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

On that point, if we look at the budget local authorities have for energy efficiency for council stock, it is not used for PV or solar but only for heat pumps and windows and doors. I am not arguing against heat pumps but there is a strong argument that not only should all our new-build social homes be mandated to have PV installed but that a far larger portion of what should be an increasing retrofit budget for the social housing stock should focus on PV for exactly that reason. It is something I was dealing with recently.

If the witnesses want my advice as a constituency politician for almost 30 years, people will not care about emissions reductions involved in knocking open a cul-de-sac. If it is a cul-de-sac people will die in the ditch over it, as the folks in the NTA know. That is not an argument against the proposal but just a view.

I have a couple of final comments and then a general question. Picking up on the discussion on one-off rural ribbon development and suburban sprawl, there are rational reasons the people who are either building or buying those homes are doing that. Notwithstanding the NPF’s commitment to compact growth, it is actually very difficult or, in many cases, impossible for people to access affordable housing in the areas where we want compact growth. In the NPF review and in our commentary to the Minister after this conversation, there has to be a recognition that if we are saying that we want to reduce one-off ribbon development and we want more sustainable settlements in countryside areas, including clusters and hamlets, how are we to facilitate that in terms of land holding and land ownership.

Likewise, we have had many incentives for compact development in our urban centres, but none of it worked. Somebody mentioned Croí Cónaithe cities earlier but there have only been two contracts signed with 100 and something units, which will not be built for two years. It was meant to deliver 4,500 homes by 2025. If it delivers 1,000 homes by 2025, I will be amazed. We also have to make sure the incentives are the right kinds of incentives. My worry is that too often, incentives that have been put in place either have been poorly designed or have actually pushed the viability-affordability gap even further. It is also about incentives that work as opposed to just incentives that are there.

When anyone mentions fast-track planning, I always have to say the following: be careful what you wish for. Every time there is an attempt to introduce fast-track planning, it has not worked. I think there are two better arguments and I think both were mentioned. First, we have to resource the planning authorities alongside statutory timelines so they make decisions within an appropriate time period but I think it is prioritisation. The utility companies made a compelling to us when we were dealing with the pre-legislative scrutiny of the planning Bill that certain types of infrastructure – it could be renewable wind energy, public transport infrastructure or water infrastructure – should be prioritised in the planning system. That way, one is not fast-tracking a decision in a compressed period of time that could lead to a weaker planning decision but rather making sure that the really important stuff happens first. My fear when we talk about fast-track planning is every time somebody tries it, it ends up being slow, more problematic or more conflictful.

On brownfield, it is important that not all brownfield is problematic. I refer to St. Michael’s Estate. It will be ten years from the date Eoghan Murphy, no harm to him, announced those 500 social and affordable homes in St. Michael’s Estate in Inchicore before anybody moves in. That site is serviced. There will not be crazy external or abnormal costs in the development of the site. I am saying this because I was delighted to hear the research is being done. It would be good to start quantifying the significant additional cost in many brownfield sites but I also think it would be useful to include St. Michael’s Estate in the survey to see it is not just those extra costs; there are other examples of stuff that could or would happen much more quickly.

Much of this has to do with co-ordination. We had an interesting session - the Chair will remember and Senator Cummins was here for most of it as well - where we had Irish Water, ESB Networks and residential developers in on how to better co-ordinate the different bits of getting the stuff. If there were one or two ways in the context of the NPF review to try to improve the co-ordination between the different sectors that the witnesses represent, work for or are expert on, what would they like to see? If we have a long-winded NPF review with lots of stuff, that ship that Mr. Lawlor talked about will be even more slow moving than it has been over the past six or seven years. However, if the review comes up with small numbers of recommendations in terms of high-level objectives, implementation and co-ordination, it could be much more useful. If people have observations on how to better co-ordinate the different players on the field, I would be interested to hear that.

On the record, I resisted raising issues around BusConnects in my constituency, not because the issues are not there but this is not necessarily the right place.