Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the CEOs and the representative organisations, the AILG and LAMA. It is important that they are following on from work they have done on other Bills in making contributions and submissions on them.

On Part V, concern was raised earlier in the submissions about the regulation of the voluntary housing bodies, because these organisations are providing housing, are providing for a need. However, a significant amount of housing stock is under the ownership and control of organisations that are officially listed as charities, but that are not under the control of local authorities.

I have problems with the removal of the affordability concept and I ask for a response on the matter because across the country, certainly in my own county, Laois, there is a need for affordable housing. Although housing prices have dropped, people are not able to buy housing. There is a role for providing affordable housing.

On the increase of exclusion threshold so that Part V would only apply to developments of nine houses or more, even in the town of Portlaoise I have seen a situation where five houses were built and the local authority acquired one of those houses. I must say "buy", because there is a myth in some areas that the local authority gets a house gratisfrom the developer. It does not. There is a formula for calculating the price of it. It is important that is retained, particularly in small counties. Five houses might be built on the edge of a village and it is important that one of those houses is social housing. This brings me to the 10% rule. It is too low. I would welcome the views of the organisations on this. It needs to be near to double that.

The other question is where Part V housing is located in estates. I have seen greater social segregation as a result of Part V than there was with straightforward local authority developments. I could show the witnesses examples of it, developments where up to 500 houses are built, including 30 or 40 social houses. These social houses are not peppered throughout the estate. They are built in the furthest corner of the development, out of sight. It has led to huge difficulties. I have come up against it in Portlaoise and other towns. I would particularly welcome the views of the CEOs on this. The remit of the planners has been to sort this out and, for whatever reason. I am not saying the CEOs here have done it but CEOs and planning staff seem to have given in to the wishes of developers. Not alone are they pushed over in one corner, they are also of the lowest quality. Everything is cut-price and of a low standard. The back gardens are very small. They are the same size as, or smaller than, some people's kitchens. I would welcome views on the need to stitch quality of housing into the Bill, as well as its location in estates.

There are huge weaknesses in the proposals in regard to vacant sites, although I am in favour of a vacant sites levy. I brought forward a Bill last year on derelict sites. In theory we have a 3% levy on derelict sites, but we all know - the councillors in particular - that it is very ineffective. The issue is around policing and enforcing it. During the boom, 3% of a site could have been a sizeable amount of money, but 3% of the value of a property now could be only a few hundred euro in some cases.

We need to change that. I would welcome the witnesses' views in that regard.

I also welcome the suggestion by the AILG that councillors should have a reserved function in this area. Mr. Tim Lucey suggested this would be a protracted process. I see it going the way of the Derelict Sites Act in terms of it being on the Statute Book but lying in a cupboard. What revenue could a local authority accrue from policing derelict sites? At the very least, they would have to bring in sufficient money to pay for enforcement. That is not happening at present. A local authority might bring in a few hundred euro but it will spend €10,000 trying to police these sites. That balance has to be tipped.

Reference was made to a reduction of 50% in development levies in Cork for non-residential developments. However, Cork is contending with deficits in its infrastructure. While we want to offer incentives for commercial development, we also want a degree of flexibility. Elected members are responsible for making the development contribution plan. If we are going to have commercial development, we need infrastructure. We cannot continue the practice whereby the infrastructure follows the development. Both must be constructed simultaneously. In regard to the two year reduction in the planning duration, my experience is that it is always a matter of pounds, shillings and pence, in other words, the developer's cash-flow, regardless of whether it is a private house or a much bigger development.