Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the bodies for making these submissions. They should not take it as read that what they hear today is the general consensus of the committee. We will digest and investigate all that has been recommended before making recommendations of our own.

It should be taken as read that any new planning and development Bill should take cognisance of the recommendations of the recent tribunals, given the Government's commitment in response to same. I hope that the Government will show the colour of its money in that regard and let it be the foundation of any new Bill.

I will address the main issues raised by the witnesses. I am interested in expanding further on the Construction Industry Federation's submission on Part V and its claim that the affordability element has gone out the door. That may well be the case. The CIF believes that 10% of each development should be retained for the provision of social housing. It supported this contention by claiming that, had a 1% levy been applied last year, €61 million would have been generated. This year, it would generate more than €80 million. Will the witnesses compare this with the level of spending that was available to local authorities for the provision of social housing, be it done directly or alongside housing agencies? We need a breakdown on a county-by-county basis if representatives are to see whether what the witnesses are proposing has the potential to be of greater benefit to local authorities and counties than the current scheme does or the Bill's provisions would.

I will turn to the issues of changes to planning approvals and the State agencies being immediately informed of planning applications as they arise in local authorities. Many agencies have national policies that may be more applicable to certain regions than to the nation as a whole. When informed by local authorities of certain applications, they feel the need to impose an inappropriate national policy on a region. This approach prolongs the process for many applications and does not allow the requisite throughput.

Most local authorities adopt a haphazard approach to taking estates in charge. It is like our haphazard approach to the social dividend that the State was to derive from NAMA properties. It is incumbent on the authorities, the Government and the Department to consider putting in place in local authorities dedicated NAMA units as well as dedicated and properly resourced planning enforcement offices. In my county and elsewhere, the staff in planning departments is minimal and the expectation under existing legislation warrants more work being done than is actually the case, but resources are not available to local authorities to make these departments effective.

An obligation must be placed on Government that forthcoming legislation will be supported with the necessary funding and resources in order for local authorities to do their job effectively and properly.

In terms of the policing of bonds, I have seen the efforts and associated costs made by local authorities to enforce insurance agencies, insurance companies and banks to meet their side of the bargain when it comes to cashing in a bond. Many of the so-called pillar banks have been found most wanting in their application of reinstatement works. That is not good enough and the issue must be addressed. This situation only heightens the case for a proper, efficient and well-resourced enforcement office in the planning sections of local authorities. It would mean local authorities could do their job effectively and easily, thus benefiting the communities that they represent.

The National Association of Building Co-Operatives, NABCO, has stated that amendments must be revenue neutral in terms of any developer who was in the business of making social housing available in the locality. The idea has some merit. We do not expect developers to make money on the back of social housing but we expect a social dividend, as I said about NAMA in the same fashion, and because lands must be zoned appropriately to meet the needs not only of the general market but also of the social market. I acknowledge what the delegations have said but the proposal needs to be beefed up.

There was a question on the use it or lose it concept and the hoarding of land. The practicalities of that and the message that is being given to the public is a very good one when one considers what happened in the past ten, 12 or 15 years during the property boom. The CIF mentioned an economic viability test which is a notion that needs to be further explored. It is something that could sell. A proper template would allow local authorities to measure economic viability but it would have to be regionalised and conscious that markets differ from one area to another. For example, there has been a boom in the east coast market and in Dublin, but that is not the case down the country. An economic viability test would differ from region to region. I would like the matter explored. It could be considered but there must be proper regional balance for it to make sense and to fly, as it were.