I thought this week it might be interesting to discuss planning and housing as both these subjects constituted much of my received correspondence as an MHK.

I was wondering whether the present situation is better than my experiences. I think the answer is yes in parts, no in others.

I’m old enough to remember when some landlords treated their tenants with disdain.

In fact the laws were so antiquated that landlords were able to leave a tenants’ possessions outside in the front garden when they wanted them out.

They were able legally to overcharge for electricity and I have visited many homes both in the private and public sector where conditions were deplorable.

I remember that, although it was a legal requirement, some tenants were not given a tenancy agreement in writing. Those who did very often saw their deposit withheld when they wished to move on.

It was also drawn to my attention that a minority of tenants caused significant damage to their accommodation.

Unfortunately, there have always been those who fail to comply with societal norms in every aspect of life. Hence the requirement to legislate. It is generally the case that laws are introduced to cover the minority who don’t do the right thing in any community.

It’s clear that for the future there requires responsibility to be accepted and clearly set out for both sides. I think the glaring inadequacy in the proposed landlord registration legislation is the fact that local authority and government-owned housing is excluded.

My experience has always been that there was a failure to properly maintain the asset in my constituency.

Early on there was very little money about to refurbish or build new local authority housing. Public sector housing was in a poor condition and improvements were long overdue.

I established tenants’ associations in Pulrose, Spring Valley and Anagh Coar and representatives of the tenants had the opportunity to discuss their concerns with town councillors face to face.

They distributed a news letter to residents and held public meetings.

Very sadly they fell by the wayside for reasons I won’t expand on here but I think they could today perform a very useful function, not only on behalf of tenants in local authority housing but more generally.

This is something presently under consideration.

The existing invitation to be a tenant representative doesn’t exist everywhere and, where it does, it is questionable how much influence it demonstrates.

I represented Pulrose and the houses in parts, despite promises, were woefully inadequate. I held public meetings supported by very good friends from the area.

The accommodation was of prefabricated construction in part and asbestos was one of the principal materials used.

There had been two failed attempts at refurbishing the houses and I remember vividly sitting in the front room of people’s homes where older residents would sleep in the front room rather than go upstairs because of the draughts through the roof and ice on the inside of their elderly metal windows.

The council had no further plans at that time and fortunately, because I was on the Department of Local Government and had a very supportive minister in Tony Brown, we managed to persuade Treasury that the only way forward was a major demolition and rebuild scheme.

This scheme made a significant difference to the lives of these people and my only regret is that some of those who stood alongside me did not get to see the scheme completed. It is however a great legacy to their memory.

It is good that further such initiatives have taken place since. It is important that an analysis of costs and benefits takes place on each scheme as to whether refurbishment or rebuild constitutes the best option. It sometimes appears a longer term view is not part of the equation.

It was around this time that the original Douglas local plan took place. At this time such inquiries were chaired by a senior local lawyer or deemster.

I appeared and made the case that it was essential to have people living in central Douglas, which I also represented. I argued that all commercial activity did not have to be in the streets surrounding Athol Street. Indeed it would be more beneficial for them to be in modern, purpose-built office accommodation on business parks.

Sadly at this time we lost a number of family-sized homes in the centre of the town to make way for the rapidly expanding office sector. This issue seems at long last to be getting taken seriously after years of neglect.

I chaired the planning committee in the early 1990s and it was in my opinion a more democratic process for users. The person in the street had a much better opportunity to make their views known.

We held an initial meeting to consider applications and then a review of the initial decision was available for either party. They could come, without time limit, to make their views known.

At that time among others I was supported by Charles Guard, Charles Faragher and the late David Moore.

The planning appeal process had been a panel separate to the planning committee advised by an officer experienced in planning matters.

I had held the position of chair of the planning appeal tribunal and at my first meeting took the somewhat controversial decision to refuse a significant developer’s proposal to develop Camlork at Union Mills.

Later the planning appeal tribunal was disbanded and the move to an arrangement with independent off-island inspectors took place. The inspectors are qualified in planning law and free from any potential undue local interest.

The inspector will make a recommendation but the minister will have the final say.

Whilst I was in a ministerial position I was always very reluctant to waver from the recommendation but others took a different view.

