Dáil debates

Thursday, 18 June 2015

Urban Regeneration and Housing Bill 2015: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

5:45 pm

Photo of Paudie CoffeyPaudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies who made contributions today and on Tuesday on this important Bill. The number of Deputies who spoke is a clear indication of the importance of this issue and this Bill. I have been listening carefully and it has been a worthwhile debate. I do not claim to have a monopoly on wisdom. I do not think anyone does and we can all learn from the debate. As I outlined in my opening remarks on the Bill on Tuesday evening, and as has been acknowledged by virtually all Deputies in their contributions, we are faced with an acute housing supply shortage, which is one of the most pressing challenges currently faced by this society and Government. This is the primary background to the Bill.

The housing issues we currently face are multifaceted and require a broad ranging, co-ordinated approach to increasing housing supply. There is no single panacea or silver bullet to address the housing shortage but I can assure Deputies that it is a top priority for the Government. The measures in this Bill will not on their own resolve the housing supply problems but they will help to make a start in tackling the issue. I accept many genuine concerns were expressed by Deputies and I assure them that all that can be done is being done.

Some Deputies mentioned the social housing strategy.

Funding is being provided to local authorities and voluntary housing bodies to turn around voids and directly acquire houses in the short term, and to get back to direct building programmes on lands that are available and shovel ready. Those lands are being prioritised and we expect further allocations in this regard shortly.

I noted the broad support for the proposed reductions in development contributions for the unactivated planning permissions. There was an almost universal welcome for this measure. I also noted the general support for the vacant site levy provisions, which is a positive measure aimed at incentivising the development of vacant sites in central urban areas for housing and regeneration purposes, thereby helping to breathe life back into the designated areas and address urban decay, an issue that unquestionably requires positive action. I thank Deputy Wallace for the proactive suggestions in his contribution. With regard to the vacant site levy and the site size, I will examine that closely in terms of making it more beneficial, useful, practical and workable.

I noted, however, the views expressed by some Deputies regarding the January 2019 commencement date for liability to the levy and the suggestion that the commencement date could be brought forward. I understand the concerns expressed, but my Department has engaged intensively with the Attorney General's office about the development of levy proposals that are as fair, reasonable and proportionate as possible. The January 2019 commencement date is fair and reasonable overall, in that it gives site owners the necessary time and opportunity to regularise their affairs in advance of becoming liable to the levy.

I was not surprised that the proposed revisions to the Part V arrangements on social and affordable housing attracted the most attention. I note many Deputies opposed the reduction from 20% to 10%, suggesting that the existing requirement for the provision of 20% of the land in a development for social and affordable housing be retained rather than reduced to 10% as proposed. However, as I outlined in my opening remarks last Tuesday, the economic context in which the Part V provisions were developed was in 2000 and things have changed significantly since then. Imposing a 20% burden or overhead on developers in respect of social and affordable housing at this time has significant implications both in terms of the house prices charged by developers and the affordability of those house prices for purchasers, a large proportion of whom is likely to be first-time buyers. Construction viability from concept to design to construction and delivery must be taken into account. The primary purpose of the proposed measures in this regard is to stimulate increased housing construction activity by reducing development costs, thereby reducing house prices. Such increased activity will also assist in generating an increased social housing dividend, which is socially desirable and urgently required, as many Deputies said.

I also noted the remarks about the perceived termination of the affordable housing aspect of Part V. This is not the case. In the current housing situation it is considered essential that the focus of Part V arrangements be placed entirely on social housing output, but under the provisions that are proposed it will still be possible, when required, to reactivate the affordable housing element under the Part V mechanism by issuing a ministerial policy directive to this effect under section 29 of the Planning and Development Act.

Again, I thank all of the Deputies for their contributions on Second Stage. I look forward to further constructive engagement on the Bill as it progresses through the House. The Bill will be referred to the Select Sub-committee on the Environment, Community and Local Government for Committee Stage on 30 June.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.