sent out within his Department in an attempt to do away with the political and British identity of the state of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom? There are many other insults to British identity, and to people of British identity, in this Province. If that is how that Minister is going to operate, he should appear before the House and explain himself. I believe that he is in breach of the ministerial code. Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. However, if the Member wishes to table a motion to debate the matter, he may do so. Mr Paisley Jnr: Mr Speaker, is it possible for a report to be given to the House about an alleged incident that occurred here on 12 March at 10.00 am? Apparently, an effort was made to set fire to a boiler room in the House. Can you also report to the House on any other minor incidents that appear to have breached security, including an attempt to destroy a washroom? Are you aware if anyone is under suspicion of those crimes? Is any effort being made by the police to arrest people for those crimes? Do you believe that someone with a security pass to this Building is suspected of those crimes? Perhaps you will report to the House at your earliest convenience. Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for raising his concerns. The incident, and how it was reported, was rather sensationalised by some newspapers. My officials have discussed the matter, and it is an issue of serious concern. However, Members will appreciate that a police investigation is ongoing, which limits me from saying much more than that. However, when the police investigation has finished, I will certainly be happy to bring a fuller report to the House. New Assembly Member: Mr Alastair Ross Mr Speaker: I have been informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that Mr Alastair Ross has been returned as a Member for the East Antrim constituency to fill the vacancy that resulted from the death of Mr George Dawson. I invite Mr Ross to take his seat by signing the Roll of Members. The following Member signed the Roll of Membership: Ross, Alastair Unionist Mr Speaker: I am satisfied that the Member has signed the Roll and entered his designation. Mr Alastair Ross has now taken his seat. Acoustics and Heating in the Chamber Mr Speaker: Last Monday, Mr Danny Kennedy raised a point of order about the acoustics and the heating in the Chamber. I am very aware that those two issues have been raised by many Members on several occasions. There has been discussion on how those two matters, and some others that concern the Chamber, might be resolved. The Assembly Commission hopes to find a long-term solution to the problem. Hopefully, whatever work is necessary for the House will be carried out over the summer recess. Private Members’ Business Processing of Planning Applications Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for this debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to wind up. All other Members will have five minutes. Mr Gallagher: I beg to move That this Assembly regards as unacceptable the length of time taken for both the processing of planning applications and the determination of planning appeals, and calls upon the Minister of the Environment to take immediate steps to clear the backlog and also to introduce more efficiency and transparency within the planning process. I am sure that everyone here is opposed to unrestricted development, be it in urban or rural areas. The motion is not about Planning Policy Statement 14 (PPS 14); indeed, I know of nobody who wants a bungalow blitz. Instead, it is about the planning system as it currently functions. Development should take place in a way that protects the quality of our environment, meets the needs of the community and encourages a sustainable and successful economy. Those members of the public who have had to deal with planning hold the widespread view that they are getting a poor service. Last year’s annual report from the Ombudsman’s Office stated that it received more complaints about planning than about all other Departments and agencies combined. More recently, the Semple Report on affordable housing was critical of planners, and it called for reform. Even more recently, last month the Construction Employers Federation stated that a priority for the Assembly must be to improve the planning system. I welcome the fact that the Minister of the Environment, who is responsible for planning, is present this morning. However, the motion is not a criticism of the staff who work in the Planning Service. Direct rule Ministers, in the main, ignored the way in which the planning system was not equipped to cope with the volume of applications, and they refused to make available the necessary resources to achieve that. It can take more than two years for a planning application to go through the process, which is completely unacceptable. It is not only applications for planning permission that are delayed. The timescale to renew area plans has slipped, which has implications for economic development and the housing market. The Construction Employers Federation and other organisations consider that the absence of full and up-to-date area plans has serious implications for us, potentially inhibiting our response to social, economic and environmental needs and not allowing us to take full advantage of the development opportunities of the peace dividend. That slippage also impacts on our meeting the rising demand for housing, with implications for affordability and the ability of first-time buyers to access the property ladder. The escalation in house prices reflects the strong demand for housing, but planning delays contribute to rising prices. The motion asks the Department of the Environment to take steps now to speed up the planning process and to remove some of the bureaucracy and the lack of transparency that so frustrates people who use the planning system. The hallmark of the administration of a successful planning system is a trust, based on public confidence, that all planning decisions are reached in a fair, consistent and transparent way. That is particularly important in Northern Ireland, which is one of the few places that does not have a third-party right of appeal. The planning system, as it currently operates, is particularly burdensome for some sections of the community. For married couples with young families, who purchase a site and then face delay and uncertainty while they live in expensive rented accommodation, the planning system is a bureaucratic maze, where it is often impossible to get answers to requests for information. In the business community, in all the main towns in Northern Ireland, retailers must respond quickly to the challenges that face them, not least from the large multinationals. The business world simply cannot afford to stand still, and the way in which businesses are treated is not acceptable. For example, the owner of a business in east Belfast wanted to submit a planning application and was told not to do so because the planners would not be able to deal with it. Grant aid is available for the regeneration of town centres. However, offers of grant aid are time limited, with the result that, in some cases, planning delays put the grant aid in jeopardy. Several such instances in Dungannon have been brought to my attention. Northern Ireland has a unique opportunity to build economic success on political progress. It is important that developments in one of our key industries, tourism, are not thwarted by an underperforming planning system. I am aware, as I am sure that other Members are, of plans to develop hotels at different locations across Northern Ireland, from the east coast westwards into Fermanagh, that are stalled in planning offices. Hotel developers need assurances that their enterprises, which also concern job opportunities, will be dealt with in a reasonable time frame. Some hoteliers’ plans have been — Mr Burnside: Will the Member give way? Mr Gallagher: No, I will not give way; I am using all my allocated time to contribute to the debate. Some hoteliers’ plans have been in the system for years. 12.15 pm I shall give an example of the duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy in planning that, in my view, can easily be weeded out. Take a replacement house, renovation scheme or new single dwelling in the countryside. An application is made to the planners and, if all goes well, planning approval is issued. With approval secured, the owner commences work and applies to Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) for connection to the electricity supply. As Members know, such electrical work in rural areas can cost upwards of £3,000 or £4,000, and the applicant must pay a hefty deposit at that stage. It is then the turn of NIE to apply for planning permission for a way leave, and the entire process starts over again and drags on for another year or more. There is no reason why consultation with NIE should not be carried out at the initial stage of the process, in the same way that bodies such as the Environment and Heritage Service and Roads Service are consulted. That simple change would make the process much easier and quicker for everyone involved. Families in which one member has a disability face a really hard struggle if their homes need a small extension. Providing that approval has been granted from a council’s building control department, an extension of less than 73 sq m does not need planning permission. However, a certificate of lawfulness, as it is known, is required, so an application must be made to the Planning Service, which means another delay. There is probably a good reason why a certificate of lawfulness is required, but it should not be difficult for senior personnel in the Planning Service to find a convenient and user-friendly way of issuing the certificate. Improvements to the transparency of the planning system are required; in that regard, something can be learned from planning offices across the border. For example, in County Donegal, applicants can log on to a website and, at the click of a button, access information from the planning office. Objectors, applicants and members of the public have ready access to the details of any application. Furthermore, at the time an application is made, all applicants know that a decision will be issued within a specified time frame. As a general rule, decisions are made within 12 weeks. It is also worth noting that the planning fee for a single dwelling in the Republic of Ireland is €64. That is significantly less than £550, which I understand to be the minimum planning fee for a single dwelling here. Most Members are aware of long delays with the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC). Last year, the Commission received around 2,500 appeals, and determinations currently take 12 months to be issued. The PAC is independent of the Department of the Environment; it is within the remit of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM). The PAC must be required to operate within a reasonable time frame. All these matters lie at the heart of the motion: clearing the backlog, updating area plans and urgently implementing procedures that ensure more efficiency and transparency. As I have said, the motion is in no way a criticism of the people who work in the Planning Service; rather, it is a call for better procedures and adequate resources. I urge all Members to support the motion. Mr Weir: At the outset, I welcome the motion and indicate my party’s intention to support it. For anyone who has been involved with the planning process, there is no doubt that it is one area where direct rule Ministers have left somewhat of a mess — that is acknowledged by everyone. Planning is therefore one area where devolution has been strongly welcomed. I look forward to the remarks of my hon Friend from Fermanagh and South Tyrone in her contribution to the debate. In highlighting the problems with the planning process — and it is right that we should — it is important that this debate does not end up being a general rant that everything in the system, or in Northern Ireland, is wrong. We must recognise that Northern Ireland has been left with the results of years of neglect from direct rule Ministers. Although reforming the planning system is a priority, it is important that the Assembly takes sufficient time to ensure that the right solutions are achieved. Indeed, Members must ensure that the solutions that we apply do not end up frustrating the objectives that we set. I am glad that the proposer of the motion, Mr Gallagher, stated that he is not passing the blame onto planning officers. It is important to realise that, particularly in certain areas, there has been such a large volume of applications that, with the best will in the world, it has been difficult for planning officers to cope. Mr Gallagher referred to PPS 14. Undoubtedly, in the run-up to the introduction of PPS 14, the expectation that it was to be implemented resulted in a flood of applications that overwhelmed the system. It is important that we look constructively at the planning system to determine where common ground can be found. Unfortunately, at times, planning has tended to operate in a silo and not in a manner that allowed proper Executive consideration of the problems. Therefore, the entire Executive must tackle the problem, to which there are two elements. The first element is PPS 14. PPS 14 has created a large problem, both in the flood of applications that it generated and in the fact that many people saw applications submitted before its introduction as their last chance to gain planning permission. That assumption has meant that many of those whose applications were rejected are going through the planning appeals system. Due to the slightly artificial division that the Planning Service was subjected to in 1998-99, PPS 14 falls under the remit of the Department for Regional Development — I hasten to add that