Dáil debates

Wednesday, 7 December 2016

Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Bill 2016 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

10:05 pm

Photo of Damien EnglishDamien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will try to respond to as many questions as possible. I am conscious that Committee and Report Stages will be taken next week and we will have another opportunity then to address many of the issues raised.

I thank Members for their contributions this evening and last week. There was also a lengthy debate on Report Stage of this Bill in the Seanad, during which many of the concerns expressed here were dealt with and we also took on board some amendments. We are not suggesting that this Bill is the full solution. It is only part of the solution. We are all agreed that the real solution is to increase the supply of housing and, in particular, to increase social housing provision. Those who say that the solution is not to be found in increased supply are wrong. I was surprised to hear Deputy Wallace and others say that increased supply will not solve the problem. Six or seven years ago, from 2008 to 2014, rents across many towns were half the price they are now because there were many vacant properties and there was no shortage of accommodation. In the areas surrounding Dublin, including Wicklow, Kildare and Meath, it was possible to rent a property for €700. The cost of renting in these areas now is €1,200 or €1,300 per month. Supply is an issue and so increased supply will help to resolve the housing crisis. What we need is a combination of social and private housing. We accept that, and this strategy seeks to address both. The changes proposed in this Bill will help increase supply of social and private housing. As I said, we will have an opportunity to tease out these issues further on Committee Stage.

One of the reasons for the introduction of the fast-track planning provision, which is temporary, is to try to encourage those who own sites and land and are in a position to build houses to do so now when we need them rather than in seven or eight years time, although I accept it will be 2018 or 2019 before any houses will be ready. We are seeking the reactivation of sites in the near future rather than in the long term. Different approaches are being taken in this regard. Many people referred to carrot, sticks and levies and so on. A site levy will come into force in 2019. Based on advice from the Attorney General, owing to the Constitution, it cannot come into effect until then. We are required to give people due notice that they will be taxed for inactivity on sites. We are prepared to take another look at that provision with a view to strengthening it, if necessary. The matter is currently being examined by an urban renewal group, of which I am chairman. My officials and I are prepared to look at the possibility of increasing the amounts in question. Regardless of that, the site levy cannot come into effect until 2019.

The aim is encourage construction through reduced planning timeframes and other incentives such as infrastructural funding in order to encourage activation on sites in the near future. That is our sole aim in terms of the planning changes. The aim is not to remove powers from local authorities. Like Deputy Connolly, I was a councillor for many years. I agree with the Deputy that there has been a housing crisis since 1999. Councillors are involved throughout the planning process and what is provided for in the Bill relates only to zoned land. The issue of material contravention does not arise. However, I will check that. The land concerned must be zoned land before the process begins. I will have that issue clarified for the Deputy. If we need to tighten up the wording in that regard, we will do so. This issue was discussed during debate on the Bill in the Seanad. The process relates to zoned land only. Material contravention is an issue for councillors. As I said, this process relates to zoned land. In my view, in terms of the planning timeframe, currently councillors do not have a direct role in relation to planning applications. They can make representations and can raise issues with a planner officially or unofficially by way of telephone or at a meeting, but there is no formal setting within which they discuss large-scale planning applications, although I always believed they should be able to do so. When I was a councillor, we asked that we be allowed to do that and we did it for a while but because most people did not put the time into it, the system did not work. In terms of the process now being introduced, following nine weeks of consultation and during the four week period during which the manager must make a submission, there will be an opportunity for a formal council meeting to discuss an application. I will have that clarified for Deputy Casey. As I understand it, there will be a nine week consultation process following which the manager then has four weeks within which to make a submission on behalf of the local authority. During that period, there is an opportunity for councillors to have a formal discussion and have their views recognised and put forward in the submission. This opportunity is not available currently. Councillors will have a greater say in planning of a large-scale nature in that they will be able to point to situations that need to be addressed. This will strengthen the process. The aim is not to take away local authority powers, rather it is to fast-track planning temporarily for a number of years.

