Mr. Tim Lucey:

Several of the questions raised are outside of the Bill’s remit but we will be happy to address them.

There has been significant engagement between the county and city managers, local authority chief executives and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government on the Government's social housing strategy. There is no issue in Cork County Council in meeting the delivery of social housing that is expected over the next four to five years in the social housing strategy. The council is awaiting the formal notification of funding for this. It has actually identified the sites required. In those sites in its ownership, it has identified the extent of social housing that can be delivered in them. It has also identified the various lead-in times, etc. required to get houses to the construction phase. Clearly, it is in the business like any other private developer. Over the past four to five years there has been no housebuilding in the local authority. Accordingly, there is a lead-in time associated with going to tender, etc. In a nutshell, the sector is well prepared and is working in conjunction with the Office of Government Procurement in progressing the procurement of external services if required. It is probably our highest priority in our engagement with the Department.

On the delivery of infrastructure and development contributions, my comments on provisions for development contributions in the legislation were primarily around our capacity to supply infrastructure to service land to, in turn, support private sector housing as opposed to public sector housing. There is no doubt that in some parts of the country in order to meet the demand for private sector housing that will arise over the next several years as set out in Construction 2020, as well as in other various government action plans, there is a need to invest in road and public water infrastructure. For example in metropolitan Cork, we have identified nine masterplan areas which are the ideal locations for housing. We will be working with the Construction Industry Federation, CIF, and local developers on this.

However, there is an infrastructure cost to ensure those sites are capable of commencing development. The cost is either met directly by the Exchequer or through development contributions. That is the real issue that arises from the proposed legislation. We are concerned the level of development contributions required may not support the development of infrastructure. It is either the Exchequer puts money in to put in place road or water infrastructure to release land for development or it is done through development contributions. Once the funding is there, there is no issue with delivering the infrastructure. Neither is there an issue with the capacity of local government to respond and support the private sector in that regard.

Between 2005 and 2013, through development contributions, Cork County Council spent €47 million on roads infrastructure to support private sector housing development in particular. Indeed, the growth in metropolitan Cork and the CASP, the Cork area strategic plan, area was above the national average. That demonstrates the impact the development contributions have had during those years.

If that source of funding had not been available, the Exchequer would have had to provide direct funding to local government. This again raises questions about whether the Exchequer or developers should make this contribution and what funding model will apply. The model will have to emerge from the proposed legislation.

I will ask our director of planning or another colleague to speak about enforcement issues. Reference was made to the derelict sites levy. The legislation in this area is extremely cumbersome and we are fearful that implementing the provisions of the proposed legislation on vacant sites will be equally cumbersome. We support a vacant sites levy because such a levy is needed in urban areas. It is a facility which could be activated to try to force development in towns and town centres in larger urban areas. However, the proposal includes a significant number of hardship clauses. The test of the legislation will be whether its implementation will be as problematic as implementing the legislation on derelict sites. This latter legislation provides for a series of processes, appeals, engagement with developers, etc., which means it can take two or three years, notwithstanding the best intentions of local authority staff, to apply a derelict site levy to a site. Again, the concern is that a similar scenario will arise unless there is a significant tightening of the proposition regarding vacant sites. That addresses the key issues arising in that regard.

We will be pleased to comment on enforcement, even though it does not fall within the scope of the proposed legislation.