Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Jul 2015

Vol. 886 No. 3

Urban Regeneration and Housing Bill 2015: Report Stage (Resumed)

Debate resumed on amendment No. 2.
In page 6, line 29, after “land” where it secondly occurs to insert “not owned by a local authority or publicly owned housing body”.
(Deputy Dessie Ellis)

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and are being discussed together. Deputies Ellis, Boyd Barrett, Wallace and Cowen spoke previously. Members know the procedure that each person who has spoken already can speak again for two minutes and the proposer of the amendment, in this case Deputy Ellis as amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are grouped, can speak a final time. The Minister of State may wish to come in again before the proposer speaks. Does anyone who has spoken want to give their two minute contribution now?

Did we hear back from the Minister of State?

It is the Minister of State first then.

Is this the Minister of State's first contribution to the debate?

Yes, it is my first contribution on the amendment. Yesterday evening we had quite a wide-ranging debate. Much of it went well beyond the amendment, but it was closely related to housing issues and regeneration. It is unfortunate that some Deputies are taking a cynical view of the Government's efforts with regard to the social housing strategy and the Construction 2020 strategy, of which this Bill is very much a part. Some Deputies have outlined their views on the lack of social housing in local authority areas, but it would be nice to see some acknowledgement of the efforts made to see local authorities getting back into direct building and provision of social housing for the first time in many years. As I have said on many occasions, the allocations announced a few months ago were mainly for shovel-ready projects that local authorities have prioritised to the Department. There will be further allocations to local authorities shortly. These are ambitious targets and there is a challenge for local authorities to respond.

Deputy Ellis said the local authority does not have the money. Over 2,000 voids have been turned back into beneficial use in the past year and we expect another 1,000 to be put back into beneficial use in the coming year. That is progress. It is still not enough, but it is strong progress from where we were. That has happened because additional funds have been provided to local authorities to turn these vacant and void units back into use. As I said already, the allocation for direct build has been notified to local authorities, many of which are getting them under way. Tendering for contractors has to go through the process. Some of them must go through Part VIII of the planning process, which is as it should be, but I expect to see much more activity with regard to the direct provision of housing, as do local authorities. However, that is not enough, as has been acknowledged. Despite some objections to the involvement of the private sector, we simply will not meet the demand unless we have strong involvement by the private sector and we are relying on it, to a large degree, because of the legacy of lack of investment in social housing over the last few years. There is an interim period in which we must do everything in our power to stimulate activity in construction, refurbishment and regeneration to provide housing units, especially in areas of high demand. That is essentially what this Bill is about.

The amendment itself refers to exempting or excluding lands owned by local authorities and housing bodies or housing authorities. We oppose these amendments as they propose to amend section 4 to provide that land owned by a local authority or housing body would be exempted from the application of the vacant site levy on residential or regeneration land. To remind Deputies, the vacant site levy is being introduced to stimulate activity on sites of high potential that are already serviced by public services in areas of high demand for housing. Strict criteria are laid down in this Bill. Sites cannot be designated willy-nilly based on the feelings of councillors. It must be shown and proven that there is a strong demand for housing in that area. These sites will have to go through a process.

The Government amendment introduced on Committee Stage means that all residential or regeneration land, regardless of whether it is owned publicly or privately, will be subject to the levy if it meets the criteria for a vacant site, as provided for in section 5 of the Bill. This will ensure that all owners of vacant sites will be treated equally. For example, local authorities will have the same responsibilities under this legislation as private landowners. It will also encourage local authorities that may be in possession of suitable sites for the provision of housing to develop those sites. I think it was Deputy Stanley who said in the Dáil yesterday that the local authorities did not have these sites and if they had them, they would be developed. If they do not, they have nothing to worry about. If they have sites of high potential and, as Deputies rightly outlined, they may not have had the resources to develop them in the past, this Bill will give powers to local authorities to put any revenues they collect as a result of the vacant site levy back into regenerating sites or the general improvement of public services and amenities in a particular area.