There was always a call for the first stage of planning to be delegated to local authorities but I have always disagreed.

As stated in my recent piece on local authorities, they are very small and in my opinion much more likely to be subject to local influence, which may be inappropriate and contrary to national policies.

My principal concern about the planning process is that it can be seen to favour those with deep pockets rather than the ordinary person who will not be in a position to employ QCs, planning or environmental experts.

In the past government offered mortgages, grants and loans to on island buyers but withdrew from that market when it was felt that private sector providers were better placed to provide such facilities.

Buying your first or subsequent properties has always been a challenge.

It does seem very clear now though that younger people are having to make even more sacrifices to get on to the housing ladder.

Many are paying more in rent than they may do if they were able to secure a mortgage.

Many first-time buyer properties are not being used for that purpose but a number of individuals or companies own and rent out large numbers.

Obviously renting is a choice that suits many people but it does give an uncomfortable feeling, to say the least, to those who would wish to have the opportunity to purchase.

Bricks and mortar has always been a secure long-term investment and I would welcome government becoming involved again in this area and offering better arrangements for first- or second-time buyers.

There were also self-build and serviced plot schemes available in the past and, with the inability to purchase a home at a economic price being a reason for a number of our young people who have chosen not to come home from university, the initiatives I have mentioned may make all the difference.

During the late 1980s after the Douglas town plan there was significant growth in economic activity, obviously generally a good thing, but for those wishing to buy a house were faced with a knee-jerk reaction from government to provide substantial quantities of first-time buyer properties if they were fortunate enough to have their name pulled out of the hat.

I remember queues of young Manx people standing in the cold hoping they would be successful.

I then went on to support many of the same people who encountered issues with defective block work on one of the schemes and others who were trapped in an ill thought out scheme.

Traditionally there has been a detachment in local authority housing between what was needed and what was being supplied.

Many older people who had brought up families in appropriate sized accommodation then did not have the option to downsize to a bungalow or apartment because they did not exist in sufficient numbers.

This has been addressed in part latterly with one of the most successful schemes being that of sheltered accommodation provision.

With population demographics I still believe more of these are needed together with a joined-up approach from the Department of Health and Social Care to properly enable older people to remain independently living in their own homes. I also feel the concept of shared equity for older people on our island should be more thoroughly considered than has been the case to date.

We still appear to lag behind in relation to more energy efficient homes and, with this becoming a more pressing priority in the time ahead, we need to ensure there are sufficient trained workers to support their development.

It would be remiss of me though not to acknowledge the work undertaken by Braddan Parish Commissioners, Castletown Commissioners and the government itself in undertaking new initiatives in this area alongside some forward thinking developers.

Building bye-laws and standards will play an influential part in ensuring these developments become the norm in the time ahead.

There has been very limited take up of the most basic Improvements that can take place in relation to home insulation of late.

The schemes previously were all taken up within six months of the financial provision being granted and this reflects badly on the present means tested arrangements.

The support should be more readily available particularly given increasing energy costs and the need to conserve supplies.

As stated earlier my interest in planning was always towards in town redevelopment as a priority rather than further incursion into the green open spaces.

In my former constituency I fought to protect a green belt, which sadly in the recently-approved Eastern plan has allowed for up to 100 houses in what had been agricultural land.

Developers will always go for the easier option but I wouldn’t be averse to incentivising in town redevelopment particularly where buildings have come to the end of their useful life and areas could be reinvigorated.

Indeed the Eastern local plan was deferred in Tynwald for a month while members waited for the long-overdue report into brownfield development was brought before the court.

This followed the Tynwald committee on the development of unoccupied sites, which made a number of suggestions but sadly failed to obtain any traction over several years.

In the latest proposals it was identified that in the Douglas area at this time there are at least 33 sites for brownfield development providing 484 homes and I think that is very much on the conservative side because government is always reluctant to use compulsory purchase powers.

My view is when it comes to protecting our countryside we seriously need to consider areas in towns which could constitute a redevelopment area as a priority.

I trust the newly formed Manx Development Agency will take this matter much more seriously than has been the case to date for a number of reasons both economic and environmental and that any forward thinking in this area is embraced by Tynwald.

David’s next column will appear in Tuesday’s Isle of Man Examiner.