it is the Department for Regional Development for Northern Ireland. It is therefore important that we get joined-up solutions. A resolution to the issues surrounding PPS 14 would help the entire planning system. The second element lies in the different approaches that the Planning Service and the Housing Executive take to replacement dwellings. A closer working relationship must be developed. For example, sometimes when the Housing Executive has designated a house as being unfit for human habitation, the Planning Service refuses permission for a replacement dwelling on the grounds that the original house is suitable for habitation. That situation shows no joined-up thinking. It must be also recognised that different pressures exist in different areas of the system, particularly where there are acute problems. At last week’s meeting of the Committee for the Environment, I welcomed the Minister’s confirmation that there will be a special examination of Craigavon planning office, where there seems to be an acute problem, and that additional staff will be employed. Where there have been changes to the planning system, particularly on procedural matters, they have not necessarily impacted fairly across the board. For example, last year, much criticism was made of the changes to the arrangements for office and site meetings. In part, those changes were driven by the sheer volume of applications and the desire to get applications moving more quickly. However, that level of overwhelming pressure did not arise in north Down, meaning that what was a good solution for Downpatrick, Omagh or Fermanagh was not necessary in north Down. Such differences must be borne in mind. The Assembly must take its time in its consideration of the planning system. The arrangements for third-party appeals must be weighed up carefully. Although it is important that people have the right to object to decisions, we must avoid a situation whereby vexatious third-party appeals gum up the system. Obviously, if the aim is to create a much more efficient system that operates without delays, there is a severe danger that vexatious third-party appeals will generate additional delays. Similarly, we must be careful that, in ensuring that the planning system has proper transparency, there is no tension between that transparency and efficiency. Although transparency is important, it should not be at the cost of efficiency. Many of us would argue for the greater involvement of local accountability in the decision-making process, but we must recognise that that could create delays as well. I look forward to the remainder of the debate. Planning is an important issue. I support the motion. Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome and support the motion. I have taken on board the comments of those Members who have already spoken. The backlog in planning applications has stemmed from the new area plans and the introduction of PPS 14. The subsequent panic and increase in the number of new applications between December 2005 and 16 March 2006 doubled the workload of Planning Service staff, putting them under severe pressure. For example, in the Planning Service’s Craigavon office, which covers Armagh, Banbridge, Craigavon, and Newry and Mourne, 5,753 applications were outstanding, taking an average of 52 weeks to process. The service originally took 12 weeks. Within a month of the introduction of PPS 14, there was a 10% loss of staff in Craigavon — mostly to the private sector, I might add. In what other service would you pay an average of £550 to £600 up front and wait up to 18 months for a decision? That is not acceptable. PPS 14 was ill thought out and has failed to understand the needs of rural communities. It ignores the traditional rural settlement pattern and does not understand social and cultural traditions such as the sense of identity, kinship and close family connection in rural communities. People from rural communities have a right to live in rural areas and a right to demand that Government policy should support sustainable development. In rural communities, family connections and the sense of belonging provide a support network that contributes to the alleviation of many of the social problems that are more prevalent in urban settings. The Department has not taken into account the negative impact of its policy on the long-term sustainability of rural communities. There is a clear attempt to impose a British model of rural living on rural communities in Ireland, where their nature, history and structure are very different. Rural communities in England, Scotland and Wales have been seriously damaged by the implementation of a policy of forcing rural people to live in urban centres, which has resulted in most village services becoming unsustainable and, ultimately, has led to their closure. The Planning Service’s Craigavon office, which covers four districts, has established a new divisional support team of up to nine people. I hope that that will help to restore some stability and confidence. To ensure the effectiveness of the new team, regular monitoring will be essential. The amount of time taken to process applications is of major concern, particularly in the Armagh and Newry and Mourne districts, where it takes up to 52 weeks to process an application. The lack of consistency in the Planning Service’s approach to applications is also an issue. My party supports the motion. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Gardiner: I support the motion. A lack of engagement with the public is one of the key criticisms of the Planning Service. That was made only too clear when, pleading pressure of work, the Planning Service cancelled site meetings with local councillors. This removed at a stroke the one element of democratic input into the planning process. It reflected badly on the Planning Service, showing that it has deeply undemocratic instincts, and was deeply resented by public representatives. The review of public administration will change the operation of planning in Northern Ireland, but it has to be said that the precise future shape of planning remains unclear. It is now unlikely that we will have only seven super-councils, since all but one of the main parties in the Assembly are opposed to that. We will have 15 or 11 councils. The operation of these new councils as planning authorities may be in doubt. The official view is that only with seven councils will those councils be large enough to act as planning authorities. Of course, the official view may be wrong. It may have more to do with pushing a seven-council agenda than with the realities of planning. Even if we have a greater number of councils under the new system, surely a group of councils could act as a planning authority. I mention all of this because the past and future shape of planning in the Province will impact on the responsiveness of the Planning Service. There will be almost universal agreement across the Chamber that planning has been slow and deeply disengaged from the public. 12.30 pm Mr McCarthy: Does the Member agree that Planning Service delays throughout Northern Ireland are causing more and more people to go ahead with plans and developments anyway and then seek retrospective planning permission? That can be to the detriment of neighbouring properties. Mr Gardiner: The planning delays that people experience are unacceptable. Nowhere is that more true than on my own home turf of Craigavon. A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to meet some people who were interested in commercial developments in the Craigavon area. I was told by the lady chief planner that it would take at least six to nine months before such developments would even be considered. That is totally unacceptable. I have drawn the matter to the attention of Ministers, and I am confident that the new Minister will take action. She has experience of such issues in her own constituency in Enniskillen. Time, as they say, is money. Planning delays are deeply damaging to the cash flow of construction firms, and we have to remember that construction firms are among the biggest employers in the Province. I want to extend the original idea: time is money, and money is jobs. However, we must keep a watchful eye on unrestricted development. As a committed environmentalist, I believe that strongly. In the village of Waringstown in my constituency, I have encountered what I can only describe as gross inefficiency and demonstrable neglect on the part of the Planning Service. A developer removed what remained of a sixth century rath — from the time of St Patrick — that was in the middle of the village near the grange, one of the most historic sites in the area. That act of vandalism was not prevented by the Planning Service. It could therefore reasonably be said that the Planning Service fell down on two fronts: it held up legitimate development, and it did not prevent one of the worst examples in living memory of the vandalism of a historic site by a developer. I am not in the business of being unreasonable. Apart from being a major employer, the construction industry has done much to improve the quality of life and the urban landscape of the Province. The construction industry is being unreasonably restrained by planning delays. That is serious because it impacts on the economy. The housing shortage has pushed property prices up to such a degree that the property market is in danger of overheating. Planning delays and a lack of building land are two important factors in that; another is the alarmingly slow process of the revision of area plans. It all amounts to bad management of the planning system. Whatever system this Assembly devises — Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Mrs Long: I welcome the opportunity to participate in today’s debate, and I declare that I am a member of Belfast City Council’s town planning committee. This is not a debate on PPS 14, and planning delays are not solely a rural phenomenon. We have to ensure that our Planning Service is robust, open and accountable. The processes should be efficient and simple to use. However, I do not necessarily believe that that means that outcomes should always be changed, and I do not believe that Members would seek a relaxation of standards. They would certainly not seek a relaxation of standards when representing their constituents as objectors in other fora. Objections are part of the process. We have to consider delays at source when developing our area plans, in which there are unacceptable lag times. There is no overlap; instead, there are huge gaps while new plans are developed — despite the fact that the time limit of 15 years for each plan is rapidly expiring. Belfast is a classic example. In 2001, the Belfast urban area plan expired; now, in 2007, we are just about to go into the public inquiry phase of the replacement for that urban area plan. Within that gap in the policy framework, speculative applications increase. The pressure on the Planning Service is therefore much greater. To avoid a glut of speculative applications, we should focus on having good robust policy in place. Policy frameworks must be implemented robustly, so that the grounds on which planners take decisions are clear to everyone — objectors, developers and local elected representatives who play a part in the process. There should be no inbuilt delays during which people bicker about matters that are clear policy noes. Members need to deal with the fast-tracking of applications that are economically sensitive. Reference has been made to the issues that surround affordable housing, but the impact on the economy when larger applications are caught up in the same queue as applications for small single-storey rear extensions is equally important. There is merit in having the ability to fast-track those applications, but only within planning policy guidance. Just because an application is economically beneficial does not mean that its planning merits, environmental or social, should be simply discounted. It is important that we do not go down that route. There is clearly an issue with the recruitment and retention of staff in the Planning Service that needs to be addressed. Anyone who regularly deals with local planning headquarters knows that planners are getting younger as senior and experienced members quit the Planning Service to work in the Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland or Wales or in the private sector in Northern Ireland. Members need to address staff retention and morale in the Planning Service if we are to get high quality decisions made by experienced planners. While the planners and the Department have responsibilities, there is also a responsibility on local councillors — and I speak as a councillor — not to introduce unnecessary delays into the system by holding spurious meetings about applications where, while it is known that there is no prospect of a change of opinion, the opportunity to influence voters is huge. If we politicians take individual responsibility for our actions in that respect, we could fast-track quite a number of applications. Developers also have a responsibility to read policy frameworks, to be aware of what is and is not acceptable and to try in that context to produce plans that meet the basic planning policy guidance. Very many applications — Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way? Mrs Long: I shall not as I am drawing near to the end of my allotted time. Developers must read the policy and make applications that are consistent. Many applications are in the system for a long time in Belfast because people are in negotiation with the Planning Service about a submitted application that constitutes overdevelopment. I do not want such applications to be simply pushed through as approvals, although I will make reference to that in my final comments. I would like to see all decisions taken quickly, in a way that does not reduce standards but increases efficiency in the