Seanad debates

Tuesday, 10 December 2019

Housing (Regulation of Approved Housing Bodies) Bill 2019: Second Stage

 

1:30 pm

Photo of Kevin HumphreysKevin Humphreys (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I also wish to express my sympathies to the family of Simon Brooke of Clúid. I was quite shocked when Senator Coffey mentioned that he had passed away because I had not known about it. Simon was a great supporter of AHBs for decades. I worked closely with him in the 2000s when we tried to bring performance standard requirements into Dublin City Council in respect of AHBs. One housing body decided that it would report me to my party's leader at the time, Pat Rabbitte, because it felt I was bringing in requirements for AHBs that were too harsh. Simon Brooke said to stand fast and do not give in. He had a great sense of humour and will be deeply missed. Again, my sympathies to his family.

There is much covered in the Bill before the house. One of my concerns with AHBs relates to 30-year mortgages. While I am not painting all AHBs with the same brush, in other jurisdictions some housing bodies sold off their housing stock in valuable areas. The argument was that they were selling the stock to develop more housing in other locations. Those other locations tended to be miles away from city centres, however. Much of our approved housing stock is in and around Dublin city centre. Are there safeguards in this regard? There are safeguards in respect of mortgages and loan periods. In the early days, the term of a mortgage was 25 years. However, there was nothing to stop an AHB selling off the stock after 25 years. I accept that some provision is made in section 66. Will that provide protection at a later stage when the mortgages or the initial leases are have ended? AHBs have approached Dublin City Council in order to get some stock in expensive landbanks. I would hate to see the properties involved moving out of the social housing mix, regardless of whether it is in 25 or 30 years’ time. A social mix within Dublin city is important.

The performance standard requirement was published earlier this year.I become a little worried when we hear people speak of performance standard requirements on maintenance. I have encountered an issue around value for money and tenant satisfaction with approved housing bodies. In one case where we sought maintenance to be undertaken, the approved housing body argued on value-for-money grounds that the level of maintenance required was not sufficient to send workmen to the property. It was waiting until a certain amount of maintenance was necessary before sending someone to carry it out. The tenant in question had to wait six or seven weeks for the maintenance to be carried out because the approved housing body argued it would not represent value for money to do so. There is a balance to be struck between value for money and tenant satisfaction. I would like to see a clear definition of that. It goes back to the performance and standard requirements that Dublin City Council developed with the assistance of the Simon Communities. It specified the number of weeks within which maintenance had to be done, with various items graded. A leaky roof would have to be dealt with immediately, whereas the response time for a broken handle on a door would be six to eight weeks.

Much of the housing going to approved housing bodies consists of apartment blocks in cities and towns. Has any consideration been given to end of life for those blocks and how that will be funded? This has been an issue in private apartments developed in the 1960s which are now approaching end of life and the sinking fund does not necessarily cover the costs of that. This means full demolition and rebuilding is required, as opposed to deep retrofitting. As the Minister will be aware, in several blocks in Dublin Bay South an extra floor has been added to cover the costs of bringing the blocks up to meet building standards. Guidelines are needed to address end of life housing.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.