Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an airgead a chuir an Roinn ar fáil do Chomhairle Cathrach na Gaillimhe agus do Chomhairle Contae na Gaillimhe.

It was announced recently that up to 2017 some €30 million will be made available to Galway County Council and €28 million to Galway City Council. That is to build 608 houses in the county and 518 houses in the city. It is a welcome allocation but more is needed. Nonetheless I commend the Minister of State and the Department for making that welcome start on social housing. I also understand that the capital assistance scheme will be announced in the very near future.

I welcome the Bill. One of the signs of the economy recovery is its impact on housing. A few years ago, in 2010 and 2011, many people thought we would never have to build housing again because we had an over-supply nationwide. Now, however, we do not have enough housing units. Added to the complexity is the regional imbalance. We continue to have an oversupply of houses in certain parts of the country, including ghost estates, while in other areas there is little demand.

This Bill started as the Planning and Development Bill, but has since been changed to the Urban Regeneration and Housing Bill 2015. Presumably this is to reflect supply-related issues in the Dublin area, which we all acknowledge, and where they are especially acute. However, a Dublin focus would overlook other areas, as would a city focus. There are places in close proximity to cities and urban areas within our large rural towns that we also need to examine concerning housing.

In Galway, like other cities, in the last decade there was never an over-supply of housing.

Local authority officials and councillors did not facilitate the unnecessary building of houses. However, with a growing population, an increase in the number of jobs and falling unemployment, there is an increased demand for housing in Galway. As figures from the Department show, the number of new homes built in 2013 was half that built in 1990, that is, 25 years ago when the country was in recession.

The second issue which is a major factor in the housing shortage in Dublin is the absence of a realistic and workable regional development plan. For several decades successive Governments have not afforded proper attention to balanced regional development. There has been much talk and many initiatives, but these have not succeeded. The population and migration trends are indisputable and have been moving in the same direction for decades. We now have a situation where one in three people live in the greater Dublin area. One in two or 50% of the population live in Leinster. This is not sustainable or in the best interests of the country at large. Unbalanced growth can have negative effects on these areas, as well as negative impacts on living standards. These impacts include pressure on housing places, leading to housing shortages; unattainable and unrealistic house prices for home purchase or even renting; pressure on infrastructure, requiring substantial investment in roads, electricity, water supply infranstructure, etc.; and pressure on hospitals, schools and recreation areas. These are evident in places in Dublin and the high population areas in the east. The surge in population growth in the east is having a negative impact on everyone's living standards. However, there are other areas, whether in the west, north west, south west or midlands, where there is capacity to expand substantially, enhance existing communities and provide for a better quality of life for people in these areas. While certain people will make remarks about certain parts of the west and may want to turn them into theme parks or a giant national park, it is important that we have continued regional development, with clear actions and clear points of responsibility to achieve this end. We have an opportunity to secure our economic recovery and rebuild society on a sustainable and balanced basis.

The provisions in the Bill include a vacant site levy and reform of planning legislation. They represent a start and positive steps in the right direction. Sections 3 to 26, inclusive, introduce a vacant site levy. This is significant and welcome. At a time of great housing need, it is scandalous that over 60 ha of land in Dublin lie vacant and unused. This is a personal view and obviously an issue for Dublin elected officials. In certain parts of Dublin there is need for a move upwards in terms of high quality housing in certain areas, something we see in other cities.

I realise the creation of a vacant site register is a significant undertaking. This is apparent in sections 6 to 12, inclusive, which set out how each local authority should create a register. However, the operational date of 1 January 2019 seems to be some distance away. I realise the idea of the Bill is to incentivise developers to use land and that the date is so far out that they might not incur penalties. The idea is that this will encourage them to build on the land and provide housing. I have concerns that it is a late start date for enforcement and might not bring about the change needed now. We need this housing now.

I welcome the provision in section 16 whereby the vacant site levy will not apply in cases of negative equity. It would be unfair to impose a levy in cases where the value of the mortgage used to acquire the land ended up, through no fault of the buyer, exceeding the market value of the land.

Does the definition of a vacant site include a house or an upstairs apartment or is it simply a vacant site? Should there be an inventory of the available housing that perhaps, subject to investment, could be made habitable or fit for living within town centres? Many town centres are dying, while at the same time we have housing shortages. We need to examine why certain units, whether upstairs flats above shop fronts etc., are not being made available. It is time to revitalise town centres. What incentives are needed? For example, let us consider parking. Many people may choose not to rent or buy because there is no parking availab;e. What can be done in respect of underground or back-land car parking? Local authorities will levy a developer for a parking space if he or she cannot provide it, yet the same local authoritiesd may not even provide parking either. Sometimes paid-for parking in town centres can have a negative impact on the town because of overzealous enforcement of parking charges. This is a disincentive to people living in centres, as well as a disincentive to job creation and retention within cities.

Another positive element of the Bill is the abolition of the system of contributions in lieu of social housing obligations, as is the case under section 96 of the original 2000 Act. I am certain that during the first decade of this century this mechanism was used to fund far more than housing provision within local authorities and that the funding provided under the original scheme was ring-fenced for housing but with substantially less housing demand and higher levels of home ownership. I recognise that the Minister of State, Deputy Paudie Coffey, has stated this policy had been in place since 2000. He has estimated that, had it not been in place, there would be an additional 15,000 social housing units in Ireland today, which would have represented a major addition to the housing stock available.

The Bill also removes the ability of developers to build to meet their social housing requirements in an area away from the main development, rightly so. This meant that developers in the more prosperous areas and with the better sites and higher quality housing in these areas were building housing to meet their social housing requirements in other towns miles away, creating ghettoisation. It is welcome that this will be discontinued.

Section 29 deals with a development contributions initiative. I welcome the initiative whereby a new development contribution scheme will be adopted in a county. I know that local authorities had the ability to reduce the incentive because many of the development contribution schemes that might have been put in place during the Celtic tiger years were no longer valid or reasonable for developers. Therefore, where contributions are reduced, under section 29 a developer will be able to retrospectively avail of the reduced development contributions. Where there is planning and where developers intend to build or purchase a given site, we need them to build the houses as quickly as possible to provide the much needed construction jobs within the sector. I certainly also welcome this initiative.

There may be some developers, including small developers, who were in the game in the past and who are now trying to fund new developments. Not everyone can turn his or her hand to become a housing developer and build 25, 50, 100 or 150 houses. There is a risk. People need experience, funding and finance. I know that under Construction 2020 the Department of Finance set about examining the issues regarding access to debt and equity finance for construction development. A report was produced in March or April this year. There are still issues in terms of developers who receive a certain amount of funding or equity from a bank but do not have the balance because they have been out of the building game for a given period or there may be other reasons they are simply not in a position to build. They may be in a position where they cannot proceed with their plans.

It is clear that the Bill contains many positive measures which will ensure the sensible use of land, increase the number of houses available and remove the opt-out clause which has contributed to housing shortages in the past. I have to qualify this by saying there is a shortage in certain places because of an absence of a sensible workable spatial strategy to encourage regional balance. If we continue with a move towards Dublin and Leinster, it will have an even greater knock-on impact and we will never be able to solve the housing shortage problem in the greater Dublin area. I commend the Bill to the House. Certainly, there is more to do, but it is an important first step to boost construction and provide the much needed supply of houses.

See this speech in context