The Bill gives additional powers to local authorities, which essentially constitute housing authorities. They are closer to the electorate. They know their areas inside out and it is their responsibility to draw up development plans that are sustainable. I see no reason for local authorities being exempted. It would help to focus the minds of officials and elected representatives to ensure that any landbanks or sites with potential are brought back into beneficial use as soon as possible. In this regard, I have considered and reflected on the comments and contributions of Deputies on Second Stage. The removal of the exemption will allow for the application of the vacant site levy in a fair and equitable manner to all owners of vacant sites, public or private. Just having a vacant site on the register, whether it is local authority owned or otherwise, brings renewed focus on that site and it will initiate renewed discussions and debate on the potential of those sites.

We must also consider the community view. It does not matter to members of the public whether a vacant site is publicly or privately owned. They just see the vacant site, which could be used for housing. They may see it as an eyesore, impacting negatively on the urban area in which they live, and it is obviously in need of regeneration. In those scenarios, the community wants those sites brought back into beneficial use.

In recent discussions, much has been made of the fact that this may mean the local authority system will be levying itself. Some Deputies ask critically how a local authority will levy itself. Such situations already arise, as I outlined on Committee Stage, through the local authority rating system in situations where buildings or assets owned by one local authority are located in the area of another and there are clear, effective arrangements in place to deal with this. It is more important that the process of identifying vacant sites is established on a fair and transparent basis and that, whoever owns the site, pressure is brought to bear on getting such key lands into beneficial use at a time of profound housing needs, as had been identified by Deputies.

We are now on the second round and each Deputy who wishes to speak a second time has two minutes.

It is unfortunate that the Minister of State does not see the problems we see in terms of local authority sites, housing bodies and publicly owned sites. There is a huge problem in terms of funding.

Dublin City Council has not been given its budget to deal with homelessness and there is a major crisis.

That is not true.

There was a meeting the other day and all the councillors and officials agreed.

The Minister of State mentioned the voids that have been returned. There is no funding to return more voids in Dublin City Council. I have spoken to the officials. We might have got so many returned but those would have been in a natural progression anyway had they been dealt with and the housing budget not cut by over €1.2 billion from 2008 to date. We cut the housing budget. That is the reason the voids built up. There would have been a natural flow.

In terms of the amendment, does the Minister of State realise there are in-fill sites, some of which are large, all over Dublin? We also have areas that could be identified and counted as derelict or vacant sites and we have parks, which are not official parks but places where children play. Are we to start levying those? We also have regeneration sites, such as O'Devaney Gardens. In Ballymun, the regeneration has left a large number of sites. Are we to start levying those? There would be a rush to sell them off. That is what will happen. There will be a drive towards privatisation instead of building more social housing on these areas which is what is required.

Let me assure the Minister of State that we are not in any way being cynical for the sake of it. It is because the crisis we face is so serious and is set to get worse unless radical action is taken.

The point I made and, as far as I am concerned, the point of this amendment is that if the local authorities are forced to levy themselves because they have not developed a particular site for social housing purposes, because they do not have the funding and they are not guaranteed the funding to develop that site from central government, they will have no choice - there will be at least significant pressure - but to sell that site or enter into public private partnerships, effectively privatising it or requiring some significant trade-off where public land is given over to private developers. That is back-door pressure for privatisation and it is the wrong way to go.

I might be a little less anxious about this levy if the Minister of State stated that if a local authority came forward with a plan to develop any of its land, no matter how big those plans are and no matter how many of them there are, the Government would guarantee that the local authority would get the funding to develop those sites. For example, in my area there are 5,000 applicants on the housing list and if Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown came forward next year and stated it would build 5,000 houses on the land it has available, the Minister of State would give it the funding. However, in the absence of such a guarantee, which I do not believe the Minister of State will give, this is, at best, tokenism and, at worst, a pressure to privatise.

