Vol. 465 No. 2
5 Mr. E. Ryan asked the Minister for the Environment the measures, if any, he is taking to deal with the failure of the living over the shop pilot scheme for designated streets; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9369/96]
While the living over the business initiative has generated some development, I am disappointed with the overall progress under the scheme to date. As part of the review of the urban renewal schemes announced last year, I engaged consultants to study the impact, effectiveness and cost of the schemes which have operated to date. I have asked that the study address the specific issue of living over the business in order to establish what might be required to make this concept more successful. I will give careful consideration to the consultants' recommendations in framing urban renewal policies to be put in place when the current phase of designation ends in July next year.
I am glad the Minister agrees the scheme has been a failure. That failure is unfortunate because similar initiatives have been successful in England and other countries and this scheme could do a great deal to improve the city. The reason for its failure is that a person cannot get a first time buyer's grant on buying a refurbished building, and there is also the problem of stamp duty. If a person wants to buy an apartment in the inner city——
We must proceed by way of questions.
Will the Minister of State take those considerations into account because they are a major disincentive in the inner city? It is much more attractive to buy a new rather than an old apartment and if a person asks an auctioneer whether to refurbish a building or build a new one, the auctioneer will advise him to build a new one. Will the Minister of State respond to the two points concerning stamp duty and the first time buyer's grant?
I accept there is a disincentive but that is not the only problem with this particular scheme. I am committed to the policy of developing residential units over commercial properties, particularly in areas where there is general dereliction. That is a major challenge facing us. It is not simply a question of stamp duty or the new house grant; other aspects have emerged also. I would not write off this scheme because in Cork, for example, there has been some success. The local authority in Cork has taken an interest in this part of the urban renewal programme which has resulted in some benefits. There is a question mark over the way in which a local authority can enable this kind of programme to succeed. How can we design incentives to get the responses we need? There are difficulties in regard to access and design because in many cases we are talking about shops which do not have any access to the upstairs floor. There are other considerations such as the question of fire regulations, which is currently being examined in the Department. This is a multifaceted problem that we must resolve. This is not the arena to develop points but I am interested to hear what the Deputy has to say on this whole question. I would like to succeed in getting this formula right, as far as is possible, but we cannot force people to develop if they do not have an interest in doing so. Many shop owners are not interested in that type of development.
I disagree with the Minister of State. I put forward this idea when I was chairman of the planning committee in Dublin City Council a number of years ago. That committee met the various people involved, including fire officers, insurance and gas company representatives, etc. and many of the problems that arose were sorted out. The main problem with regard to this scheme is that it is simply not financially attractive for people to refurbish buildings. We should make it more attractive for people to refurbish buildings as opposed to building new ones because there would be a greater return to the Exchequer. On another note, the report on developing Dublin's dockland was published and I notice the Minister of State was not involved in that nor had she anything to say about it; the report was launched by another Minister. Given that this is the most exciting urban renewal development in the country, will the Minister of State indicate to the House the reason she did not have any input into this document?
The Deputy is departing from the bounds of this question.
The Minister said she was reviewing urban renewal. We were all fascinated that she was talking about the pilot scheme on living over the shop.
Perhaps I could explain a little about my area of responsibility. I am responsible for the Urban Renewal Act. I have certain devolved powers relating to the Act.
The review I am carrying out relates to the Act and how it has operated. While I have special areas of responsibility they do not include Temple Bar Properties or the Custom House docks. The report refers to the review I am carrying out. Any questions relating to designation will be as a consequence of the actual review which I expect will be published in June or July. It is difficult to encompass all the different areas. We have already touched on the element of urban renewal which involves living over the shop. There are several different elements to urban renewal. It actually functions effectively if we can focus on particular areas of responsibility.
In respect of the pilot scheme on living over the shop, one of which is in Cork, the pace of progress is remarkably slow. Is it the Minister of State's intention to play a more proactive role in developing the concept of the provision of houses in inner cities? Has she spoken with Cork Corporation recently in respect of its project and, if so, has she established why it is not proceeding at a faster pace? What factors are militating against faster development in this area?
We are getting into a very specific area.
One of my pleasant duties in 1995 was to launch a seminar in Cork on the question of living over the shop which was well attended. I pay tribute to Cork Corporation for adopting such a proactive role. This is a matter which is best dealt with at local level. I have supported Cork Corporation in every way possible. I will be making a follow-up visit to Cork in relation to this aspect of urban renewal. Clearly, the scheme which was put in place has not been effective overall. We need to learn from its limitations to ensure that the next time we produce a more appropriate one that delivers. At the end of the day it will always be difficult to convince those who are not developers by nature, but who have other business interests, to get involved in this type of development. As regards the Deputy's last point, I am determined to promote the idea of living in the city. I have done so since I came into the Department. In terms of sustainability, whether it is public housing or private housing, it is the way to go in the future. It is also of great benefit to residents and the larger community to have a living city.
