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

First, I wish to correct the answer I gave earlier about the number of social housing units. It was almost 4,500 in 2018.

It was 4,453 at a cost of €13 million. In 2019, it was 3,763. The 2020 figures are much less as one would expect but hopefully they will get much better before the year is out. The figures for 2017 were 5,400. There has been a fair bit of improvement. The number of units were much higher in the early phase of the scheme back in 2014. It has got better with a greater spend and is more successful.

If we are going to achieve our targets in sustainable development, climate change, provision of public transport and many other services, we need to have compact growth. Our target is to achieve 40% growth in all areas on brownfield sites and 50% in all cities and large towns. It is a good target but it means difficult choices. The Deputy referred to the difficulty with the strategic housing development process. I do not agree with him that it eliminates local planning authorities. The result is a higher density of housing in many areas. If we are going to achieve compact growth, it will involve, regardless of the planning process to get there, a higher density of housing required on brownfield sites. That is very difficult when trying to implement that in existing communities.

I agree there needs to be much more conversations and work with existing communities as to how one matches these two together. The best way is probably through the provision of extra services and benefits. Essentially, with more brownfield sites developed, one will bring forward more benefits such as community services and facilities. That is a conversation we will need to have. If we are to achieve targets, it means different types of developments. It can be difficult on the edge of cities with low density development. This has to be balanced.

I do not believe the vacant site levy is the No. 1 tool to drive compact growth. It was in place. We made changes to it in the planning legislation two years ago which increased the rate of the levy. I would not judge it just on its collection rate. Very often the conversation around a vacant levy about to be imposed generates work on a site and gets things moving. It is meant to be a tool to get people moving on a site, regardless of density or what is built on it, to get activity. In many cases, it has done that. In others, it has not. I agree local authorities need to update the register. However, it is not meant to be the tool to achieve compact growth. It is part of a toolbox. There are other tools which we could use better in terms of working with people who own the land to put it into use, provided we agree with the plans.

See this speech in context