Mr. Hubert Fitzpatrick:

Reference was made to certificate of compliance costs. The industry fully supported the introduction of the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014. They provided the end user, the consumer, with a far greater level of oversight, certification and a security that the buildings had been built according to the standards. The figure of €20,000 quoted for compliance with the regulations is too much on the high side. I expect the €20,000 figure includes many other costs that the developer would have to incorporate in any event, such as the cost of drawings and so on. I imagine the real certification costs for compliance with the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations are closer to €2,500 or €3,000 rather than the €20,000 figure. By and large, the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations provide a far greater level of oversight for the end user and a certainty that the buildings have been constructed to the required standard. We are certainly supportive of the consumer having that level of oversight.

Reference was made to the development of town centre sites and compulsory purchase order legislation. I had thought the CPO legislation was adequate. If it requires amendment or review, we would fully support it. The renewal of town centre sites should be supported for a quantified and specific type of development. It should not be open-ended. We want to ensure that we do not end up with an oversupply of any particular type of properties in any particular area. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Section 48 development contributions are used to fund infrastructure in any part of a given local authority area. Therefore, someone buying a new house in one town may be funding the building of a community centre or other development in another area entirely of the local authority. Section 48 development contributions were introduced at a time when no property tax was payable. No other type of such taxation was payable by households at the time. We view the section 48 development levy as one that could be replaced by the property tax. We still support section 49 arrangements with special development levies that pertain to particular developments where specific works are required to support those units.

Regarding the help-to-buy scheme, we are aware that many people would traditionally have been able to provide for their own housing needs and would have been able to buy a house in the past. Some of those people are now falling back on social housing waiting lists. This ends up being more expensive for the Exchequer if it is to meet that need.

A small leg up under a help to buy scheme, whereby the State took up to a 20% stake in a house, would be good value for money for the Exchequer because ultimately the purchaser would buy out that 20%.