Most staff in local authorities are closer to the problems on the ground than we are and they are probably more susceptible to the pressures coming from those looking for housing. Therefore, the idea that local authorities would not want to build on land that they might have available for housing seems a strange one. I would have imagined that the only reason local authorities would not be building on land that they had would be that they cannot get the funding to do it. If a local authority had development land, the Minister made funding available to it to build housing and the local authority refused to do so, I would penalise the local authority. However, I do not know how one can penalise a local authority which has development land and would like to build housing on it, but the Minister will not give it the funding to do so. The local authority is dependent on central funding to do it. We probably have one of the worst structures of local government in Europe. A local authority here has access on average to one fifth of the funding available to a local authority in Europe. Our local authorities have been so watered down over the years that they are not really local authorities anymore, but merely administrators for central government. I do not see the logic of penalising the local authority for not building on land where the Minister will not give it the funding to do so.

Deputy Ellis stated that no funding has been allocated for homelessness in Dublin. I want to make it clear that there is a 20% increase in the allocation of funds to address homelessness for Dublin. In 2015, an allocation of €37.16 million was provided. What is identified in the projections of Dublin City Council is that increased funding will be required. The Minister, Deputy Kelly, and I have not stated that funding will not be provided. Our officials are engaged with Dublin City Council to ensure that adequate resources are provided. I reassure the Deputy that is a priority for Government. It is not fair to say that the Government is not providing funding for homelessness. In fact, we have provided 20% more, both nationally and in Dublin, for homelessness services and the provision of units than we did last year.

Deputy Boyd Barrett asked if any local authority comes forward with any land whether it would be funded. The Department wrote to the local authorities seeking their lists of priorities. We must look for value for money and we must build where there is a demand. There is no point in having an open-chequebook approach. We saw where that got us in the past, building houses for the sake of building houses. We are using data analysis from the likes of the Housing Agency to inform us where is the demand. Obviously, the main urban areas are where the biggest demand arises and that is where the priority funding is going. If local authorities come forward with ten or 12 projects and the top four or five are shovel-ready, they will be prioritised. That is the way it is happening. We have already prioritised shovel-ready projects. The next ones we are prioritising are those in the planning system under Part VIII. We will continue to roll out allocations as local authorities come to us with their priorities, and we are encouraging local authorities to be as ambitious as possible. The Minister, Deputy Kelly, and I have ring-fenced as much funding as we could in the first year for an ambitious social housing strategy and I assure the Deputy that we want to see the delivery of that as much as anybody else.

There should be a fair and level playing field for sites of high potential irrespective of who owns them. We want them brought back into beneficial use. It is logical. These are value for money and they will regenerate communities and urban areas for the benefit of citizens who wish to live there. I am opposing these amendments.

I am glad to hear the Minister of State will provide more funding for the homeless. It is taking a long time and the situation is getting worse. There is chaos at present. The number of people being reported as homeless is crazy at this stage.

The amendment is straightforward. It identifies a problem and the Minister of State should accept it. The local authorities should not be penalised. Certainly, they will not get the funding. It is quite obvious that if sites are identified, the local authorities will end up being penalised. That is money they cannot afford to hand out.

I plead with the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, to consider the amendment. He knows, as he has dealt with local authorities over the years, that we have had lots of problems with local authority land, whether in-fills, regeneration or PPPs. This will drive the local authorities to sell off land. That would be a disaster because we need to target properly that land for social housing, which is the big issue here.

Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 37; Níl, 64.

  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Coppinger, Ruth.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Creighton, Lucinda.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Fitzmaurice, Michael.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Fleming, Tom.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Murphy, Paul.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Wallace, Mick.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Conaghan, Michael.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Anne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lyons, John.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McEntee, Helen.
  • McFadden, Gabrielle.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • McNamara, Michael.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O'Donovan, Patrick.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Reilly, Joe.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Phelan, Ann.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Walsh, Brian.
  • White, Alex.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dessie Ellis and Richard Boyd Barrett; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, line 29, after "land" where it secondly occurs to insert "other than land owned by a housing authority".

Is the amendment being pressed?

Amendment put and declared lost.
(Interruptions).

I would appreciate it if those who are not staying for this debate would continue their conversations outside the Chamber. I do not want to have to put on my teacher voice. As amendments Nos. 4 to 8, inclusive, are related, they may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, to delete line 33.