process. Good plans that are consistent with planning policy and meet all the requirements should be quickly approved. Poor plans that are inconsistent with policy should be quickly refused. That does not mean that environmental concerns on our built heritage should be overlooked, but rather they should ensure no unnecessary delay. In addition to the Planning Service, developers and local councillors also have a responsibility. Mr Wells: I must declare an interest in this issue: I trained as a planner, and some of the staff that are suffering pain in various divisional offices are people who went through Queen’s University with me many years ago — Mr Weir: The pain started early, then. Mr Wells: It was not before the Boer War, although it feels like it. Members need to put the issue into perspective and look at it from the angle of a hard-pressed employee of the Planning Service. I am glad that Mr Gallagher did not take the opportunity to criticise the staff, as I do not believe that they are to blame for the current situation. Two offices that I deal with provide an example of the current problem: in Craigavon it can take between 18 months and two years for an application to be processed, whereas in Downpatrick the timescale is just three or four months. Why have applications in Downpatrick that were submitted in December that have been approved already, whereas an application in Craigavon may take two years to be approved? The reason is volume: the difference between the two offices is a huge backlog of speculative applications for single dwellings clogging up the system in Craigavon, while in Down district such applications are out of the system, leaving only those for extensions, hospitals, roads or schools. The reason for the current problems is the considerable stress that the Planning Service is under. Applications were running at three and four times normal levels during 2005-06, so it is no wonder that planners are having difficulty meeting their targets. In some divisional offices the average age of a case officer is 27, which is far too young for the complex nature of the job. Their average age is so low because a large number of more experienced planners are being siphoned off to private practice or to offices in the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Is it any wonder that there are difficulties? The average case officer in Craigavon handles more than double the number of applications that their equivalent in England or in the Republic of Ireland does. Therefore the problem must be examined in that context. The figures for the Planning Appeals Commission are quite frightening. In 1994-95, it received 608 appeals; in 1995-96, it received 1,100 appeals; last year, it received 2,600; and this year it is on course to receive 3,000 appeals. There has been a fivefold increase in the number of appeals but only a 10% increase in the number of commissioners; their number has increased by just four. Is it therefore any wonder that the system is under enormous stress? Members must also take that into consideration. It is a fact of life that many important planning applications are drowning in a sea of bungalows. It is a bit rich of the SDLP to complain about the planners, given that it was the party that encouraged the trend. Until the issue of single dwellings in the countryside can be resolved, applications for them will always be predominant. The Planning Appeals Commission has told me that 81% of the appeals that it receives concern single dwellings in the countryside. The situation in Northern Ireland as regards normal planning — planning that does not involve single dwellings — is fine, with applications being processed quickly. However, once the factor of speculative applications for single dwellings is added, the whole issue becomes complicated. I would like some hon Members to accompany me to Craigavon to see the sheer weight of numbers of such applications and the difficulties that staff there have to deal with. I welcome Mrs Long’s comments about councillors’ responsibilities. Until recently, some councillors in Northern Ireland were holding three, four, and perhaps five, site meetings on an individual planning application when they knew full well that it did not have a pup’s chance of getting through. They were just trying to show constituents that they were being active so that they could get their votes. Mrs D Kelly: Does the Member agree that on many occasions at such site meetings applicants were able to point to another site that had been approved, that did not require a site meeting and that was not in keeping with planning policy? How were elected representatives supposed to explain that? Mr Wells: Unfortunately, the view expressed by planning officials at that stage would have been that a bad decision had been made and that that would not be repeated. I have come across that situation many times. The other problem lies with agents. In South Down, agents are submitting scores of speculative planning applications that are being dumped into the planning office. The agents do not answer requests for information or further detail; they leave their client high and dry and then go to their local councillor and ask him to sort things out. That problem will continue until agents in Northern Ireland develop a professional attitude. Therefore the issue is not black and white; it has many shades of grey. Ultimately, however, staff are doing an excellent job in difficult circumstances. Mr Speaker: I call Mr McKay, and I remind Members that this is his maiden speech. Mr McKay: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Sinn Féin fully supports the motion and thanks Mr Gallagher for moving it. The Executive and the Assembly are responsible for ensuring that the Planning Service provides a service, as its name suggests. Having to wait more than two years to have a planning application for a house processed is not good service. The planning process is supposed to be completed within 12 weeks. In Banbridge, Newry and Mourne, and Armagh, average processing times are over 12 months. That is totally unacceptable. Being unable to speak to, or contact, case managers and planning officials, and not having phone calls returned, whether the caller is a member of the public or an elected representative, is not reflective of a good service. Let us not beat about the bush: the Planning Service is in crisis and has resorted to downgrading customer service in order to lessen an overbearing workload. The result is that applicants are no longer entitled to site meetings, and, in some cases, office meetings, to try to overturn a Planning Service decision. Sinn Féin believes that the Planning Service needs to be overhauled. Its decisions need to be more transparent, understandable and accountable. We do not need a planning bureaucracy in which the opinions of local people and elected representatives are discarded. In my North Antrim constituency, well over 30,000 people signed a petition against the mining of lignite; indeed, all political parties were united in opposing that proposal. However, the Planning Service unveiled a draft area plan that still left the door open for opencast mining in the area. A review of planning policy must take into account such environmental concerns as well as the need to protect rural communities and services. Protecting the environment must be a core objective of any comprehensive rural planning policy. 12.45 pm Sinn Féin fully supports the implementation of measures that deal effectively with sewerage provision for one-off housing. We want to encourage the environmental footprint of houses to be as small as possible, and, to that end, we wish to see geothermal heating systems and solar and wind energy used to maximum effect. Planning applications for one-off rural houses that incorporate those systems should be encouraged. Sinn Féin believes that a fundamental change in the planning process is needed. Currently, planning permission is granted for a piece of land regardless of ownership — the permission rests with the site, not the individual. Permission should be granted to an individual under specific criteria: he or she should be the only person who can take the development forward through the building process, and that should be followed by an occupancy agreement. The planning process should be based on set criteria. Sinn Féin also proposes a restriction on the number of planning permissions granted for one-off houses in the countryside to any one individual. Rural planning should support people who wish to build a home in a community, not those who just wish to live in a big house in the country. The issue of speculation must be addressed, as it is having a negative effect on rural communities. As my colleague Cathal Boylan said, we welcome the establishment of divisional support teams to provide assistance in dealing with the planning backlog, and we hope that that will help to address the problem. However, the two major problems of service delivery and planning policy remain. Both these areas must be changed radically if the public are to regain confidence in the Planning Service. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Donaldson: I congratulate Mrs Foster on her appointment as Minister of the Environment; I am delighted that she has been appointed to that post. I have been following with interest the articulation of her green credentials — which goes against the grain, at times, for those of us who look to another colour. Blue is the colour for me after Saturday’s game. I welcome this debate and thank the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone for proposing the motion. It is an important issue and, although I recognise the difficulties that the Planning Service has in dealing with the current large volume of applications, it must be addressed. I therefore have no difficulty in supporting the terms of Mr Gallagher’s motion. We must, however, recognise that the solution is not a simple matter of issuing a ministerial edict. There are long-term issues that must be addressed, not least the staffing arrangements in the various divisional planning offices. My good friend the Member for South Down Mr Wells, my other colleagues and other Members have mentioned recruitment difficulties and the fact that the private sector can offer much more attractive terms to experienced planning officers, which makes staff retention difficult. However, there are clearly disparities between offices. In my constituency, I deal with the divisional planning offices in both Downpatrick and Craigavon. I recognise that Craigavon has a larger volume of applications to deal with, but it is unfair that my constituents who live in Lisburn can get an application dealt with much more quickly than my constituents who live in Dromore in the Banbridge area. That issue must be examined. There is also an issue in regard to the larger applications that come before the Planning Service. I had the experience of an application in my constituency that was submitted by Coca-Cola for the relocation of its premises from Lambeg to Knockmore Hill. I must commend the Planning Service for the efficient manner in which it dealt with that application. From beginning to end, it took only six months to process what was a major application, deal with all the issues and issue an approval. If that standard could be emulated in other major planning applications, it would send out a positive message from Northern Ireland plc. To attract investment to Northern Ireland, and to improve the economy, we must convey that we will not allow bureaucracy to impede the facilitation of investors. Of course, we acknowledge that due process must be followed and planning policy considered and applied fully. The other side of the coin should be considered also. Dobbies Garden Centres, a large Scottish company that has developed garden centres across the United Kingdom, submitted a planning application for a new garden centre in my constituency. Its experience of the planning system in Northern Ireland stands in stark contrast to its experience in other parts of the United Kingdom. For example, last week, it received planning approval for a new garden centre in Southport. From submitting the application to getting the approval took eight weeks. In Northern Ireland, its current application for a site adjacent to the M1 at Lisburn has been in the planning system for almost two years. Dobbies has opened a large number of garden centres in Scotland, England and Wales, and nowhere else has it experienced such delays as in Northern Ireland. After all, it is merely seeking planning permission for a garden centre. A disparity exists, as some applications pass through the system relatively quickly, while others take much longer. I am sure that there may have been factors that have complicated the process for Dobbies, but I simply hold up its experiences as an example of the improvements that must be made to deal with larger planning applications. I welcome the debate. I know that the Minister will take on board what has been said and that the Planning Service will do its best to respond positively to the constructive criticism. Mr Armstrong: It may surprise Members to learn that I have a degree of sympathy with the Planning Service. It is trying to operate a system that was developed in a piecemeal fashion during the 30-odd years of the Troubles when planning policy was, understandably, well down the Government’s list of priorities. The planning system is in crisis. During the long years of the Troubles, the Planning Service was able to cope well with the number of applications that it received. That is hardly surprising: Northern Ireland was seen as a depressed region of the United Kingdom in which business confidence was low. People were leaving our shores to build lives elsewhere, and house prices were relatively depressed compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. However, due, in part, to the increased confidence in the future