Michael D'Arcy (Wexford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Before commenting on the Bill, I wish to raise a couple of issues. One of these relates to planning permission, in particular for people who want the opportunity to protect their properties. It is unfortunate that the Minister of State, Deputy Canney, has just left the Chamber. I live in County Wexford, a constituency with a substantial soft shoreline. People there are losing their properties, which are falling into the sea, but because the area is a special area of conservation, SAC, or natural heritage area, NHA, the National Parks and Wildlife Service prevents them from protecting their property. This is a real problem and something should be done about it because the situation is unfair. I must speak to the Minister of State about Kilpatrick in north Wexford where some people have had their access routes washed into the sea. They cannot gain access to their own property and they are relying on the generosity of neighbours who allow them to drive 4X4s across their gardens. They are prevented from doing anything about the situation, which is particularly unfair. The Bill could allow people to facilitate emergency works to protect their properties.

In the time available, I wish to focus on affordable housing. Previous speakers referred to those who have the capacity to purchase houses but cannot do so because properties are too expensive and to people who are in the social housing spectrum. The large numbers of people who occupy the middle ground appear to have been forgotten. The average industrial wage is €33,000 and when one factors it up by 3.5 times in the manner specified by the Central Bank, the total amount is €100,000. People on that level of income have no prospect of buying a house. They are left to rent forever. It is a large coterie of people. If one adds a second person on a similar income and factors up the numbers, one arrives at a total of approximately €175,000. The Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland puts the cost of building a standard three-bed semi-detached house in Dublin at €330,000. The numbers do not add up. We must do something about this matter, particularly in the context of the coterie of people in question.

I do not wish to repeat what others have said. I am determined that we do not ignore the people to whom I refer, who should be given the opportunity to purchase their own properties. In the past, local authorities very successfully provided sites for them. The charge for the site was €5,000 and then the local authority went to the market and got a house built for X amount. It is possible in areas outside Dublin to get a house built for €170,000. We might have to reduce the size of the house but that is possible because families are not as big as they used to be. I am not talking about reducing the quality or design of homes. In the past, the average home was 1,100 sq. ft. for families with three or four children. There is nothing wrong with reducing the size of such a property to 900 sq. ft. for families comprising two adults and two children. There would be a reduction in cost commensurate with the reduction in size. We should consider taking such an approach. Nobody should take what I say to mean that I am advocating a reduction in standards of house building. I refer to houses that are well-designed internationally. A house of 900 sq. ft. is big enough for a family of three. The alternative is not to give them an opportunity to ever purchase, which would be wrong.

The reason I am so determined in respect of this issue is because we have left those people behind. There is nothing in the plan to help them to obtain affordable housing. Given that the average industrial wage is €33,000, we could provide houses for €175,000, which would include the site and which would make housing affordable for the group of which I speak by reducing the levies and the tax take of the State from a property. The calculation at present is that the State takes 35% in tax on a property. I do not believe those who need a property most should pay the same level as those who are capable of buying their own property. The State could intervene in a very positive way. I gave a paper to the Minister, Deputy Coveney, but it was not acted upon. The Bill provides an opportunity for the Minister to act and I would be most grateful if the proposal could be considered.

One other issue I wish to raise - it was also raised in the Seanad - relates to properties with existing planning permissions. A very valid point was made about allowing planning permissions to be extended whereby people could sit on them and allow the market to increase and then take the opportunity to get a larger profit by selling their properties. That is not what I am talking about. Some developers are not in a position to get money from the banks in order to build. In cases where sites are paid for, banks are giving approximately 60% and the remaining 40% comes from own funds or equity funds, which charge 15% interest. Many developers are not prepared to build because the margin is too low. What I am calling for is an extension of planning permissions in order to allow developers to get access to funding that might not be available now.

I also ask the Minister to consider situations where planning permission has been given for the development of a single house. If those permissions are still live, I am of the view that they should be extended for another two to three years. That should be done. We do not need planning applications to reduce in number or to run out of time, which can very easily happen. What I am suggesting was done in previous planning legislation and it could be done in this Bill. I urge the Minister to consider that.

See this speech in context