I have tabled this amendment because I am not very happy with the definition of "a vacant site" in this Bill. My amendment proposes the deletion of section 5(1)(a)(i) of the Bill, which defines such a site as one "situated in an area in which there is a need for housing". One could say there is a need for housing in many places. I believe a clearer definition is needed. I support some of the other amendments in this group, including those tabled by Deputy Wallace which refer to "an area of the site greater than 0.05 hectares". That seems fair enough. As I have said previously, many in-fill sites could end up being identified. It could be suggested that there is a need for housing in several in-fill sites, including areas between two houses. Places that people have used as parks for many years could be identified. The definition needs to be much clearer. A great deal of regeneration land has been identified. Some of it is fairly small in size. There are pockets of such land all over the place. Following the regeneration of Ballymun, there are pockets of land throughout Ballymun that could be utilised under some of the definitions that have been proposed. I support Deputy Wallace and I hope people will support my amendment.

I know the Government has accepted the point that has been made about 0.05 ha. It has reduced it from 0.1 ha to 0.05 ha. This is a positive move because it is going to catch many in-fill sites that could have fallen out of the net. I am afraid I have left my notes on these amendments behind me. I am at a bit of a loss. I will leave it for the moment.

No problem. Are there any other speakers at this stage before I go to the Minister of State?

Let us hear from the Minister of State.

I am opposing amendment No. 4, which proposes the removal of the requirement for a vacant site on residential land to be "in an area in which there is a need for housing". This proposal would weaken the criteria to be used by a planning authority when determining whether a site is a vacant site in the case of such land. Amendment No. 5 proposes the removal of the requirement for a vacant site on residential land to be "suitable for the provision of housing". Amendment No. 8 proposes the removal of the requirement that a vacant site, by virtue of "being vacant or idle has adverse effects on existing amenities or reduces the amenity [and] character of the area". I am opposing amendments Nos 5 and 8 for the same reason that I am opposing amendment No. 4. These proposals would weaken the criteria to be used in determining whether a site is a vacant site in the case of residential or regeneration land. The criteria in section 5 set out the principles and policies underpinning the terms "residential" and "regeneration" land. The proposed amendments would remove essential elements of the criteria to be applied in determining what is and is not a vacant site. In the absence of such criteria, there is no justification for designating which sites in residential and regeneration land should be targeted for the application of the levy. This is an important point.

These are important justifications that underpin the vacant site levy measure in order to incentivise the development of suitable vacant sites in central urban areas for housing and regeneration purposes. The legislation is lacking without them.

The purpose of the criteria outlined in the Bill in this regard is to focus on the appropriate range of sites to be potentially subject to the levy with a view to strengthening the public interest and common good justification of the levy. That point should be emphasised. It is not appropriate that any site should be designated a vacant site with a levy applying to it. We are trying to approach this in a targeted way in areas of high demand, mainly urban areas that have strong housing demand and where there are obvious vacant sites in the hearts of those towns and cities. I reiterate the logic behind this. Why would we spend vast amounts of public expenditure on developing new infrastructure on greenfield sites when there are already sites available that are serviced by public infrastructure paid for by the taxpayer? In fact, it would bring regeneration and renewed footfall to the centres of our towns and cities. These criteria underpin the Bill and give teeth to the local authorities to categorise, identify and, following due process, designate a vacant site. I oppose the amendments on that basis.

We also oppose amendments Nos. 6 and 7. Section 5(1)(a)(iii) and (b)(i) provide that one element of the criteria used by a planning authority, both in respect of housing land and regeneration land, to determine if a site is vacant is that the site or the majority of the site is vacant or idle. The amendment proposes to change this so an area of any site greater than 0.05 hectare must be vacant. The proposed amendment lacks clarity and confuses the criteria of the area of a site that must be vacant, which is not welcome in this instance. The wording of the Bill is straightforward, clear and easily understood, and there is no need to amend it. I therefore oppose the amendments.

