Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 16 December 2014

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht

General Scheme of the Planning and Development (No. 1) Bill 2014

2:30 pm

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Mr. Sheridan’s statement summarised the heads of the Bill very well. There are some good ideas in it but it is important that they are workable and that there are no get out of jail clauses in it. I am concerned about the subjective aspects. What scrutiny will there be on the vacant site levy because much of it will be done at local level? Will it be exclusively the executive that makes decisions or will it be a cross between the executive and a reserved function?

Why was the 10% exclusively for social housing increased from four to nine houses? The smaller schemes will be in rural areas and there will be a higher dependence on a direct provision for social housing there because there will not be the throughput. Was that considered? A point made on page ten in the general scheme is that "In the light of current conditions and the substantial improvement in housing affordability in the last six years for persons in employment, there is no longer a justification for providing 10% affordable housing under Part V".

I do not think that statement stands up if we are to look at the increases in house prices, the issue of affordability for the increasing number who are at work but on low pay plus the requirement for a 20% deposit. Will the witnesses comment on the issue of affordability? Will affordability be exclusively determined by market forces? Have they anything in mind on equalising the provision of social and affordable housing? Have they considered a third type of delivery of the housing strategy such as the heightened involvement of housing agencies not exclusively for social housing, but for the provision of housing for renting in general? It is very hard to see how that will be overcome.

I will address the third point in head 4C of the general scheme of the planning and development (No. 1) Bill 2014 regarding "entering into a rental accommodation available agreement or a leave agreement". What I found is that, in theory, some of the provision of Part V might work but, in practice, the construction industry has been very capable of negotiating to its own advantage. My argument is that much of our planning legislation has been far too influenced by the construction sector. Local authorities do not have specialist negotiators and do not have an equality in terms of negotiating skills to enter into discussions with the very capable negotiators from the construction sector. Instead of getting houses, they will enter into a rental accommodation availability agreement or lease arrangements with the planning authority. I have serious reservations about that and I ask the witnesses to expand on that point.

We need to increase the number of houses built but what struck me is that we are making a decision in light of the current economic environment. I wonder if the insertion of a sunset clause has been considered so that it can be reviewed and there is a definite date for review of the reduction from 20% to 10% in Part V, as well as the additional sweeteners in the development contribution scheme. This would ensure this offer is available in the current environment, but could be reviewed when the current environment is no longer applicable.

I am concerned about the subjective nature of the vacant site levy and some of the aspects of the non-application of the levy. It is a good idea in principle, but I found the implementation of the Derelict Sites Act 1990 very frustrating. There was a provision for an annual levy on derelict sites, but most local authorities were not enforcing that provision because of the heavy legal and administrative burden in respect of the title of some of the properties. How will that differ from the vacant site levy and have those issues been thought out?. Have soundings been taken from the people who did the practical work of implementing the Derelict Sites Act? That did not and does not work in the way it had been intended.

The development contributions have not been enforced for water and wastewater in the past 12 month because of the handover to Irish Water. It appears to me that a new development scheme will need to be introduced for each planning authority to take account of the possibility of a reduced development contribution in the situations that are outlined in the heads of the Bill and also in respect of Irish Water. I think sunset clauses would be useful as a mechanism to review the operation of the legislation.

The argument for the redevelopment of vacant sites was well made. Reusing these sites reduces the need for new infrastructure. I do not think we have given sufficient consideration to the additional cost of fragmented development, which is much more costly in terms of the delivery of roads, water and wastewater services, footpaths and associated services.

I have a number of individual questions which I will submit to the Department and I would appreciate a written response to them. We need to get this new legislation on planning right. It seems to me that the input of the construction sector is very evident. I appreciate the need to increase the housing supply, which is to the benefit of everybody, but it appears that the construction industry held off building new houses until they got the changes they are looking for. We will see how that transpires next year.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.