of Northern Ireland after the ceasefires and the Belfast Agreement, there was unprecedented growth in the number of planning applications. We are experiencing a rise in immigration, as people return to Northern Ireland and others come here in search of new and better lives. The Planning Service was unprepared for the huge increase in its workload. If it is to keep pace with developments, it requires massive investment in resources and manpower. When it held the Environment portfolio in the previous Assembly, the UUP did its best to remedy the situation. However, as the Minister of the Environment is sure to find out, the Planning Service requires a massive investment to even stand still, let alone tackle the backlog of applications. Northern Ireland is facing a housing crisis. Property prices have escalated at a frightening rate and show no sign of stopping. Although that may be good news for existing homeowners, it is a nightmare for those who are seeking a foothold on the property ladder, particularly first-time buyers and young couples. Many factors are contributing to the situation, including the fact that people are living longer, getting married later in life, and choosing to live alone. Also, homes must be found for those who have come to Northern Ireland in search of better lives. Those factors, which all affect today’s housing market in Northern Ireland, did not have the same impact even 10 years ago. I have not even mentioned the disastrous impact that the direct rule Administration policy of PPS 14 had on development in the countryside and on rural life — a way of life that is subject to enough major pressures without having to contend with ill-conceived policy. If the Minister is to put the words of the motion into effect, it will be not be enough for her to say that she requires additional resources, which, of course, her Executive partners would have to agree. It may well be the case that additional resources are required, but the Minister must ensure that existing resources are deployed with maximum efficiency. If Northern Ireland is to prosper, it must have an effective and efficient planning service. In delivering outcomes, the service must not only be fair, but must be seen to be fair. The Minister has a job on her hands, and I wish her well with it. Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I pay tribute to my colleague Mr Gallagher for his comprehensive overview of planning policy and the delays in the Planning Appeals Commission. I note Mr Weir’s valid point about replacement dwellings. I have encountered a ludicrous case where the Housing Executive has deemed a property unfit for habitation, but the irrationality of planning policy — or of interpretation, I should say — has resulted in one agency determining the structure unfit, and therefore fit for replacement, yet another insisting that the property be incorporated into a new-build project. Were I developing that house, I would have grave concerns about the future well-being of the property. I had thought long and hard about the contribution I would make today but, on Thursday evening, I received an email that said it all. It was from the parents of a child with autism. They have given me permission to read their correspondence in today’s debate. It reads as follows: “Patsy, as you will recall, we spoke recently at the coffee morning held by Autism NI at Magherafelt District Council offices, and you had also helped earlier in respect of the above application. It was lodged in September 2006 with PAC, when we were told it would take about 9 months to be heard. Then, a couple of months back, we were told it would be August. Now we are being told it could be 2008. As you may remember, we are applying to build because of our son Conor, who has autism. We accepted we would have to wait on the appeal being heard, but to keep on seeing it being pushed further and further out means we are losing the chance for this to have an impact on his life. Research has shown that any intervention to help a child with autism, is most beneficial if it occurs before he is 10. We originally made this application when Conor was 6, as it stands he will be 9 when it is heard, so that even if it were successful, he would be at least 11 before we would have built. Patsy, as you are now chair of the Planning Committee at The Assembly, we would be very grateful for any help you could give in respect of having our appeal heard, whilst it could still make a difference to our son’s life. We understand there is a procedure to follow, but surely one that takes 3 years is not feasible. Many thanks for your involvement.” The family needs a house that will allow Conor to attend the school that is most suited to his needs and simultaneously avail of the extended family network for support. I say to Mr Wells that this is one of the genuine cases, not involving speculators but decent people from the rural community who just want to live where they were reared with the extensive support that is available to them. Mr Wells: Will the Member give way? Mr McGlone: I am sorry; I cannot. My time is nearly up. The real irony is that the senior planning officer involved with the case was going to recommend that the application be approved. However, because the application concerned the needs of a young child, it got bogged down in the bureaucratic interpretation of a group meeting, where common sense was lost. Thereafter, a refusal was issued. 1.00 pm The cost of the resulting appeal must also be taken into account, because the planning consultant must be paid. However, that family’s case is not exceptional. They have given me permission to highlight it here today to provide an example of real, human issues that affect good, decent people who simply want to get on with their lives. Today’s debate is necessary because of unsuitable planning policies, unnecessary delays and inadequate resources. I know of 80 vacancies in the Planning Service. Perhaps the Assembly should examine the pay structure and working conditions there, because experienced planning officials are leaving. I cannot fault them for doing so, but they are needed to process planning applications and to deal with the delays and inefficiencies that clearly exist. However, as a consequence of such delays, jobs are being lost, house prices are rising at a ferocious rate and, more importantly, the needs of people such as young Conor are being lost sight of. There must be a major shake-up and review in the Planning Service, and some of the policies of PPS 14 — Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Mr McGlone: OK. Thank you. Mr Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Leascheann Comhairle. This afternoon’s debate is important. It is crucial that Members send a message from the Chamber that there must be a change in planning policy and its structures. On several occasions we have seen that the Planning Service is a bureaucratic system that acts as a quango, with little or no consultation with councillors or elected Members. That is unfortunate and means that planners impose area plans with little or no consultation. Often barristers fight out the details, but the people affected are not involved, nor are the needs of the area considered. The area plan, therefore, is not acceptable to the community, which does not perceive its implementation as relevant. Members have also seen area plans being completely distorted under new planning legislation. Unfortunately, when Lord Rooker was here, he drove a horse and carriage through all the legislation and left us with no planning strategy whatsoever. He dismissed advice, even from his officials, on how to deal with planning. He was another bureaucrat who came over to tell people how to design their houses, where to build them and where to live. Most disappointing are the lack of consultation in rural areas and the fact that the backlog is building up. A simple planning system could be introduced. Currently, planning applications are being submitted for building on perfectly good, mature, derelict sites with surrounding trees and various other advantages. However, because the existing building is derelict and no longer recognised as a house, and particularly since the introduction of PPS 14, planning permission is refused, without any consideration. The planners can issue several deferments. If an application goes before a council, there can be only one deferment. However, when the application goes back to the planners, they state that certain changes are required. When the applicant complies, the planners impose more conditions, and that process is repeated again and again. I am dealing with a case in Pomeroy that has been going on for two years. The Department has issued eight deferments. On eight occasions, the applicant has completely changed the type of the house to accommodate the planners’ requests. Yet he is still being told that if he does not meet certain conditions, the entire application will be refused. The applicant has incurred massive costs because of the architectural consultants involved at different stages. The application has been unnecessarily delayed for two years and the house completely changed from what he originally wanted. There must be some means of dealing with such cases. A straight line of information must come from the planners to applicants about what is required to meet their demands. Members know that the worst backlog of applications is in Craigavon, where the same person who held back applications and caused a backlog in Omagh, Cookstown, Dungannon and all over the place is now based. That particular lady deliberately holds up and blocks applications, because she does not believe that any planning permission should be granted in rural areas. Rather than removing the planning legislation, it may be necessary to remove the personnel who create the blockages. There must be a new approach to planning, one that involves and consults people. No one wants bad planning. I have heard from the residents of an area where building took place to modify a cement works at an industrial site that is situated in the middle of their housing estate. A year after that building started, those modifications have been completely finished, yet it has emerged that no planning permission was ever issued for the site. The planners say that they cannot do anything to stop the developers: the developers proceed without planning permission at their own risk. That situation has become more and more common. Enforcement has, therefore, been a problem. Objectors are not being listened to, and planners will not enforce the legislation. There is enough legislation to allow planners to deal with such situations. The problem with PPS 14 is that a situation has developed in which refusal of planning permission in rural areas has created a backlog in applications and increased demand for housing in urban areas because people cannot find anywhere else to live. It is important that the Assembly urges the Environment Minister to resolve the issue of PPS 14 and move the process to a new position. Existing planning legislation must also be enforced. Mr Paisley Jnr: I welcome the debate that has been brought to the Floor by Mr Gallagher. It is a worthwhile debate on an issue that the Assembly must get to grips with and must also encourage the Minister to get to grips with. Planning rests at the heart of the community’s ability to make economic progress. Too often, as other Members have mentioned, planning delays have affected business and private opportunities. I agree with Mr Gallagher’s opening comment that no one wants to see bungalow blight across the countryside. Of course, for the record, I had better point out that no one wants to see two-storey house blight across the countryside either. People want to see a planning process that allows for sustained and appropriate development. The regulations that were in place prior to PPS 14 did allow for that. Unfortunately, due to scaremongering, an unfair policy was introduced by the Secretary of State’s Department which was uncalled for and caused a great deal of injustice. Planning has slowed down. Some people wrongly assume that that is due to there being too many planning applications in the process. That is not the sole reason. Too few people recognise how many objections to legitimate planning applications there are, and they also slow the process down. A wrong attitude exists that an acceptable planning objection must be supported by at least 1,000 people. That is not the case. Planning Service officials listen to a good objection when they hear one. They do not need 1,000 people to tell them that an objection is a good, sound one. Likewise, if there is a good, sound reason to grant planning approval, they will not need 1,000 people to tell them that either. The most frustrating aspect of the planning system, which I believe the Member for Lagan Valley Mr Donaldson referred to when he talked about business opportunities in his constituency — in particular, Coca Cola — is that most businesspeople who require the Planning Service see their opportunity being slowed down by the planning process. I can mention numerous such projects in my constituency, such as that of a new tourism facility at the Giant’s Causeway; a new golf facility at Bushmills; and the restoration of Galgorm Castle. Those projects received widespread support from the councils and the community. Unfortunately, two of those cases have been slowed down by five years, and the other by six years, while the developers wait to be allowed a proper hearing and to be given either an approval or a refusal. Those delays are not acceptable. There must be a fast track for applications that have significant business or tourism qualities. A central unit deals with large projects. I hope that the Minister will go to that unit of her Department and press it to be more proactive, to take on board such cases and expedite them in a way that allows for quick decisions. Not everyone will want approval to be given to a planning application; nor will everyone want approval to be refused. However, people want to be given an answer. They are entitled to that. The sooner that people are given an answer, the better, because then they can start to make plans and move on. However, what frustrates most people is the lengthy gestation period, during which applicants are told that they “possibly” or “perhaps” will be granted planning permission. That is not the fault of the Department of the Environment or the Planning Service per se. The fault lies with the Planning Service’s fear of taking a decision. I hope that it will be encouraged to take decisions. Under local Ministers, the necessary leadership is in place to take those decisions to make headway with planning applications, thus allowing business to flourish. The planning applications under discussion are significant applications that have implications for business and for the betterment of Northern Ireland. The Planning Service should be encouraged not to delay them, so that applicants will not be frustrated. If that happens, our economy will make progress. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the points that were raised about the central unit in the DOE that deals with large projects. Mr Speaker: Before I call Mr Burnside, I remind the House that it is his maiden speech. I ask Members to respect that. Mr Burnside: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Having served at Westminster, I do not mind whether there are any interventions. I shall accept them. I support the main thrust of the motion. To sum it up, the motion is designed to make planning faster, more efficient and more transparent, and we are all in favour of that. I congratulate the Minister on her position — I never thought that I would see her in a unionist/Sinn Féin Executive. I wish to put one or two items on her agenda for her early days in the job. The UK as a whole has one of the worst planning systems in the world. Without hiring any new consultants, the Minister could consider international examples of much more efficient planning systems for rural development, such as the commune system in France and the Swiss system. I highlight rural development, because I do not mean planning systems for new airports, although the French and Swiss are also better at planning for those. If the aim is to radically speed up the planning system in Northern Ireland, the Minister should look at some international examples of planning systems. The second point that I wish to put on the Minister’s agenda for consideration comes from personal experience. Mr S Wilson: Does the Member accept that France, especially when it comes to major projects, adopts a steamroller approach to planning? Any local objections are simply overridden. Is the Member suggesting that we should do that in Northern Ireland? Mr Burnside: No, I would not go that far. I shall give an example of slow development at UK airports, such as Heathrow, of which I have some experience. The UK lost out badly there. It will take 20 years to build terminal 5 at Heathrow, yet it would take five years to build an equivalent terminal in France. That is bad for the UK generally. There must be consultation — we do not want to take a steamroller approach. My second point is that, more than 130 years ago — after the famine and before the Irish Land Acts came into force — many more people than are now doing so were living in small rural settlements. By small rural settlements, I mean settlements of one or two farms. As I have said, that was before the Irish Land Acts, after which landlords sold farms to tenant farmers. My family were tenant farmers in Secon in Ballymoney who then bought the land. The small rural settlements were wiped out, and that is when countryside life started to disappear. Therefore we ended up with farms owned by former tenants. I hope that in the new environmentally friendly world in which we now live, and given the many grants, incentives and subsidies that are being given to environmental development, the Minister will ask her Department to look at those old settlements — where they were and where gaps exist in the countryside — to see from where financial benefits could possibly be obtained. I applied to do up an old building on my farm and, in turn, three labourers’ cottages. The roof of the building had come down and there were cattle in the shed. There are many examples of such properties around the Province. I said that I would do it up in its original form, but my planning application was turned down. With due respect to the large population of people in Northern Ireland who live in bungalows, if I had applied to build a bungalow, I would probably have received my planning permission. One must be very careful when talking about bungalows in Northern Ireland. Those who canvass here realise that many votes can be lost by being anti-bungalow. 1.15 pm The Minister’s Department should review the incentives, benefits and criteria that apply to old buildings in the countryside. I do not mean just the great buildings and old houses that belonged to the gentry; the sites of old settlements could be considered for environmentally friendly development, and incentives, benefits and grants made available. Members should learn from the past. The process must be speeded up and made more transparent and efficient, but, in doing so, Members must consider the countryside and how to get people back into it. I do not mean bungalow development; I mean local communities and villages. If Members look around their local townlands, they will see where the old settlements were. That is the right sort of development for the Province. Those are two items for the Minister’s agenda, and I am sure that she will consider them efficiently, effectively and transparently. Mrs D Kelly: I congratulate the Minister of the Environment, who has a wealth of experience in rural Fermanagh, on her appointment. I am sure that there are many issues being raised today that she is well acquainted with from her former life as a councillor. Some years ago, Craigavon Borough Council expressed concern to the divisional manager of the Planning Service about the backlog of planning applications awaiting decision. We were assured that there was no issue of staff resources. Other Craigavon councillors will support me in that recollection. Members have heard much about PPS 14, which has had a huge impact on the planning backlog. It is good to hear Sinn Féin acting as a team in relation to PPS 14 on this occasion, considering that a former, and I emphasise “former”, Member of this House initially supported it. Neither I nor my party will take lectures from the Member for South Down Mr Wells. Even his own party will not take lectures from him. In the Transitional Assembly, one of his colleagues said that every party should have a Mr Wells. I am not sure about that — he is on his own on environmental issues, and housing in particular. As a former occupational therapist, I make a special plea to the Minister, as she considers planning process reform, for a fast-track approach to disabled persons’ facilities. Members heard my colleague Mr McGlone highlight a particular case. Unfortunately, it is not an isolated one. Members could all give examples of people who are waiting, or in some cases have passed on. Not only must they go through the rigour of the planning process, but there is also an unacceptable delay in housing grant approval. I recognise that problems with the planning process cannot be resolved solely by the Minister of the Environment. She and the Minister for Regional Development have interdependent responsibility for PPS 14, and I look forward to an early elimination of that iniquitous policy. The planning process also relies heavily on regional development strategy and housing growth indicators. Overall, the planning process depends on many other factors, not just staff and resources. I am glad that Members have been unanimous in not criticising staff, but recognise the pressures that they find themselves under. Nonetheless, the planning process is far too unwieldy. It is not fit for purpose or fit for Northern Ireland. Members have mentioned objections and objectors, and it is interesting that the Northern Ireland Ombudsman Tom Frawley has received more complaints relating to the planning process, applications and decision-making than all of the other Departments combined. That highlights the need for third-party appeals to be heard at an early stage, which the SDLP has supported. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and look to examples of practice elsewhere, including the Republic of Ireland, where if a decision has not been made within a specified time frame, and there are no adverse comments, it is deemed to be approved. The onus is on people to submit their objections at an early stage in order that third-party appeals can be heard. People want to know what politics has to do with them. Planning is not just about where we live; it is also about where we work, eat and play. The community in Northern Ireland has the huge expectation that this Assembly will make a difference to their lives. Indeed, the Department of the Environment could make a considerable impact if the planning process were reformed speedily. Mr S Wilson: I congratulate the Minister on her appointment, and I look forward to working with her Department to ensure that we have an efficient planning process. As Members have pointed out, such efficiency is important if we are to realise the economic growth that Northern Ireland requires. Planning policy and good planning decisions lie at the heart of driving the economy. Without them, the construction, manufacturing and tourism industries will find that they cannot advance. Some Members have also stated that there are huge deficiencies in the planning system. Several reasons have been given for those. They have been blamed on agents, on architects submitting shady plans and on the nature of the plans themselves — are they clear enough, are they too prescriptive, or should they be a bit more vague? The Minister is getting all sorts of advice about the matter, some of which is contradictory — some people want more consultation and others want less. Mr Kennedy: What do you want? Mr S Wilson: I will come to that in a moment; I am sure that the Member will be very interested to hear what I want. Many reasons, including staffing, have been given for the deficiencies. Planning delays fall into two categories, the first of which concerns major planning applications. The biggest problem lies with those. For example, in my East Antrim constituency, plans for a marina in Larne have been with the planners for nearly five years; a proposal to extend Glenarm quarry, which will retain about 100 jobs, has been in the planning system for over two years; and a major tourist proposal for Magheramorne quarry, which could have a significant impact on the whole of Northern Ireland and fits in with all the sustainable development requirements, has been with the planners for over a year, and there is no indication of what the outcome will be. We need to consider staffing first. Some Members have already pointed out the number of staffing vacancies. We are losing staff to the private sector and to the Irish Republic. Indeed, many staff are leaving as a result of the uncertainty that the review of public administration has brought because they do not know where they might be located. They are now seeking certainty by going to other jobs. Therefore a range of issues, including pay and conditions, giving certainty to staff and reducing the overload of work, must be addressed. The second category involves consultations. They have not been mentioned much this morning, but I have tabled questions about them in another place. The delay in planning applications often rests with those with whom the planners have to consult. On average, the Environment and Heritage Service takes between six and eight months to respond to a consultation; Roads Service takes an average of three months; and Water Service takes an average of two. All those response times are outside the limit that has been laid down for dealing with the entire application. The Minister needs to address that. If, as I suspect, some of those consultees simply believe that the Planning Service will have to wait for them to respond, perhaps we should lay down rules declaring that if they do not respond within a certain time, we will assume that they have no response to make. They might be geed up a wee bit when they realise that their views will be ignored if there is unnecessary delay in responding to a planning application. A role that has not yet been mentioned is that of the Planning Service management board. Councillors were pilloried — sometimes quite rightly — for sending applications to the management board simply to show voters that they were doing something. A strict filter system has been established. However, when an application is sent to the management board, the board may take a long time to respond. Recently, I dealt with a case in Belfast in which the management board took four months to write back, saying that it could do nothing with the application because it fell outside its remit. How long would it have taken the board to respond had the application fallen within its remit? The role of the management board must be addressed. Those are just two of the issues that the Minister should take up. Mr B Wilson: No Member will disagree with the aims of the motion. The present backlog of planning applications is unacceptable. However, we must examine why it came about and how it might be resolved. Most importantly, we must ensure that any action taken will not lead to deterioration in the service provided. There is no quick fix to the problem. Some of the measures proposed to resolve it would significantly reduce the quality of service. For example, the previous attempt to speed up planning