Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are bringing forward some solutions to make it more viable. I have also asked the local authorities to put people in charge of making this happen. We need people to drive this because if it is not driven by the local authorities and by councillors of all parties and none, it will not happen. I must disagree with Senator Murnane O'Connor on the question of funding. A cash payment of €40,000 per unit, upfront, to renovate a property is quite attractive and in most cases would make the proposition viable. The majority of these properties, based on analysis, would need less than €30,000 to be brought back into use. In that context, I disagree with the Senator's assertion that the funding is inadequate. In some cases, with the changes we have announced, permission can be granted to go a little bit above the limit. If the property was previously a bedsit and it is an attractive proposition to return it to use, there is scope for local authorities to go above the €40,000 limit. That said, I believe that a sum of €40,000 is quite attractive. The issue for many property owners was the ten-year commitment that was required. I always felt that was too long and that has now been changed to a five-year commitment, which will make the scheme far more attractive to people. The scheme is attractive but people just do not seem to know about it or understand it. That is why I repeatedly ask Members of both Houses to advertise this deal in their constituencies and among councillors, to let people know it is there. The Department will conduct a national advertising campaign but people need to hear about it and to be told that it is a good scheme. In my opinion, it is a very good scheme. It was introduced because people told us that they did not have funds to spend on their properties to bring them up to a standard that would allow them to be rented out. This scheme provides those funds and is logical. It is, however, separate to what we are discussing today which is the exemption. There is a bit of a kick-on but they are not totally linked.

I am not sure what the Senator's concern is with regard to two or three years. This is in line with commitments made in Rebuilding Ireland. It is an exemption that will apply up until the end of the term covered by that document, that is, to the end of 2021. We are trying to drive on change today, not in ten years' time. We want to see activity now and most of the actions we have in this document are about driving activity in the present because we need more houses today. We want to tackle dereliction and vacancy but we also want to solve homelessness and the housing shortage. We are not introducing changes that will help in 20 years' time. This is about now as well as the years ahead. I am not sure what the Senator's concerns are in that regard.

Senator Boyhan made reference to health grounds but the planning authority is not the judge of health related matters. There are national guidelines set down by various commissioners and regulators. Their job is to analyse all the WHO documents, the European directives and so on. The guidelines are then set by Departments in conjunction with regulators. Planning authorities are concerned with planning matters and are not there to make judgments on health matters. The same principle applies to development plans.

I like Senator Boyhan's suggestion - there is merit in it - of public awareness and engagement around section 5 and section 27 provisions. Again, they are in place and there are hundreds of exemptions throughout the pages of legislation. Most have been in place for many years for good reason. The system enables exemptions under certain classes and categories in order to move forward. That is what they are there for. We can take a look at Senator Boyhan's suggestion of a register or public notice, but I have no wish to defeat the purpose either. Anyway, I will look at it to see if we can get the balance right.

Planning permission is required for anything substantial and people have to go through the whole process. Exemptions can make an application viable. If we make it too cumbersome or awkward, it will not happen and we will achieve nothing. I know what Senator Boyhan is saying. We can discuss the balance. It is something we will review. There is logic in it. A register of section 5 applications is kept although it is not always talked about or seen. Perhaps we can look at making it a more public document or more-----