Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee, particularly those who have supported the Bill to date. I acknowledge the significant body of work done by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service in the briefing paper that accompanies the Bill. It is a substantial and helpful piece of work.

The Bill is very simple and does three things. It seeks to increase the Part V requirement for standard residential developments to 25% from the currently reduced 10%; it seeks to impose a larger Part V requirement of 30% in strategic development zones; and it also makes one significant wording change to the existing legislation. Not only does it change the percentages but it also changes the wording surrounding them from "not more than" to "at least", which is a significant change for members to be aware of.

The arguments are very straightforward and the committee discusses them week in and week out. We are not getting a sufficient supply of social housing, notwithstanding the increases taking place. There are very few affordable housing schemes in the pipeline and most of them will not start delivering units until 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023. While the Government previously stood down the affordable housing schemes, affordable housing is still on the Statute Book and if we increase the Part V requirement to 25%, it will allow local authorities to make decisions on the basis of an increased supply of affordable housing.

That, in turn, will allow local authorities to make decisions on the basis of an increased supply of affordable housing. If combined with the serviced sites fund that is now available to local authorities, this could be used to deliver a much more significant increase in affordable rental or affordable purchase accommodation in these developments.

The Department has given a statement and I will comment on the concerns it has expressed. It is concerned about the change of wording from "not more than" to "at least". It is especially concerned that this could lead to local authorities which do not need more affordable and social housing having to agree to it. I am not convinced that there are many such local authorities. If, however, members are of the view that some flexibility needs to be introduced in order to ensure that local authorities will not be forced to take units they do not need, I would be happy to explore the matter on Committee Stage. We hear from Deputies in almost every county and local authority area that there is an urgent need for more social and-or affordable housing. In light of this, I am of the view that the change of wording is valid.

There is a concern that this will have an impact on the price of properties because developers will have less stock in each development to sell at open market prices. The difficulty is, as the Goodbody report published earlier this week confirms, that we have much housing stock which is currently being built in the wrong place or at the wrong price. It has shown that there is a reduction in the number of new purchased units at prices of less than €250,000. Rather than increasing prices, if the local authority chose the option of affordable housing as the increased portion, this would increase the volume of affordable housing for people who are currently priced out of the market, which would be an important change.

We do not have many strategic development zones, SDZs. The two most recently designated are at Poolbeg and Clonburris, which is in my constituency. Some 30% of the houses in the Clonburris zone will be Part Vs, or social and affordable houses, on lands that the local authority owns. That is in the SDZ and has been approved by An Bord Pleanála. Dublin City councillors approved a requirement for 30% in the Poolbeg SDZ in respect of land that is all private, albeit under the control of a NAMA-appointed receiver. While An Bord Pleanála ruled that any such percentage would have to be voluntary because the law does not permit otherwise, it still demonstrates that SDZs are, by their nature, very strategic in key locations and the latter are precisely the locations in which a higher percentage of social and affordable housing is needed. The idea that only 10% of the units in the Poolbeg zone would be social and affordable homes makes no sense, particularly in view of the nature of the area. There needs to be separate treatment for SDZs above the standard requirement.

Different views were expressed by parties which allowed the Bill to pass Second Stage. People stated hat they might like to see a slightly lower increase, perhaps to 20% rather than 25%, with a similar view about SDZs. I am happy to work with any of the Deputies, those in parties or Independents, in order to reach a compromise position. The objective is to get more than 10%. While I have set out in the Bill what I would like to see at an optimum level, I am open to supporting friendly amendments in order to ensure that the Bill passes Committee and Report Stages. I will work with Deputies in that regard.