Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 34 to 43, inclusive, which propose to amend sections 33 and 34, which in turn amend section 96 of the principal Act.

I do not propose to accept amendment No. 34, which would have the effect of deleting section 33 and replacing it with a provision that would delete section 96 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 on the power of local authorities to enter into Part V agreements with developers to secure social and affordable housing. For me as Minister of State to accept this amendment would effectively be to remove the concept entirely of Part V and eliminate the contribution that this mechanism can make to meeting the social housing needs of our citizens. Therefore, I do not understand how, on the one hand, Deputies can table an amendment seeking to retain the upper limit of 20%, which was argued for this evening, while on the other hand seeking to remove the Part V mechanism from the Statute Book. Deputies will agree that there is a wide acceptance that Part V has been relatively successful in delivering social integration and more sustainable mixed tenures in communities across the country. Furthermore, there remains a rationale that the betterment value from a grant of planning permission for residential developments should be captured through Part V agreements for the benefit of the community as a whole. As such, we will not accept amendment No. 34.

In the context of a recovering housing market and increased housing construction activity, the Part V mechanism, with the appropriate amendments contained in sections 33 and 34 of the Bill, has the potential to be a significant contributor to future social housing provision. Given the significant and urgent need to increase social housing construction and supply, it makes sense that amendments would be made to Part V to maximise its contribution to achieving the supply targets contained in the Social Housing Strategy 2020.

I cannot accept amendments Nos. 35, 36, 39, 40 and 43, which oppose the proposed amendments to the options for developers in fulfilling their Part V obligations and some consequential technical amendments. The overall objective of section 33 is to amend the options contained in section 96 for the delivery of units within a Part V agreement and to maximise the transfer of completed social housing units. The amendments are necessary to increase the supply of social housing units speedily. Long-term leasing and rental agreements are necessary new Part V options. Removing the cash options and the option of providing sites is also necessary.

Deputy Paul Murphy's amendment No. 35 seeks to introduce new aspects to the considerations that a local authority must have when entering into Part V agreements. The option of transferring sites or parts of sites is to be removed, rendering the first part of the amendment unnecessary. Likewise, the second part of amendment No. 37 is unnecessary. Any transfer envisaged under Part V will be on a permanent basis. For example, the transfer of a housing unit or land will be on the basis of transferring ownership.

Deputy Boyd Barrett's amendment No. 38 raises the matter of the inclusion of profit on costs in the calculation of development work related to units to be transferred. I will not accept this amendment. It is accepted that there have been many difficulties with Part V agreements due to the complexity of the legislation. This has been reflected in the judgments in a number of court actions. The proposed amendment to Part V represents an opportunity to provide some clarity in the operation of the legislation and could save millions of euro by reducing the time spent on negotiations, engagement of professionals such as quantity surveyors, engineers, planners and legal advisers, court proceedings etc.

Section 33(1)(c) substitutes section 96(3)(d) of the principal Act and provides that, where houses are to be transferred as part of an agreement, their price shall be calculated on the basis of the cost of the land and the cost that would have been incurred by a planning authority had it retained an independent builder to undertake the work on its behalf. The price that an independent builder would command in the marketplace would ordinarily include some provision for profits. Section 33(1)(c) should bring clarity to the costs to be considered as a basis for calculating the price of housing units to be transferred under Part V. The amendment takes account of relevant court judgments and the practical difficulties reported in the operation of Part V. The inclusion of "and profit on those costs" is consistent with the existing provision and no change in policy is proposed. Court judgments do not appear to point to any deficiency in this regard.

I wish to speak to the final two amendments in this grouping, Nos. 41 and 42. I do not propose to accept these. On the face of it, the proposed definition of an integrated scheme of retirement housing contained in amendment No. 42 appears open to interpretation on a number of fronts and could be open to court challenge. Amendment No. 41 proposes that section 96 of the principal Act on the Part V social and affordable housing obligations should not apply to such an integrated scheme. As the House knows, the State seeks to provide community living for the elderly where they cannot afford such facilities. Therefore, I see no reason for private developers providing such housing to be exempt from Part V obligations. I should also point out that, if such developments were provided by approved housing bodies, AHBs, they would be exempt under the Bill. Presumably, such private ventures are profitable. Therefore, I do not believe that private developers could not provide social housing units or land to the relevant local authority to house its elderly tenants adjacent to private facilities. It would also be open to the local authority to accept a completed social housing unit for any age group on an alternative site. Under the revised section 96, the developer could acquire a unit for such purposes if the local authority agreed to same in a Part V agreement. The Government is keenly aware of the country's demographics and the challenges afoot, but it is not in the interests of the State to provide this exemption. Therefore, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 41 and 42.

See this speech in context