The Fianna Fáil amendment calls for a review after three years. We also discussed that issue in the Seanad. We agree that there will be a need for a full review of this process before any decision could be made to extend it for a further two years. If all goes well, there may not be any necessity to do that. If it is beneficial and it is working and it needs to be continued we will consider extending it for a further two years. I can assure Deputy McGuinness, who expressed concerned about this, that this process will not be permanent. I do not propose to go over many of the issues already covered by the Minister, Deputy Coveney, in relation to the Part 8 process. In regard to the delivery of social housing, as things stand, there is no cap on the timing for a Part 8 process, be that in respect of housing or infrastructure such as a road or a bridge. Part 8 could go on for years. That is not satisfactory either. We need the Part 8 process to work quicker, faster and in a more streamlined line to deliver social housing, which is the purpose for which it is generally used.

This Bill is capping that timeline, which is welcome. It should strengthen the position of those who really want to deliver social housing. I sometimes question people's commitment to social housing in some local authorities, but certainly not in Galway. In some areas, the system has been abused and dragged out without end. That is not good enough. This House, in the budget just gone and in the commitment in Rebuilding Ireland, has committed €5 billion in taxpayers' resources to deliver social housing and the infrastructure to make it happen, in addition to other housing. We added 50% to the budget for housing a few months ago. However, if we cannot fix the processes for delivering social housing, we cannot spend that money. The objective is to sort out the process to get the money spent as quickly as possible.

In respect of the Tyrrelstown amendment, there is some protection for people in a development with five units, as it now stands. The figure originally proposed was 20.

There is a rental strategy to be published in the next week or two that will deal with all the issues on rental raised tonight. I will not go back over them all. We discussed them at length in the Seanad and I have no doubt but that we will be doing so on Committee and Report Stages. The strategy will deal with many of the concerns people have over rent. We are committed to this matter and we recognise that there has to be a proper rental strategy to give tenants greater security and service, make renting more of an option and increase investment in rental property. Despite the best intentions expressed here and the view that the State should provide all social housing, we are not in a position to do that. The strategy should see approximately 130,000 units being built over the next four or five years. We call them units because all types of housing are included. We do not have the money to build all the units and we should not do so. Apart from not having the money, we do not have the necessary capacity in the system. I have no doubt but that the combination of private and social housing, and various forms thereof, is the right way to address this. If one decided tomorrow to proceed entirely using social housing, one would not achieve the objective. The idea is that, over the timeline of the strategy, or over the next four or five years, we will build the capacity in local authorities to deliver social housing. The commitment is to deliver 47,000 units over the next five years and to be in a position thereafter to deliver about 10,000 per year, which is the position we were in once and where we should be. If people want to go further thereafter, that will be fine too. However, it is not possible to switch it on overnight.

The capacity of local authorities to deliver social housing has been eroded, and this was the case well before the construction crisis. We have decided to rebuild capacity and put money behind this. That is a joint decision of the Houses. Some €5.5 billion in taxpayers' money is a lot of money to drive a social housing agenda. We have been very clear with all the local authorities that it is real and that all parties in the House have committed to this at a minimum. Others want to do more and that is fair enough, but everyone is agreed on the minimum. We have explained to local authorities that the money is available and that they should make their plans for social housing, make long-term plans and have a pipeline of projects for 2018, 2019 and 2020 to build on what is done in 2017. In the past, the local authorities were told to do that but the money was pulled away. That will not happen now because the House is in full agreement that we have to tackle this issue. The strategy is an ambitious one to rebuild social housing capacity but it is appropriate and correct. We can add to it down the line if necessary. The strategy will certainly deal with the current crisis.

Members referred to the social housing waiting list. The updated figures are being compiled and they will be published in the next six or seven weeks, or even sooner if they are ready. We have never hidden any figures here. That is not what we are about. We are about using the statistics and figures to address the problem. The Department, Minister and I published the figures on the homeless, those in emergency accommodation and rough sleepers. The figures are published every month and are not hidden away. We are dealing with this and not trying to hide from it. We will not hide. The plan is a very open and transparent one that seeks to address the problems and create solutions.

The HAP is a solution for many. Some like that but not everybody on the social housing list, numbering 4,000, 3,000, or 2,000 in Galway, would take a social house tomorrow if they got one. Quite a few are happy with HAP and some would prefer a social house. The HAP might offer a solution for the next two or three years while we catch up with supply.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.