applications resulted in the virtual abolition of site meetings and the introduction of severe restrictions on referrals to the Planning Service management board. Although that might have helped to speed up applications, it significantly reduced the level of accountability, local input and democratic control. The backlog of applications, and the time that it takes for PAC referrals, are important issues that highlight the serious problems within the Planning Service. In particular, the service finds it difficult to retain experienced staff. In information that we received on the Planning Service, Members were told that forty-something to 26. That does not suggest the high degree of experience required to deal with more complex issues, particularly appeals to the PAC. Recently, there has been a tendency for newly trained staff to leave the Planning Service after two or three years to take up higher-paid jobs in the private sector or in public bodies, especially councils in the Irish Republic. As a result of that loss of experience, new entrants are required to take on more responsibility without the guidance of experienced staff. That lack of experience will inevitably lead to delays in the processing of applications and to an increase in the number of mistakes made. For example, the north Down section should have a complement of six officers, but, at present, there are only two. Two officers have resigned in the past month. That is unacceptable, and if allowed to continue, it will, inevitably, lead to a backlog. Mr Gallagher has not suggested how the retention of staff might be addressed. At present, morale in the Planning Service is low: perhaps we should consider a review of salary levels and conditions of service. We must also ask why the backlog has arisen. There is no substantial backlog of routine cases in north Down or in other urban council areas — although there is a backlog of more complex cases. The problem seems to lie in more rural council areas, particularly in those west of the Bann. It is clear that, prior to the introduction of PPS 14, there was a massive increase in the number of applications for single dwellings in some council areas. In the Fermanagh and Dungannon council areas, almost 1,000 applications for single dwellings were submitted in the three months before the introduction of PPS 14 in 2006. That contrasts with five such applications in north Down. Such an increase in applications made a backlog inevitable. No system could cope with an increase on that scale. That backlog in applications is reducing, and will continue to do so. In the same three months of this year, applications in the Dungannon and Fermanagh council areas dropped to 223 and 216 respectively, a fall of 76%. Overall, the total number of applications for single dwellings has fallen from 6,400 to 2,500, a drop of 61%. That fall in applications should help to take some pressure off the planners and enable them to reduce the backlog further. Latest figures show that that trend is now established. The backlog is very slowly being reduced. 1.30 pm Furthermore, the pressure on planners could be relieved by increasing the number of areas in which development is permitted and by reducing the number of applications for minor extensions. However, relaxation of the level of scrutiny of applications must be resisted, together with the temptation to “nod them through” only to improve figures, or because of political pressure. High standards of scrutiny must be retained, and that requires experienced and well-motivated staff. That experience cannot be achieved overnight. The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster): I am delighted to be here and to take part in the debate, and I congratulate the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone on securing it. Many Members hold strong views on the issue and wanted to speak in the debate. I welcome the opportunity to provide some explanation of the current situation and to set out, as far as possible, how I intend to move forward. First, I echo the wishes of Members for an effective and efficient planning system in Northern Ireland. As some Members said, it is essential to the future of our economy and to the provision of our infrastructure, our employment, our homes and our transport networks. Moreover, it is pivotal to the stimulation of regeneration and the promotion of sustainable development. I welcome the positive comments made by Members with regard to the staff in the divisional offices; I know that it will be of some comfort to staff. I acknowledge that our current system does not function as well as it should, largely due to the significant challenges that it has faced in recent years. There has been an unprecedented escalation in the workload. The number of applications rose by more than 60% between 2000 and 2006. There have been a growing number of planning appeals, an ever-increasing level of public participation in the planning process, and resource difficulties, arising from an increasing level of professional staff turnover. We have heard much mention of that in the debate. However, not all of the problems are on the supply side. Delays are frequently caused by the submission of poor-quality or inappropriate applications, for which applicants and agents must bear responsibility. All of those pressures have come at a time when the public expect — and demand — improvements in service delivery. Although those difficulties are, largely, outside the control of the Planning Service, the current level of service is not what is wanted. In an effort to address that, the service has, in recent years, been committed to, and actively engaged in, a major reform and modernisation programme. Already, that has brought about significant legislative reform, streamlining of the development plan process, refinement of the arrangements for consulting councils — and I shall say more on that anon — and the implementation of new procedures to quality-assure applications on receipt. Applications with potentially significant economic or social benefits for Northern Ireland have also benefited from a sharper focus. A new strategic projects and design unit has been working closely with the Strategic Investment Board and with Government Departments to ensure that infrastructure projects in the investment strategy for Northern Ireland are managed efficiently through the planning process. One example of that is the new South West Acute Hospital in Enniskillen. Significant private-sector projects are also being processed as quickly as possible, particularly when there has been productive pre-application engagement. My hon Friend Jeffrey Donaldson mentioned Coca-Cola in Lambeg; the Ikea proposal is another example. In addition to the modernisation programme, the service has recently completed an extensive recruitment and promotion drive to fill a significant number of vacancies for planners across the organisation. Furthermore, as my Friend Peter Weir from North Down mentioned, the Planning Service has created a divisional support team to address workload pressures on the development control side, particularly the backlog of applications already in the system. Initially, that team of 10 is based in the Craigavon division, and I am happy to tell Members, especially those who have dealings with that division, that it will have a breadth of experience and will not consist only of junior planners. On top of that, a number of key projects in the modernisation programme are due to be completed over the remainder of this business year. Most notable will be the implementation of the Electronic Planning Information for Citizens project (e-PIC) — a comprehensive information and computing technology solution that will enable the agency to deliver a more effective, efficient and transparent service. The e-PIC project will deliver new and improved ways for the community to access the information and services of the Planning Service through electronic channels as well as an improved, faster and better-quality service. The system will provide a portal for the online submission of planning applications and will allow partners of the Planning Service access and input to the information that they need to make decisions or be involved in the decision-making. The e-PIC project will provide an up-to-date planning policy and area plan coverage. I believe that that will deal with the issue raised by the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone Mr Gallagher who moved the motion and has made comparisons with the practice in the Republic of Ireland. The new e-PIC system is intended to allow people to manage their planning applications as they go through the system. The impact of these reform measures will only be realised in the longer term. There is much work to be done to bring about a planning system that fully meets our needs and expectations. However there are already positive signs. Significantly, the number of decisions issued by the agency during the last business year, over 28,000 in total, exceeded the number of applications coming in by 5%. It is also significant that the live caseload has dropped by over 3,500 applications. The motion also suggests that the system lacks transparency; I have difficulty in accepting that. The Planning Service has operated an open-file policy since 2001 — anyone can call into a planning office to see the contents of a file, and many people do. The agency also fulfils its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000; indeed it is the biggest provider of information in the Department of the Environment. Legislative reforms enacted last year have enhanced this openness through measures such as the removal of Crown immunity from planning control and by making provision for strengthening community involvement in development proposals. The implementation of the e-PIC system later this year will open up the system even further, facilitating the delivery of a completely electronic planning process. On the matter of planning appeals, not an area for which I have responsibility, I understand that the Planning Appeals Commission has experienced an expansion in workload over recent years, which has not been directly matched by a corresponding increase in resources. The commission has implemented a number of measures aimed at improving efficiency and effectiveness, and this has been reflected in an increase in output of over 200% between 2002-03 and 2006-07. However, in spite of the considerable success of the combination of measures introduced, the benefits continue to be overtaken by the dramatic rise in incoming appeals. The Commission’s need for resources continues to be closely monitored by OFMDFM, which is responsible for it. I turn now to some of the specific issues that have been raised by Members in this debate. Mr Gallagher, who moved the motion, mentioned cases in which the Planning Service failed to deal quickly enough with applications dependent on grant aid — delays that put the grant aid in jeopardy. In future, the Planning Service will work to prioritise applications where grant aid may be jeopardised by delay. Special arrangements are also in place in divisional offices to ensure that economically significant applications do not get stuck in the backlog. Mr Gallagher also raised the issue of electricity consent applications. I am meeting with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment this week to discuss planning issues and single consent regimes for large energy schemes. However, the current legislation defines what falls into the category of development and what is permitted development not requiring express planning permission. Under current legislation, an NIE line to a dwelling requires planning permission. That has to be applied for separately in a planning application that is normally submitted by NIE after the householder makes an application for the dwelling. There is, of course, no reason why one application cannot be submitted by the householder after the route of the line has been agreed with NIE. More generally, I wish to consider what opportunities there may be to widen the scope of the current permitted development legislation so that we can perhaps find some way to deal with that issue. Mr Gallagher also raised the matter of third-party rights of appeal, as did Peter Weir and Dolores Kelly. There are many pros and cons with third-party rights of appeal. The pros include equity and natural justice; on the downside, there are the associated costs and the impact on businesses. Potentially, third-party rights of appeal could affect the efficiency of the process and make it slower than it is at present. I will consider very carefully with colleagues the impact that third-party-appeal arrangements would have on the system and where the balance of advantage lies. I also expect that third-party appeals will be an issue that will be addressed by the review of environmental governance team, which is due to report to me at the end of May 2007. That report will, no doubt, come before the Assembly in due course. Mr Weir referred to the lack of joined-up thinking in relation to replacement dwellings. As Members know, the policy associated with that falls under PPS 14. I do not have responsibility for that; it is part of the Minister for Regional Development’s portfolio. However, I am sure that it will come before this House sooner rather than later, and that there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter then. Mr Boylan mentioned the Craigavon planning process, and I hope that I have been able to address some of his concerns with regard to the team that is going in there to offer support. Mr Gardiner talked about delays in the planning process affecting the supply of housing land, leading to a shortage of social and affordable housing. The recent report by Sir John Semple on affordable housing confirms that planning is only one of the factors — and I know that Mr Gardiner will recognise that — that impacts on the housing supply. My Department has agreed to participate in an interdepartmental working group, led by the Department for Social Development, to follow up on the recommendations in Sir John Semple’s report, including the use of article 40 agreements, and to critically examine what planning can do in relation to that. That said, developers are to be encouraged to submit better-quality applications — a theme that has run through this debate — accompanied by all the necessary information and to engage in pre-application discussions, particularly for larger housing schemes. 