Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this debate. I want to highlight the many difficulties that arise from a lack of coherent policy for the city of Dublin. These range from the impact of the public private partnerships to the need for integration, the need for the provision of homes, not just houses, and the effect of poor housing on the lives of those who experience it. I take this opportunity to welcome the residents of St. Michael's Estate, in particular my colleague, Councillor John Gallagher, who are in the Gallery to hear the debate. They are in the front line and the people for whom we must have most concern. I understand that people from O'Devaney Gardens and perhaps Lower Dominick Street are also here, and I welcome them.

Public private partnerships have provided for the Government a convenient vehicle for a number of projects around this city. However, when it comes to housing the outcome for the most part has been negative. The collapse of the public private partnerships across Dublin city should be considered a body blow to the regeneration of areas which have experienced the bad times, even through the heady days of the Celtic tiger. St. Michael's Estate in my constituency has faced many challenges throughout the years since it was built in 1969. I do not want to dwell on the problems that plagued the estate, but suffice it to say there is a very strong case for immediate action from the Government and the city council to redress the balance.

Although the PPP model was not everyone's ideal scenario for these development, and it must be acknowledged there was some disquiet amongst local residents at the scale of the development and the number of private dwellings, at least it was considered to be progress. However, in the case of St. Michael's Estate the frailties of the PPP process were starkly highlighted when the developer decided to pull out of the partnership, leaving the residents high and dry as happened in O'Devaney Gardens and Lower Dominick Street.

I quote from an article by Fr. Peter McVerry published recently in a periodical called Working Notes:

The value of the land donated to the developer far exceeds the value of the social housing provided, thus transferring a very valuable asset, owned by the state, into private hands. In the case of St. Michael's Estate, the value of the land handed over to the developer was estimated at over €100 million while the value of the social housing which the local authority was to receive in return was about €14 million.

Members can see why there were reservations and how the developer was going to do nicely from that arrangement. However, any progress is to be welcomed at this point. The St. Michael's Estate project was to be the regeneration that would provide 165 social and 75 affordable units. Some 165 families who were on the social housing list were to be housed in a brand new, top class development or so they thought. Many of these would have been from these estates originally and would be given the opportunity to return. Others would be from the Dublin City Council housing list. We know all too well from recent programmes such as "Prime Time Investigates" the conditions in which some people live while they await housing. As Deputy Costello said any of us who have advice clinics in the city of Dublin know exactly what the housing problems are like. Along with other Deputies in this House, I receive representations from people on the housing lists on an almost daily basis. We all hear of the desperate plight of some people seeking accommodation. However, these were the people who were to be housed in the new developments.

Some 75 people from amongst the more than 8,000 people on Dublin City Council's affordable housing list would have been given houses here. These were young families and people who were priced out of the market due to the rampant house price inflation particularly in Dublin over the past 15 years. It offered people the opportunity to own their own home close to the city centre, in many cases in the area where they grew up. These 75 affordable houses would have helped add to the mix of people in the wider community of Rialto, Kilmainham and Inchicore and helped to develop a more sustainable community not based on commuting from Westmeath or Carlow but instead living and working in the city. The addition of private housing on site would also have led to a real mix of residents. This was a move away from the previous housing strategy which grouped social housing units together and led in some cases to social stratification.

Instead of the promised development we have seen these projects collapse. The developer has pulled out of the proposed developments, leaving everyone empty handed, the local community in particular, but also the city council and the Government. The reasons given for the withdrawal by the developer are particularly frustrating. That the requirement to build apartments that are family friendly, large enough to live in long term and energy efficient is the reason for withdrawal is flabbergasting. Development laws in this country have for decades been a joke. The small box apartments so favoured by developers to maximise the number of apartments they can sell are not sustainable housing stock. In Dublin South-Central a developer wants to demolish a block of apartments he built only a decade ago under the section 23 scheme. The reason given is the poor quality of the apartments.

