Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I support the passage of this short Bill to rectify an unfortunate error. It was a grave mistake which might have been unintentional but, to say the least, was careless. During the passage of the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act last year, we were adamant that there would be provision in it, among other things, for second extensions to be provided where substantial works were completed, in order for progress to be made and not have a scenario whereby one could go back to seek retention of planning permission and possibly have to open up the entire planning process again to further objections, and to hold the scheme up for two to three years and place an encumbrance on development and units being made available. It is unfortunate to have such an issue arise at this late stage but if it has to be rectified it has to be rectified. We will not stand in the way in order that the legislation can pass quickly and deal with the 75 or so cases involving more than 20 units in order that the work can be done. That is important especially considering the space we are in and the emergency in housing provision. If the Bill can help and assist in the process then we must allow for it and ensure it does exactly what we want it to do.

I could be very political and talk about the different things that have not happened which we would like to have seen happen in terms of the procurement process, such as the provision of rapid-build homes that can have a real impact on the crisis. Local authorities tell us there are impediments to procurement happening at the pace we would like. I hope the Minister will speak with relevant local authorities and departmental officials to facilitate the provision of new procurement procedures following the identification of road blocks and ensure housing developments happen a lot more quickly.

I had hoped the Government would have provided a new affordable housing scheme. We do not have one at present. The last one we had was the Part V scheme, which provided for 10% affordable housing and 10% social housing. In the last days of the previous Government it did away with the affordable housing scheme and we have not had a replacement. Some local authorities and co-operative housing organisations have introduced schemes to meet the demand in that sector but not on the scale we would like to see. I urge the Minister to introduce a national scheme that would have the desired effect in that regard.

The criteria under which local authorities can lease properties over a long period require amendment to cater for the possibilities that exist in that sector. We have the national asset residential property services, NARPS, model that NAMA is pursuing. That works well and could be extended. A new financial vehicle could be put in place to allow finance to be provided for units to be built and leased back by local authorities over a longer period. As local authorities told us in a committee meeting today that there are impediments to them doing that, let us resolve the issue and implement the changes.

In light of recent tragedies across the water and closer to home in Kildare and other places, local authorities have said resources and manpower are an issue in terms of them being in a position to inspect properties that are let and subvented by the State by means of the housing assistance payment, HAP, and other schemes. The situation must be rectified forthwith. I know the Minister has undertaken an audit of the inspection process in respect of health and safety and fire regulations and the way the system is adhered to, implemented and policed. I implore the Minister to accept what local authorities are saying. In some cases up to half the properties have not yet been inspected and there is an eight-month policy thereafter when the requirement comes into force and properties must be inspected. According to the local authorities, that in itself is not being adhered to, through no fault of theirs, but if the issue relates to manpower or resources it should be at the top of the Government's agenda in light to the threat to life that could otherwise exist.

Other issues have arisen in the course of recent weeks and I have had an opportunity to assimilate, digest and consider them. An issue will arise at a later Stage in our discussion of the Bill regarding the amount of units specified in the Bill being restricted to a minimum of 20. We should allow for multiples of less than that. I am conscious that people might have the best intentions in that regard but it is not possible to please everyone in this scenario. We are all faced with people coming into our constituency offices seeking to know if we are empowering the sector, public and private, to provide houses and to meet the demand that exists in order that the supply can reach the demand and progress can be made.

Of course, that is our duty and what we continue to do and implore the Government to do.

We also meet with the sector itself including providers, developers and investors who want a return on their investment but could not avail of it in the heat and depth of the crash. Those who survived the crash could seek a first extension of the permission they might have had for units numbering less than 20. Now people say they should be given a second extension. There comes a point when we have to define what is hoarding and what is not. Should we penalise people who, in that instance, would have had ten years to develop less than 20 units? We might compare those cases with somebody who has 180 units and has a lot more difficulty but it would not be comparing like with like. Somebody with less than 20 units could have 15 years to provide units to the market and it would be said that I and people like me are aiding and abetting that. I say we have to draw the line somewhere. We cannot please everybody and get nowhere. I think this is sufficient in the way that it is done. We are dealing with second extensions of time here, not with first extensions.

Another case came to my attention in the last few weeks. A local authority refused an initial extension of time when four fifths of the development had been completed. We are talking about hundreds of units here. Apparently, the reason the first extension was not granted had to do with challenges that had been made to the owner in respect of his title. He won his case, proved his title was sound and was entitled to complete the development. However, as the local authority failed to give an extension of time, he was forced to seek retention for the remainder of the work, which was 180 units. The total cost was about €26 million. In seeking retention of permission, presto, he had objections. I would hazard a guess that many of them are professional, to be quite honest. That being the case, the whole future of the development is in jeopardy from a financial, logistical and time perspective. Units are not made available to the market although there was ample process and planning in respect of all impacts, environmental and otherwise, and all that was required. The project met the criteria as laid down and achieved permission.

The local authority in its wisdom felt that it was possible for this legislation to be amended in order to cater for its failure to deal with first extensions under existing law.. This is purely to do with second extensions. There is adequate provision within existing legislation to deal with initial extensions of permission. Without mentioning the authority, the developer or location, I spoke briefly to the Minister about this case prior to speaking here. I will speak to him again and provide him with the details. I ask that he personally intervene and ask the relevant authority and the building company to meet. It may be possible to withdraw the existing permission and reapply for an extension under the legislation governing the first extensions. I have no doubt that should be adjudicated by virtue of the fact that the title issue has been resolved, apart from everything else. Then there might be progress. It is disappointing for me as a legislator to hear that an authority would think we can rectify legislation that is not even before us in respect of the issue it has. The local authority is not using the legislation that is available to it to deal with first extensions. I wanted to make that point. The Minister will acquiesce to me, I am sure, in order to accommodate such a meeting to see if the likes of that issue can be resolved.

Rather than getting into a protracted debate about the whole housing crisis and emergency, the Minister has said he is intent on addressing a few measures in respect of the review that is ongoing. I would say the review should not take too long. The manner in which the Rebuilding Ireland document was put together was credible in its own right. There was consultation with stakeholders, all-party committees and special committees. However, we always said it was going to be about implementation. With the best will in the world, the implementation has not materialised in the way we would have wished. Many of the suggestions we have made which were not acted upon now need to be brought to the fore. The review gives us all an opportunity to rectify that. I would hope the Minister will take that on board. I urge him to act quickly and show the sort of urgency that is necessary to address this issue. He should not be afraid of recent failures but should work with the rest of us to ensure we can all take credit for resolving this issue eventually. We must seek to give some immediate hope to those who see none despite the best efforts of many in recent times.

See this speech in context