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

I could see the strain on Mr. O'Rourke’s face when he went through the rigours of the public spending code. I share his pain about the dead hand of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on housing delivery.

I would like to follow up on three of the themes we have been discussing with Mr. O'Rourke. As Mr. O'Rourke will know, turnkeys are not just purchases of completed blocks of units. They are very often forward purchase agreements before construction has started or at the early stage of construction by local authorities and approved housing bodies. The Government’s housing plan is dramatically increasing competition for forward purchase agreements on the public housing side. This is because local authorities and AHBs are now not only in the market for social housing, but the cost-rental equity loan is putting them in the market for cost-rental housing. The Housing Agency, through Croí Connaithe, will do something similar. It is hard to see how the LDA will not end up in competition with AHBs. One of the concerns is not only competition but the fact that the LDA is not bound by the ceiling limits for acquisitions or the building of social affordable homes by the Department in the way that the local authorities and approved housing bodies are. Competition and the LDA's extra spending power could, therefore, have an inflationary impact on the cost of public housing. I am interested in hearing any information the LDA could give about how it believes it could avoid such competition. That is important.

On the tenure mix, I am genuinely concerned by the way in which the discussion around Part V obligations has seeped into discussions of the Land Development Agency. In my view, the LDA should not be talking about Part V. Part V was inserted to the Planning and Development Act 2000 to ensure that private development had a tenure mix. The LDA is not involved in private sector development and tenure mix is already embedded. It would be much more appropriate for tenure mix to be determined in conjunction with the local authorities, irrespective of the landownership, and on the basis of the housing need and demand assessment, which the LDA also has an obligation to adhere to. Therefore, there should be no discussion about arbitrary tenures of 75%, 10% or 15%. Every site should be site-specific and determined locally based on housing need. Again, I would be interested in whether the LDA believes Part V is a legislative requirement by which the LDA is constrained, to go back to Mr. O'Rourke's comments on public policy where we have more flexibility.

My last question might be more specifically for Mr. Coleman, although Mr. O'Rourke should feel free to answer it first. I go back to Deputy McAuliffe's question on 100% social affordable housing on public land in Dublin. Does that apply to the Dundrum Central site? For some time, Mr. Coleman has been diplomatically avoiding answering this question every time I ask it. However, the public has a right to know if there will be open market private sale homes on that site, in addition to social affordable housing. If so, what is the percentage?