Results 2,701-2,720 of 4,700 for speaker:Noel Ahern
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: We build small integrated estates. That is the aim of Part V. To turn that around and say we have not achieved absolute perfection is nonsense.
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: Developers can now reach an agreement to reserve land, provide houses or sites at another location, make a payment to the local authority which will be used for the provision of social and affordable housing, or agree to a combination of any of these measures. These options help to speed up the process while maintaining the integrity of Part V. They do not let developers off the hook, as...
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: They do not. Paying in cash is one way for a developer to fulfil his or her legal obligations.
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: The developer may suggest or ask but the local authority decides.
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: That is the law and the reality. While all of the options give considerable flexibility to planning authorities and developers, the Government's preferred option remains the delivery of housing units, particularly on-site to achieve integrated mixed tenure developments. Evidence since 2002 is that the direct delivery of homes continues to be the main option adopted under Part V...
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: That is not happening. The cash option is used in only a minority of cases, amounting to 13% or 14%.
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: To pretend that if that option did not existââ
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: ââit would radically change the situation is nonsense because cash is taken only in approximately 13% of cases. If this Bill aimed to guarantee a greater return from Part V than is being achieved, I might be persuaded to support it but it will not achieve this so the claim is false and hollow. If the Deputies wish to use it as an excuse to have a general discussion on housing that is...
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: The proposed Bill seeks "to restore [the position] in relation to the provision of social and affordable housing, which existed under Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 prior to the amendment of that Act in 2002".
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: If I read that correctly, it means going back to the original rigid format of the provision of a portion of the land on-site or, with the developer's agreement, the transfer of units or sites on the land that is the subject of the planning application.
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: What will that achieve?
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: It would not provide more units.
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: It would result in greater rigidity, drawn-out negotiations, more appeals and arbitration and fewer units. While I appreciate fully the intentions of the proposed Bill, it is flawed and would not achieve what it sets out to do.
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: We tried that before and changed the system because we saw what would happen. We have introduced some flexibility to the situation. That is warranted and necessary in a portion of developments.
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: Deputy Crowe's intention is no doubt to increase output from Part V and substantially increase the delivery of units. With respect, however, this is not the way to ensure that Part V reaches optimum delivery. The Bill aims to achieve this by reverting to a framework clearly identified as inflexible and a hindrance to optimum delivery. While I do not believe this is what is intended, I am...
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: One of the most sustained criticisms of the options under Part V relates to the making of a financial contribution by the developer. While some media and other commentators characterise the cash option as a widespread phenomenon of "developers buying their way out of Part V", this is simply not true. The delivery of units, sites and land for development of social and affordable housing...
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: It would be used there because, sadly, many of the houses in that area cost between â¬700,000 and â¬900,000. Even subsidising those by â¬50,000 or â¬100,000 does not make them affordable.
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: The question is whether the local authority can dictate to, or work with, a developer to provide the type of houses we need. The local authorities may need to be more proactive. Maybe until now they have been sitting back dealing with planning applications as they come in but if a developer sends in an application for 100 five-bedroom houses to sell at â¬1.2 million, there is nothing one...
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: It might appeal to the Deputy's ideology to blow his trumpet and say he got a â¬1.2 million house for social housing. I would rather get eight or ten houses somewhere else at â¬300,000 each to take eight people off the list.
- Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage. (1 Nov 2006)
Noel Ahern: It is a matter of reality over ideology.