Dáil debates

Wednesday, 18 May 2022

Subsidies for Developers: Motion [Private Members]

 

11:42 am

Photo of Richard BrutonRichard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I sometimes wonder if the sponsors of the motion represent the same city that I do. The core problem in my constituency is that new high-density compact development is simply too expensive for first-time buyers. The old model, whereby modest builders sold to homeowners, is not able to mobilise these sites. As a result of that, what we have seen in recent times is that the REITs have moved in to purchase, for example, at Griffith Avenue and the Shieling development, and it is not only the REITs as the housing bodies have also moved in to buy in Beaumont and Coolock and at Blackbanks, which Deputy Cian O'Callaghan will know.

We have to fix that model because the traditional model will not deliver. As the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, will know, we need compact development for climate reasons. We have to be aware that this logjam has to be broken. In Dublin city in the last four years, planning permission was granted for 29,000 but only one third of those have been activated, so there are currently 19,000 in limbo. By contrast, in the other three Dublin authorities, 75% of those that got permission have moved on to commence and build. We have a logjam in the cities, and it is not just Dublin. In my constituency alone, there are 8,000 such homes blocked in that position and they would not be triggered unless, under the policy up to now, the REITs or one of the housing charities came along and bought them.

What we are doing here is developing a way of unblocking that. The strategy the Government has developed has three strands. First, there is the State developer, which I believe Deputy Joan Collins has overlooked, that is, the Land Development Agency, which under Project Tosaigh will activate these sites. It is actively going to find those sites and get them moving and, as I said, there are 8,000 such units in my constituency and 19,000 across the city. The second element is the subsidy we are now talking about, which reduces the price of those very high-spec homes to home buyers in these high-density developments. The third element, which we will see in the forthcoming budget, is taxation of vacant sites. In my view, this is a balanced package of activist intervention by the State and it is the correct way to address this problem.

The Opposition seeks to depict this as a subsidy to developers. The reality is this will ensure that ordinary home buyers can go in and get these homes at a cheaper price than those who want to buy for buy-to-rent purposes, be they REITs or individuals. Of course, the value of that money expended has to be tracked and we have to make sure we get full value for it, but it means there will be a lower price for first-time buyers in these estates. That is something we need. The trouble with the Opposition motion is that it deplores falling rates of home ownership but it opposes help-to-buy, which 32,000 people will take advantage of, it opposes shared equity, which 8,000 people will take advantage of, and it now opposes this, which is another 5,000 homes that we can deliver. We have the highest rate of social housing provision ever in the history of the State, although, from listening to the Opposition, no one would realise that. We need to correct affordable housing and that is what this initiative is about.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.