Dublin City Council, supported by Labour councillors, has taken a forward-thinking step to insist future apartment stock in the city is of high quality with adequate storage space and room to house a family. The increased energy efficiency requirements are another positive and necessary step. Oil is over $140 a barrel and rising. Energy costs will continue to rise long after a developer has finished a site. It is only right that developers are required to ensure houses are constructed to the highest possible standards.

Developers benefited the most out of the housing boom. I accept they brought much employment and stimulus to the economy. Nevertheless, they were happy to take super profits during the good times and, in some cases, walked away from developments half finished. Now the super profits are gone, developers are complaining because a higher standard of sustainable development is required.

Even with the loss of apartments due to the higher standards, the developer in St. Michael's Estate was given the opportunity to build and sell 449 units located beside a Luas line only a short distance from the city centre which is expanding westwards. This project must be seen as a golden opportunity for developers seeking work.

The money spent on these projects must also be accounted for. The total spend by Dublin City Council was over €6.1 million on the five public private partnership projects, with €2.6 million spent on St. Michael's Estate alone. What is there to show for this? A stalled project for which there is no concrete proposal and a community left in limbo while it waits for its area to be regenerated. Up to 165 people on the social housing list and 75 on the affordable housing list will not be offered homes for the foreseeable future.

If the Government cannot get projects right in the good times, then I fear for its record as we face into a period of economic uncertainty for the first time in two decades. Will it be the weakest, the poorest and the most marginalised who will suffer? The manner the Government deals with the St. Michael's Estate project and other stalled public private partnerships will show its determination to address the serious housing social and regeneration issues which afflict Dublin. Places to live in should be homes and not just houses. The Government has an obligation to ensure the people who have been left out of the loop through the failure of the public private partnership in St. Michael's Estate are provided with homes that are part of a community, of the highest quality and good for everyone.

Together with education, housing as part of a strong community, with the community having a real say, is one of the key ways to tackle many problems such as anti-social behaviour, drug dealing and other crimes that blight our society. It is not enough for local authorities to provide information sessions, however well designed or well intentioned. They must tell people what they need. They must be prepared to engage, consult and listen to the people who know what poor housing is about and respond to their needs.

It is up to the Government to repair the damage done in these failed public private partnership projects and give the people the assurance they will get their new homes and not be left to wait indefinitely for that to happen. Is it not ironic the developer who pulled the plug on these public private partnerships is allowed to walk away without any sanctions or penalties? Is it not time, at the very least, to review the relationships between developers, the local authorities and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in all public private partnership arrangements, to ensure public money is not washed down the drain while the developer moves on to the next project?

Fatima Mansions in the Dublin South-Central constituency is an example of how good design and integration works. The project, admittedly a public private partnership, is almost at a conclusion. It is agreed the provision of new housing and the social agenda around the bricks and mortar is a successful one for the tenants. However, what is the cost to the State? The developer provided 150 units of social housing and approximately 450 private dwellings, in return for 14 acres of high-value land, near the city centre and on the LUAS line. It was valuable property by any standards. The value of the land was estimated at approximately €100 million while that of the social housing units was approximately €23 million, not a bad profit for the risk that the developer undertook.

It might sound strange but I lay little blame with the developer for the disaster of the public private partnership regeneration projects. He is after all a businessman who has been allowed the freedom to call it whatever way he wants when it comes to delivering the promised housing. Was it promised and under what conditions? What exactly was the nature of the agreement? The residents and board members believed the regeneration project was about to begin. Where was the local authority and what kind of conditions were imposed that allowed a developer simply saunter off into the sunset with no sanction or penalty?

The challenge for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is to reorganise and restructure the approach to public housing, whether social or affordable, to ensure the taxpayer gets value for money. He must examine clinically the value of public private partnerships. Most importantly he must ensure the housing list is reduced so those who have been living on false hopes for up to eight years have some realistic chance of getting a home to live in before they reach their golden years.

The residents of St. Michael's Estate, O'Devaney Gardens and Lower Dominick Street have had the rug pulled from under their feet. I call on the Minister to redress the balance and ensure the residents are put first.

See this speech in context