Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 122: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will repeal those sections of the Planning and Development Act, 2002, which allow developers to buy their way out of their Part V commitments, following the assertion of the Affordable Homes Partnership chairperson that moneys collected by local authorities in lieu of setting aside 20 per cent of their developments for affordable housing was doing little to meet the needs of couples trying to buy their first home; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30894/06]

Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2002 was introduced following a review of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to ensure that it was meeting its objectives in relation to the provision of social and affordable housing. Complaints had been received that the provisions of Part V were inflexible and overly bureaucratic and that they were not achieving the desired results of improving the supply of social and affordable housing. The review was based on maintaining the principle of community gain while allowing greater flexibility in meeting it. It was carried out internally in the Department and a wide range of interests (voluntary and social housing as well as the construction industry) was consulted as part of the review.

The main outcome of the review was the need for greater flexibility for all stakeholders including local authorities, voluntary housing providers and home builders. The 2002 Act therefore introduced a range of flexible options for compliance with Part V. Difficulties experienced on small sites and high value sites led to the conclusion that there should be an option for off-site provision or commuted payments. There can be advantages in accepting off-site provision or a financial contribution, for example, in cases where just one of two social or affordable units would be provided in a very expensive location. Funds received by way of financial contributions are reinvested in the provision of social and affordable housing.

The reported comment of the Chairperson of the Affordable Homes Partnership concerning financial contributions simply reiterates my own preferred position that local authorities should prioritise the provision of housing units as opposed to financial compensation, which should only be taken in very exceptional circumstances. He has not requested any amendment to this aspect of the legislation.

I am satisfied that Part V is operating effectively and that the changes made in the 2002 Act have and will continue to contribute to the overall delivery of both social and affordable housing. I have no plans to repeal the provisions of the Act.