1.45 pm Mr Gardiner referred to consultation with councils, a point also picked up by Mr Molloy. Indeed, local councils have been greatly frustrated by the way in which that has gone forward. Revised guidance was issued to councils in November 2006, following work by a joint working party involving the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) and the Planning Service. Over recent months, terms of reference for the formal review of the arrangements envisaged by Lord Rooker have been drawn up by the Planning Service and agreed with NILGA. It is expected that a consultant will be appointed shortly and that the review process will take three months to complete from the date of appointment. The review will involve consultation with stakeholders, including NILGA, council officers, council members, Planning Service staff and applicants. I understand that Mr Gardiner is in correspondence with my Department about the Waringstown issue, and I am sure that I will be speaking to him about that in due course. Naomi Long raised the issue of staff retention and the need to keep up staff morale. That is very important. I hope that the message goes out from this Chamber today that this debate is about process and not about Planning Service staff, who are trying to deal with inordinate levels of work. I welcome her comments about councillors, developers and agents not introducing any more unnecessary delays to the system. Mrs Long also made the point that she did not want to see a reduction in the standard of decisions being taken forward. Naomi Long complained about the Belfast metropolitan area plan. I agree wholeheartedly with her. My officials have been working on that, and — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. Several conversations are taking place in the Chamber. I remind the House that it is vital that we observe protocol when any Member is speaking. Mrs Foster: Thank you for that protection, Mr Speaker; I did not even notice. Discussions on the Belfast metropolitan area plan have taken place with colleagues in jurisdictions that have experienced similar difficulties. I intend to publish a consultation document on the issue in the autumn. Jim Wells referred to the amount of stress that the Planning Service is under. He also spoke about the speculative nature of applications for single dwellings and the role that agents sometimes play. Mr McKay talked about a Planning Service that is in crisis. I do not agree, but I realise that issues need to be addressed. Hopefully, the new devolved Administration, along with the Member’s participation on the Environment Committee, will mean that those issues can be addressed. Mr Donaldson spoke about long-term issues, such as staffing. He also mentioned specific issues such as the Lambeg decision, for which he was full of praise, and another decision for which he was not full of praise. I know that he intends to write to me about the latter. Mr Armstrong had sympathy for the planners, and he also indicated rightly that many factors — not just the planning problems — contributed to the housing difficulties. Mr McGlone, the Chairman of the Committee for the Environment, spoke passionately about a child with autism. I would like to inform him and his colleague Mrs Kelly that I am considering a fast track for facilities for disabled people. Indeed, I have encountered that often in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I do not want to see genuine cases of need being left in a backlog and not being dealt with. Mr Molloy had concerns about consultation, and I hope that my comments about the council consultation have dealt with those. Mr Paisley Jnr mentioned three specific cases. I am fully aware of the issues that surround those three matters, and I will advise him and other Members on those in due course. After having a go at me politically, Mr Burnside said that the UK as a whole has the worst planning system. Coming from a unionist politician I find that rather strange, but there it is. Scotland actually has quite a good planning system, and I know that representatives of my Planning Service will visit Scotland in the near future to speak to planners to learn about how they have dealt with matters there. Mr Burnside also mentioned that the Ulster Unionist Party wanted to go back to before the 1880s — I hope that that is not the headline that comes out of this debate. Mr S Wilson: They might have some seats then. Mrs Foster: That is true. I am pleased to announce that the policy for refurbishment rests with the Department for Regional Development, and I am sure that the Member will be happy to take the matter up with the Minister there. As I said, Dolores Kelly mentioned disabled-facilities grants, and I will hopefully be able to develop that. She recognised that PPS 14, the regional development strategy and other matters do not rest within the remit of my Department. She also mentioned third-party appeals. The system in the Republic of Ireland will be considered; however, it is significantly different from that which exists in Northern Ireland. It has some attractive aspects. For example, there is a legal obligation to decide on applications within a specific period. However, it also has significant downsides, such as the potential for poorer quality decisions to be made given that there is a less flexible approach to consultation. I will consider all of that further in the context of having a wider look at other regions. Sammy Wilson spoke about good planning decisions and how they lie at the heart of the economy. He also mentioned consultation. I am happy to announce that the chief executives of the Planning Service and the Environment and Heritage Service have been working very closely on consultation, and they will continue to do so. A service level agreement was signed with EHS in March of this year, providing for a current target timescale of 30 working days for a consultation response in 75% of cases. The aim is to work together to reach a progressive reduction to 15 days in 75% of cases. Moreover, work is continuing on the streamlining of administrative arrangements to ensure that planning consultations are properly focused and targeted, and that the potential for delays is minimised. Brian Wilson mentioned the lack of experience of planners, and other staffing difficulties. This has been a wide-ranging debate, and I shall take much from it. Now that devolution is here, I hope that my Department can be more responsive not only to Members on the Floor of the Assembly, but also to the Environment Committee. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Gallagher: I acknowledge the Minister’s comprehensive response to the issues that were raised during the debate. That detailed coverage has left my task of winding up the debate pretty easy. A unanimous view has been expressed in the Chamber that, with the Planning Service in its present state, there are long delays, which are unacceptable. The Minister indicated that she intends to set in train actions that will address some of those matters fairly quickly. I welcome the comments of Brian Wilson, who rightly pointed out the importance of Planning Service staff morale and of not doing anything to decrease it. It has been generally acknowledged that the role of staff is currently particularly difficult, and that their workload is very heavy. As with any organisation, we must understand that there are human beings at the heart of the Planning Service. I was careful, in moving the motion, not to apportion blame and to make it clear that the motion was not concerned with criticising the people who work in the planning system. Mr P Ramsey: Does the Member agree that one way to deal with this matter is to work on non-contentious matters? During suspension of the Assembly, much good work has taken place at council level. Derry City Council, in conjunction with local planners, is examining a method of addressing non-contentious matters on a weekly basis. In the presence of the Minister I hope that there will be no regulatory, bureaucratic or procedural objections to the council’s initiative, which could assist planners in the processing of applications. Mr Gallagher: I thank the Member for that intervention. The Minister made some other comments that made the debate worthwhile, including outlining her intention to examine the exasperating delays in the Planning Service that are endangering the time limits for those who wish to avail of grant aid. That is a welcome development, and she expressed her intention to meet the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment about that matter. That is encouraging, as are her comments about facilities for the disabled. I also welcome her comments on the point that I raised about cutting bureaucracy. I welcome the forthcoming meeting with NIE on that matter. I hope that that will lead to some progress, and that it will allay the fears of the public. As a result of the debate, problems have been recognised. Sammy Wilson asked what I intended to do about the problems, but the motion does not require any particular intention from the Assembly other than to examine the matter in detail. In light of the contributions of Members, and of the Minister, this has been a very worthwhile debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly regards as unacceptable the length of time taken for both the processing of planning applications and the determination of planning appeals, and calls upon the Minister of the Environment to take immediate steps to clear the backlog and also to introduce more efficiency and transparency within the planning process. Affordable Housing Crisis Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for the debate. The proposer of the motion has 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes each. One amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes for the winding-up speech. Mr Shannon: I beg to move That this Assembly expresses serious concerns about the affordable housing crisis, and calls upon the Minister for Social Development to co-ordinate urgently with the Housing Executive, Housing Associations, and all other relevant bodies, to release and set aside land for new build projects and to report back to this Assembly with the strategy and timescale that is finalised. ‘The Guardian’ newspaper saies tha Norlin Airlan bes the property hotspot o’ Europe. This bes the crux o’ the affordable hoosin issue. Hames ir far tae dear fer ordnar fowkquhan pit langside the wages oan the mainlan’.Developers pour ootbaag amounts o’ money fae their bottomless pockets. The hoosin’ authorities hae naewhere neir eneuch hooses an’ flats tae fill the gap. Sim’thing hes tae bae done aboot this an’ done richt noo. ‘The Guardian’ newspaper, in citing Northern Ireland as being the UK’s property hot spot, does it a disservice — it is the property hot spot of Europe. That is the crux of the affordable housing crisis. Homes are far too expensive for average people in Northern Ireland, where wages are lower than on the mainland. Developers shell out endless amounts of money from their bottomless pockets. Housing authorities have nowhere near the amount of houses or flats to fill the gap. Something must be done about the matter immediately. We are faced with a situation whereby a trained professional, who could once have moved into a two-bedroom house in a nice area, can now afford only a flat, at best, until he or she marries another trained professional. Only then, using both wages, can they buy a house, but they must do so with a 90% mortgage, spending nearly 60% of their wage packets on the mortgage. Very few people can afford to do that. That is why, at this time last year, I tabled a motion in my local council expressing severe concern at the housing crisis that had developed in the Ards. That crisis is mirrored across the Province, which every Member will speak about. Figures available from last June show that people deemed in priority need of a home in the Ards area increased to almost 1,400. The number of people in housing stress increased from 750 to 800. Those are only some of the increases that have occurred. I have been contacted by some constituents who have over 180 points and still cannot get housing. The list of those in priority need in the Ards continues to grow at an alarming rate. The number of people on the waiting list for homes right across the Ards Borough Council area has increased by between 15% and 20% in the last year and shows no signs whatsoever of slowing down. There must be a push for land to be set aside in the Province for social housing. The budget for the housing associations must be increased so that they can build the much-needed homes as a matter of urgency. The Department for Social Development must take dramatic steps to ensure that that happens right away. At present, in Ards — not in Strangford — only two housing associations are building dwellings: Corinthian Housing Association and Habinteg Housing Association, which are building a total of approximately 20 to 25 properties. With respect, however, the housing associations are only picking at the edges of the need. Over 2,000 people are in priority need of housing in the Ards area at present. David Hanson spoke of undertaking a trawl of Government Departments with surplus land. He stated that with a devolved Assembly would come the ability to use that land to provide affordable housing through private-sector