John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

327. To ask the Minister for Finance if he, in conjunction with NAMA, will review the properties offered by NAMA to local authorities for social housing; the reasons given by local authorities for rejecting many of these properties; the number of these properties still available which could now be offered again to local authorities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1871/17]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

NAMA continuously reviews the assets of every NAMA debtor to establish if properties securing their loans could be utilised for residential development or social housing. In fact, NAMA has an established policy of identifying to Local Authorities, properties which may be suitable for their purposes. NAMA has facilitated the sale or lease by its debtors and receivers of properties, at market value, to public bodies for a wide-range of purposes, including social housing; schools; healthcare facilities; and urban economic, environmental and cultural regeneration. This engagement has resulted in almost 2,400 units being acquired by Local Authorities from NAMA debtors through commercial sales or leases, with a further 370 units in the pipeline.

To streamline delivery under this initiative, NAMA established National Asset Residential Property Services Limited, "NARPS", to purchase suitable properties from NAMA debtors for onward leasing to local authorities or approved housing bodies on the basis of long-term, commercial arrangements. NARPS is both consistent with NAMA's commercial remit and also reduces the upfront capital required by local authorities to secure social housing units.

NAMA can only offer and facilitate the take up of units for social housing. NAMA cannot force the take-up of these properties. This is a reserved matter for Local Authorities which NAMA engages with on this initiative through the Housing Agency and Approved Housing Bodies. NAMA advise that, in the majority of cases, NAMA was not given detailed reasons as to why the properties were not required by the local authorities. However, regular liaison between the Housing Agency and NAMA during the process indicated that the main reasons for rejecting available properties was that there was no demand for social housing in some of the geographic locations where the NAMA debtors properties were located, or that the housing body and local authority felt that it would result in an over-concentration of social housing in a particular area. During an appearance before the Oireachtas Committee on Housing and Homelessness, on 12th May 2016, chaired by the Deputy, the NAMA Chairman explained that NAMA's understanding was that units were not accepted "primarily because the units were not in the locations where social housing was needed, or they were too big or too small for their requirement".

Ultimately, it is a matter for local authorities and the Housing Agency to determine the suitability of properties for social housing. Neither NAMA, nor the Department of Finance, has a role in reviewing or assessing these decisions or determining the ultimate suitability of units offered for sale or lease. Thus, I would advise the Deputy to discuss such a review with the Department of Housing, Planning, Community, and Local Government, which has responsibility for local authorities and the Housing Agency. However, I would initially refer the Deputy to data which is publically  available on the Housing Agency website, via with a detailed breakdown as of December 2016 available at 

www.housingagency.ie/Housing/media/Media/Social%20Leasing%20Library/NAMA%20Status%20Reports/Breakdown-by-County-January-2017.pdf.

The Deputy will note that page 7 of that report details the units "No Longer Under Consideration" by local authorities into the following categories: 

- No Demand:  1,052 units:  Includes units in areas local authorities indicated they had no demand for such social housing, or had no demand for the number or type of units offered. In many cases, a demand for a smaller number of properties in the same development was confirmed with the balance declined on the basis that there was insufficient demand. These units may have been in unfinished developments outside of urban centres without infrastructural or community supports.

- No - Sustainable Communities:  1,279 units:  Includes units in areas local authorities considered there was already a high concentration of social housing or, by adding additional properties, the concentration would be unacceptable and not consistent with local authorities' commitment to mixed tenure developments.

- Not Suitable:  92 units:  Includes units that local authorities deemed were not suitable for social housing, either by virtue of the nature of the development, e.g. holiday home type developments, or the units were in areas of exceptionally high market rents or required high management service charges and therefore were not financially viable to be acquired or leased for social housing purposes.

- Not Available:  1,770 units:  Includes units that were no longer available to local authorities due to having either been sold or let to the private sector prior to the local authority confirming demand. 

It should be noted that all of the units above, which the local authorities deemed as "no longer under consideration" are no longer available for reconsideration by local authorities as all of these units have now either been sold or let.  

I am advised that NAMA continues to liaise with the Housing Agency, when NAMA becomes aware of additional availability of units. Where demand is not confirmed, properties are marketed on the residential sales or rental markets.NAMA advise that there has been no shortage of uptake of these properties in the market. Almost all remaining properties, owned by NAMA debtors, are now either occupied, for sale, or in process of being readied for sale.  

I am also advised that NAMA, in its capacity as secured lender, has exposure to just 173 vacant residential properties. These are frictional vacancies, for example relating to units between tenancies, the number of which will fluctuate over time. 

As a result, the opportunities for additional units being identified for social housing are now quite limited. The focus of current efforts surrounds the 373 units for which demand has been confirmed by local authorities but have yet to be contracted or delivered, 265 of which are going through pre-appraisal by the local authorities and 108 of which have agreed terms and are awaiting delivery or are under active contract negotiations.