Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, to delete lines 40 to 56 and in page 5, to delete lines 1 to 4.

Perhaps the Minister will clarify that, because this is amending legislation, there is no commencement section. These amendments deal with matters I raised in the debate on Second Stage. Page 4, lines 40 to 56, provide for the extension of the operation of the framework set out in the Planning and Development Act, 2000, to allow further flexibility to local authorities in operating the provisions of Part V of the Act. They allow for the swapping and matching of developers' land and sites.

An important element of Part V of the 2000 Act, referred to by Mr. Justice Keane in the Supreme Court judgment, is to ensure the building of local authority housing and the provision of social and affordable housing take place in the context of providing a good social mix. The purpose of this is to avoid situations where poorer sections are housed in one part of the community while better off private housing is located elsewhere.

From anecdotal evidence and my conversations with colleagues around the country it is clear that this is a contentious issue. I had recent experience of this when, as a public representative, I was approached by a resident who explained that a planning application had been lodged in respect of an area close to where he lived and that he was concerned about the housing mix that might ensue from the application of the social and affordable rule. My local authority adopted a 10% rather than a 20% provision in this regard.

People get unnecessarily worked up about this issue. The principle of integration is very important and one we, as legislators, must take into account. It was debated in the context of the original legislation. I am concerned that the additional flexibility introduced by this Bill will undermine the power given to local authorities to ensure there is a social mix. I discussed the proposed amendments with a senior official in my local authority and he also took the view that allowing for land swapping and matching could mean that social and affordable housing could be confined to one area, thereby preventing the desired social mix in residential estates. That is the reason we seek the deletion of lines 40 to 56 on page 4.