development and social housing. The Housing Executive owns the land bank. It must be released to the housing associations to enable them to do the job that so desperately needs to be done. 2.00 pm Now is the time to work in strong partnership with housing associations and other bodies. The housing crisis will get worse before it gets better. The average house price in Newtownards has risen to £190,000, and in many areas across the Province that figure is greater. As a result, more young couples will be forced to turn to the Housing Executive for a home or leave areas completely and take their families and skills to places that are coping better with the housing problem. It should be the Assembly’s wish that our young people should stay in Northern Ireland and not be forced from their home nation due to inadequate planning at higher levels. Why should they stay in the Province and just scrape through when they can get houses more cheaply in most areas in England, where wages are also slightly higher? That question will soon be answered to the detriment of the Province. Young people will find that there is no point in staying here, and they will leave. The current projected build for Northern Ireland is 1,500 homes, and that does not start to answer people’s needs. A dedicated planning strategy is needed between the Housing Executive and the housing associations, and it must be put into place urgently. Land must be released and built on as a matter of necessity, not piecemeal, like a bone thrown out to satisfy short-term needs. Too many people in my area are living in unacceptably cramped conditions; families are being split up and children are being farmed out to grandparents due to inadequate accommodation. How can families survive when they are torn apart unnecessarily? There is land to be used, and it must be released. The Assembly has a duty to ensure the best for the people of the Province, and part of that duty involves housing. That is not to say that the Assembly is responsible for ensuring that every person lives in a five-bedroom house with a swimming pool; it merely highlights the fact that people deserve the right to be able to pay their rent or mortgage and live in accommodation that satisfies their, and their family’s, basic needs. The Department for Social Development must facilitate that right by managing strategically the assembly and disposal of surplus public land for affordable housing — not providing it to developers for the highest price. Releasing land, in itself, will not ensure that that happens, but full co-operation between housing associations and the Housing Executive will, most definitely, begin the process. The issues raised in the debate on the processing of planning applications are relevant to this debate; they are concerning, and changes to the planning process must be made urgently. The Department of the Environment, its planning policies, and planning system, can do much to improve the situation, particularly since Members have just discovered that the land a house is built on is worth approximately 50% of the total value of the entire property. There are many reasons for making changes to the planning process, which would take too long to go into now. However, I will outline some of them. Delay in processing planning applications means that there is a huge backlog of potential houses lying on a desk in some office. As a result, developers can bump up the prices a little bit, because people have no real freedom of choice. There has been no review of area plans to ensure that social housing needs have been incorporated. Such a review has been carried out on the mainland, through the local development framework system. That is already showing advantages, as stricter planning controls are being waived in relation to social and affordable housing. I urge the Minister to look at that issue. Most developers automatically build accommodation for the high-earning sectors, and few want to take on the less glitzy and less profitable area of affordable housing. That difficulty can be combated by a simple method whereby planners would encourage the development of affordable housing by making it more attractive, and by the Department for Social Development possibly mitigating the cost of such developments by inflicting charges on those who do not provide cheaper housing where it is needed. Developers would still make enough money on properties to prosper. The theory is catered for in article 40 of The Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which should be used to greater effect. The planning restrictions in PPS 8, PPS 12, and PPS 14 discourage local authorities from setting aside land specifically for social housing. However, that must be done, and the Department should be able to set aside areas to be used beneficially for cheaper housing. As more new and affordable housing is developed, the crisis in the housing market should lessen. Planning permission for sites must go hand in hand with the availability of affordable housing. Where the Housing Executive has stated that affordable housing is needed in an area, planning permission should be refused in that area until such housing is made available. I am not talking about killing free enterprise and development by using the Planning Service as a sword. However, I want to encourage developers to remember, in some small way, that affordable housing is essential and achievable. I have told the story about a developer in Strangford who refused to sell houses to an overseas businessman and kept them for first-time buyers instead. The businessman was made an offer for ten houses from a person who wanted to buy them and rent them out, but he refused it because he wanted to keep the property for first-time buyers in his area. He made an individual decision and demonstrated that this can be done. That is an example of what should happen. If we truly want to grow and develop and keep our young skills and talents here, that should be a precedent for the rest for the Province. I will outline some other methods of easing the crisis. The Living Over The Shop (LOTS) scheme, of which there are only a few pilot schemes across the Province, could be a way of making some properties available. Grant-aided housing renovation systems are available for houses that are falling apart. They are designed to encourage the owners to do their houses up and then rent them out or, indeed, sell them. The co-ownership threshold must be raised in line with the price of houses, and the threshold for other duties such as stamp duty should also be increased. The crisis is undoubtedly serious, but it is not a hopeless situation. There are many ways of addressing it, and other Members will no doubt have more ideas for resolving it. The burden and the responsibility of finding a solution lie in the hands of the Assembly and the Minister for Social Development. We must not settle until a strategic plan is in place and is shown to be effective. Accountability is the key in our newly devolved Government. Housing associations, planners and developers need to be aware that it is necessary to solve this problem by all means possible. Mrs Long: I beg to move the following amendment: After “projects” insert “, to consider increasing the put-back rate on existing redevelopment areas,” First of all, I want to thank the Member for Strangford Mr Shannon for raising this today, because it is a very serious issue for all of our constituents. Whether they are rural or urban, young or old, constituents will suffer from the shortage of affordable housing. The statistics that the Member quoted are reflected in almost every constituency. We have seen sharp increases in the length of waiting lists and the number of homeless cases. Those lists increasingly contain people who would have been able to make their own way in the world five or ten years ago. They would not have been looking for social housing at all, but they can no longer afford to make their own way, because they are being priced out of the market. Young people are struggling to get a foothold on the property ladder. We have anecdotal evidence of people being offered 50- and 60-year mortgages. That is not a loan; that is a life sentence. One would be need to be 18 or 19 in order to avail of a 50-year mortgage with any reasonable prospect of paying it back during one’s working life. It is difficult to contemplate how anyone could take on such a debt, particularly when the sums involved are so considerable. Older people are also being affected. The assumption is that once someone gets on the property ladder, everything will be fine, but that is not true. Those who have special housing needs because their circumstances have changed due to disability or age, or because they have suffered a relationship breakdown, find themselves in extremely difficult circumstances. They are often forced into homelessness, through no fault of their own, because they cannot afford to maintain their standard of living. The net result is that more people feel unable to purchase properties or to avail of the private rental market. I agree with the motion stating that part of the solution lies with new sites being brought forward by the Department for Social Development, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and housing associations. I am sure that we all recognise that if the problem of affordable housing is to be fully addressed, it will require the active engagement of the private sector. That would be valuable, not only in terms of delivery, but in terms of enhancing social integration and mobility so that we have a range of different housing on every site, and people have the freedom to choose where they are going to live. In the amendment, however, I am highlighting cases where there has been redevelopment by agencies whose remit is included in the original motion, and low put-back rates have been achieved. I do not believe that the amendment detracts from the main motion. Many areas, particularly urban areas, have undergone and are still undergoing redevelopment. Unfit housing has been demolished, and new and improved housing is put back in its place. That is a welcome development. My family home was one of those affected, and I was relieved to see that that was happening in my constituency. However, I am concerned that the number of houses that the housing associations are putting back on those sites is often two or three times less than the number of houses that were demolished. Thus, there is a significant loss of housing in those urban areas, with a put-back rate of somewhere between 30% and 60%. I accept entirely that, in many urban areas, one-for-one replacement is not possible because the houses that are being replaced are often too small to meet modern family needs. Moreover, new developments must also include a selection of housing for people with special needs and disabilities, and those plots tend to be slightly larger than the average plot. Such housing provision is welcome. However, we must examine the rate of put back on those sites, because it affects local communities. I will discuss that issue in more detail shortly. This situation has arisen because, for several years, housing lists were either static or declining, particularly in urban areas, as people migrated outwards from the city centre. Thus, the demand for intensive development in city areas was relieved for a time. However, that trend has reversed, and waiting lists are now growing dramatically, particularly in my constituency of East Belfast. It seems bizarre that where there were once 300 houses, there are now only 50 or 60 houses. That is a cause of great concern for those of us who deal with homelessness issues and for people living in those areas who are unable to find a place for themselves and their families. Mr S Wilson: Does the Member agree that it is even worse that suburban design is being introduced in inner-city areas at a time when attempts are being made to increase the number of properties within the city footprint? Mrs Long: I agree absolutely, and I shall addresss that issue shortly. I want, briefly, to highlight three effects of the current trend. The first is clear: a reduction in the amount of social and affordable housing in those neighbourhoods and its impact. Secondly, there has been a negative impact on local communities as regards access to services, schools, churches and so on. Other Members have mentioned depopulation in rural areas and the need for vibrant local rural communities, and that is also true for urban areas. Local urban communities have been decimated by redevelopment and often find it very difficult to coalesce again around the services available to them. In some cases, the services that drew people to the area have been lost in the hiatus between the start of redevelopment and its completion. That has had negative effects for many parts of Belfast, and inner east Belfast in particular. The Member for East Antrim Mr Wilson raised the issue of built form, and the environmental impact on our cities must be considered when dealing with planning issues. Traditionally, dense development occurs in urbanised areas, because the infrastructure there can best cope with such development. In urban areas, local services are accessible on foot, rather than by car, and public transport is more readily available. Therefore, there is a certain logic to having dense development in urban areas, and that is largely reflected in private developments in those areas. However, the amount of social housing in urban areas is less than would normally be expected. In order to acquire additional sites to address the housing need, developers of social housing are often forced to compete with private developers for sites in suburban areas. As those sites are very expensive and the developments must be able to “wash their face” financially, a form of town cramming occurs in suburban areas. Developers try to maximise the number of units on suburban sites because the |