English: I agree with the concern expressed by the motion that some developers have not been building roads to an adoptable standard, leaving the costs of bringing the road up to standard firmly on the doorstep of the homebuyer or, alternatively, saddling homebuyers with ongoing maintenance costs. I'm therefore very pleased to be able to speak in support of the motion. Others, including particularly Dai, have covered historic unadopted roads extensively, so I want to talk about new-build estates. Please forgive me if I duplicate what's already been said, because I am agreeing with you all, pretty much. For the most part, if not for all homebuyers, the house buying process is exactly that - the process of buying a house or a home, not buying a piece of road or working out how to maintain it. Whilst it's true that professional advisers will advise their homebuying clients about the implications of the roads not being adopted, the buyer isn't in a position to assess how much it will cost them and to be able to properly assess the risk to them of the roads not being adopted. Furthermore, by the time the buyer has that conversation with their adviser, in whatever form that conversation may take, the buyer has made a financial and emotional investment, and an investment of time, in buying the home. It's very, very hard to walk away from buying that property, and it's impossible to do so if that's the only home you can afford. But I disagree that the problem lies solely in a weakness in the house buying process. Surely this is a problem caused primarily by a weakness in the planning consent process, which has been highlighted by pretty much everybody who's spoken today. It seems to me that the time to address adoption of a development's roads is at the time of planning consent by the local authority. My view would be that, if a developer wants to build a housing estate and take the profit that arises from it, that same developer should ensure that the roads on the development are of a standard to be adopted by the local authority. Local residents shouldn't be expected to carry the onus of taking that process forward and upgrading the road, hoping the council will take the road on. The big question for me, and part of it has been answered today, is why planning departments at local authorities haven't already been stipulating that roads need to be constructed to an adoptable standard - it has been answered, I know - and why highways departments at the same local authorities have not been addressing this for years. But this has been going on for donkeys. Planning was devolved some time ago, so the logical question here is: why has Welsh Government not already addressed this? This has been going on for years. So, the idea of a taskforce is an excellent one, I think. This issue isn't simple, and proper consideration of the options needs to be given, including the amendment or creation of appropriate planning legislation. So, I'm therefore supporting this motion. Thank you.
Welsh: Cytunaf â'r pryder a fynegwyd gan y cynnig nad yw rhai datblygwyr wedi bod yn adeiladu ffyrdd i safonau mabwysiadwy, gan adael y costau o sicrhau bod y ffordd yn cyrraedd y safon yn gadarn ar garreg drws y sawl sy'n prynu'r tŷ neu fel arall, yn gorfodi perchnogion tai i dalu costau cynnal a chadw parhaus. Rwy'n falch iawn felly o allu siarad o blaid y cynnig. Mae eraill, gan gynnwys Dai yn enwedig, wedi ymdrin yn helaeth â ffyrdd heb eu mabwysiadu, felly rwyf am siarad am ystadau a adeiladir o'r newydd. Maddeuwch i mi os wyf yn ailadrodd yr hyn a ddywedwyd eisoes, oherwydd rwy'n cytuno â phawb ohonoch, fwy neu lai. I'r rhan fwyaf o brynwyr tai, os nad y cyfan, proses o brynu tŷ yw hi - proses o brynu tŷ neu gartref, nid prynu darn o ffordd neu geisio datrys sut i'w chynnal. Er ei bod yn wir y bydd cynghorwyr proffesiynol yn cynghori eu cleientiaid sy'n prynu cartrefi am oblygiadau ffyrdd heb eu mabwysiadu, nid yw'r prynwr mewn sefyllfa i asesu faint y bydd yn ei gostio iddynt ac i allu asesu'n briodol beth fydd y risg sy'n deillio o ffyrdd heb eu mabwysiadu. At hynny, erbyn yr adeg y bydd y prynwr yn cael y sgwrs honno gyda'u cynghorydd, ar ba ffurf bynnag y bydd y sgwrs honno'n digwydd, bydd y prynwr wedi gwneud buddsoddiad ariannol ac emosiynol, a buddsoddiad o ran amser, yn prynu'r cartref. Mae'n anodd iawn troi cefn ar yr eiddo hwnnw, ac mae'n amhosibl gwneud hynny os mai dyna'r unig gartref y gallwch ei fforddio. Ond rwy'n anghytuno bod y broblem yn deillio'n llwyr o wendid yn y broses o brynu tŷ. Does bosibl nad problem a achosir yn bennaf gan wendid yn y broses ganiatâd cynllunio yw hon, problem sydd wedi'i hamlygu gan bawb a siaradodd heddiw fwy neu lai. Mae'n ymddangos i mi mai'r adeg i fynd i'r afael â mabwysiadu ffyrdd datblygiad yw ar adeg rhoi'r caniatâd cynllunio gan yr awdurdod lleol. Yn fy marn i, os yw datblygwr am adeiladu ystâd o dai a chymryd yr elw sy'n deillio o hynny, dylai'r un datblygwr sicrhau bod y ffyrdd ar y datblygiad o safon ddigon da i'w mabwysiadu gan yr awdurdod lleol. Ni ddylid disgwyl i drigolion lleol ysgwyddo'r cyfrifoldeb o ddatblygu'r broses honno ac uwchraddio'r ffordd, gan obeithio y bydd y cyngor yn mabwysiadu'r ffordd. Y cwestiwn mawr i mi, ac mae rhan ohono wedi'i ateb heddiw, yw pam nad yw adrannau cynllunio mewn awdurdodau lleol eisoes wedi pennu bod angen adeiladu ffyrdd i safonau mabwysiadwy - mae wedi'i ateb, rwy'n gwybod - a pham nad yw adrannau priffyrdd yr un awdurdodau lleol wedi bod yn mynd i'r afael â hyn ers blynyddoedd. Ond mae hyn wedi bod yn digwydd ers achau. Datganolwyd cynllunio beth amser yn ôl, felly y cwestiwn rhesymegol yma yw: pam nad yw Llywodraeth Cymru eisoes wedi rhoi sylw i hyn? Mae wedi bod yn digwydd ers blynyddoedd. Felly, mae'r syniad o dasglu yn un rhagorol, rwy'n credu. Nid yw'r mater yn syml, ac mae angen ystyried yr opsiynau'n briodol, gan gynnwys diwygio neu greu deddfwriaeth gynllunio briodol. Felly, rwy'n cefnogi'r cynnig hwn. Diolch.