Mr. Colm Brophy:

With regard to affordability, as an association looking at this, one of the things we wanted to guide it was the fact that while the drive must be on social housing and that is acceptable particularly in smaller developments - we are talking about a ten-house development and one becoming available - there is no impediment in larger developments in larger urban areas, where a number of houses will be becoming available, to flexibility in terms of maintaining the mix of social and affordable housing. It is just a matter of looking at it and saying that, instead of having a prescriptive way of removing the affordability element completely, we should allow for that, because the fundamental problem of affordability, which was alluded to by Deputy Stanley and Senator Keane, is still there.

Ironically, that affordability problem is becoming most acute in large cities, particularly in Dublin, where, even though there has been a substantial fall from the peak of house prices, it does not take much, on a 20%, year-on-year house price point, for a three-bedroom semi-detached house to become completely unaffordable again for people on average incomes. Therefore, if we are putting in place a legislative approach to this, it must not only address the immediate next few months but address what will be needed a few years down the line. If things continue as they are, there is no question that affordability of housing will become an issue.

I agree very much with Councillor Sheahan that how Part V is handled in developments is crucial. We alluded to the fact there are different approaches to this by different local authorities and I do not believe there is one definitive way that works for everything.

By being too prescriptive in national legislation we are running the risk of removing the flexibility of local authorities to develop a local dimension, which should be led by local councillors as representatives of the public. They can determine the best use of the Part V provisions in a particular area and could decide, for example, not to allow one house to be built in a development of ten houses but three houses to be built in a development of 30. That might be a far better use of every aspect of the Part V process as well as of our infrastructure resources and the resources of the local authorities themselves. From my perspective it all boils down to subsidiarity and allowing flexibility to be devolved down rather than being too prescriptive and trying to shoe horn it in.