Caít Keane (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the initiative to try to get more houses on the ground. As one of the officials said, this is the main aim of the Bill. Developers and builders are not building. I hope this Bill will incentivise houses and developers. I do not suppose the Government can build every house. We have to ensure the people who can build houses start building again. The banks are a huge problem there as well. That will have to be looked at as well. I welcome the incentives that are there, including the 10% to actually get it on the ground. I welcome the fact that there is no buy-out for developers. They will have to provide it on the ground.

I have a question about the different interpretation of the Shackleton case. There is only payback now in one direction. The local authorities will have to put the 10% on the ground. The funding for that 10% will come from the local authorities. Will they have to take it from parks or whatever? If we are to ensure this is provided on the ground, we have to ensure they will have the cash to do that there as well.

I would like to speak about the affordability aspect. I was reading somewhere that it will be pursued through other policies. I think we should try to pursue that alongside. I know it is not planning and whatever. It is social and affordable. Some of the speakers have said that the price of housing is going up. I think it has to be looked at in conjunction with, if perhaps not part of, the planning Bill. It should be part of our deliberations to ensure affordability.

That brings me on to the vacant site levy, which is welcome in every community where there is a derelict site. I think there is a difference between a derelict site and a vacant site. The derelict site levy puts the onus on the developer. It should only stay there. The site levy tax will be passed on to the purchaser. Therefore, it will make the price of houses dearer as well. I know what we are trying to do. We have to ensure they are not left vacant there. How does one incentivise them to get it? Are they left vacant because they cannot get money from the bank? Would the developers get out in the morning if they could get the money to develop these vacant sites, as opposed to derelict sites? They will say "right, there is a levy there". They will ask how they are going to get their money back. They will put up the house even more on the purchaser. Could it hinder instead of help? We are trying to get more houses on the ground. We are trying to make them less expensive, rather than more expensive.

There is another thing as well. The onus has been changed from four houses to nine houses. The actual acreage of land is not increased at all in the Bill. It was set at 0.2 acres in section 96 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Would it be an incentive for a developer to have that increased upwards, given that the housing numbers were increased upwards as well? The development contribution will be reduced in specific circumstances to enable people to avail of that. I think that is a good development.

I would like to see the phrase "exceptional circumstances" defined. They can opt out in exceptional circumstances. One person's exceptional circumstances might be very different from my exceptional circumstances. I do not know if it is defined anywhere. Maybe it will be in the Bill. What would constitute exceptional circumstances if there is to be an opt-out? We saw what happened before.

That is why Part V did not work in practice the way it was supposed to work in theory. There were too many cases made of exceptional circumstances and too many buy outs.

On the vacant site levy in areas of population of 3,000, obviously that would apply to every part of Dublin. In the urban area where I live there is a population of 3,000 in most areas. That would include most urban populations. I wish to question the exemption for developments of nine houses. If a developer had a site that could hold 36 houses, he or she could submit the applications in tranches so that the site could be developed in sections. Would he or she be exempt for each tranche of nine houses?