Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Naturally, we are not going to get a large amount of social housing unless the State builds it. If the State ring-fenced 10% of property as social and affordable housing and there was zero chance of a developer getting out of that obligation, I would agree with the 10% level. Currently, one cannot get financing from a bank if one owns a site but has to cough up 20% of it.

Part V was a failure because we let it be so. Ghettoisation has continued unabated because we have allowed it to happen. If the Government cut the level from 20% to 10%, I would agree so long as no site could escape the social and affordable housing requirement. Last summer, Kennedy Wilson received planning permission for more than 160 units at Clancy Barracks. It told the council that it did not believe that the development was suitable for social housing. It paid €850,000 instead of providing property. At 10%, that would have been 16 units. The Government is doing away with allowing people to buy out of the obligation, but it will still allow them to debate how to sort out Part V. Developers will have the opportunity to move the obligation off site and deliver the units elsewhere. Doing away with the cash payment is a good idea, but the Government should not allow the units to be moved off site. Be the site in Ballsbridge or Darndale, Part V must be applied. If the site was in Darndale, we would be discussing affordable housing. If it was in Ballsbridge, it should be social housing. I would live with the 10% level provided that it was written in stone and there was no opportunity for developers to get out of it.

I do not know whether my next point relates to this section, but the Government is changing a rule. There was a time when a builder had X weeks to revert to a planning section and sort out Part V. As the Minister of State knows, though, sites were being commenced without Part V having been sorted. That the Government is changing this situation is a plus, as builders will not be allowed to start until Part V has been sorted. If the Government wrote the 10% figure in stone and made it part of the planning conditions, there would be no need for a debate after permission had been granted and the builder could not start until he or she had agreed to fulfil these conditions. There would be no need for a further meeting. It would do away with this problem.