I would be interested to hear more from the Deputies who tabled these amendments about the logic of them. Setting aside the debate we just had about the imposition of this levy on local authorities, with which we disagree for all of the reasons already discussed, the levy is not a bad idea. The conditions the Minister has attached to it are reasonable, although open to interpretation. Is there any area of the country that does not have a need for social housing at present? I cannot think of any. Perhaps there is. Certainly, in all of the urban centres there are ridiculously long waiting lists, of 18 years and rising in the case of Dún Laoghaire. Is there anywhere in the country where there is no waiting list? If that is the case, people would flock there from Dublin. While it is reasonable to be targeted, I do not fully understand some of the conditions the Minister has attached to it. However, the basic principle is not a bad one.

An issue I wish to raise in the context of this group of amendments is one we discussed on Committee Stage. I did not submit an amendment because I am not sure how to go about it, but I raised it on that Stage and wish to raise it again. The Government has the resources to examine it and perhaps come forward with a proposal, even in the Seanad. The issue is privately owned dwellings that are empty. Quite correctly, the Minister has excluded private homes which are usually inhabited by the owners of those homes. That is entirely reasonable. Any measure we would wish to take would have to ensure that we do not end up seizing the homes of ordinary people. However, in other parts of Europe where a house is privately owned, is not inhabited for long periods of time and is just sitting empty, there are measures in place to take those properties and give them to people who need social housing. There should be a provision in this Bill to focus on this as well.

We are not talking about sites suitable for the development of housing, but physical houses that are sitting empty for whatever reason and into which people could move. There would have to be a series of criteria around it so one does not end up unfairly targeting people who might have a legitimate reason for not inhabiting their house for periods of time. None the less, it would target the real phenomenon of houses simply sitting empty for years when people could be living in them. We need a provision in that area. Perhaps the Minister would address that and let us know if he intends to bring forward some type of amendment in that regard in the Seanad.

With regard to a site that is situated in an area where there is a need for housing, that is true for many areas. I believe it is unnecessary. We have seen what the local authorities determine to be a vacant site. That definition has been in place for a long time, rather than simply referring to a site in an area that is in need of housing. There are many such sites in areas that are in need of housing, including in my constituency. That does not mean all of them should have a levy imposed on them or that they could be defined as a vacant site which the local authority must utilise or they end up with a levy as a result. It is unnecessary to state this. The definition of a vacant site as defined by the local authorities is far clearer.

With regard to putting forward a figure, 0.05 of a hectare would amount to approximately three normal sized houses. Deputy Wallace can correct me on this but I estimate it is three normal sized houses in terms of definition. That is a far more sensible way of going about it.

In light of the comments by the Members who have tabled the amendments, can the Minister confirm that any such definition in respect of an area which might be in need of housing is predicated on the fact that it would be zoned residential, rather than any other zoning attached to it or no zoning? One could not expect the owners to be liable for a levy in the event of it not being zoned appropriately or for them to pay a levy thereafter.

Regarding the size of a site, one could put 20 apartments on a 0.05 hectare site without a problem. I am sorry I do not have 20 minutes on this. I could not tell what the issues were with the repeated use of the word "delete" in the amendments. My points were dealt with in amendment No. 5. One is the provision that the site be suitable for the provision of housing. If this land has been purchased and has been land-banked, if it is not suitable for housing the purchaser should get rid of it and sell it. However, he should be paying tax on it if he is holding it as land that is zoned for development. It is banking and it should be taxed.

The idea that a site should not be taxed because it is not suitable for housing is nonsensical. I do not understand the Government's approach to this issue because, as far as I am concerned, these are investors who have established land banks. Although the site may not be suitable for housing for five or even ten years, the investor is engaging in what I described on Committee Stage as shadow land-banking, which is a more long-term process than normal land-banking. The Government should deal with both practices.

In 2002 and 2003, I bought land from an investor who had purchased it in the late 1980s. My God, did he make serious money on that sale, yet he did not have to pay tax on the site throughout the period in question. The Government is allowing this practice to continue in this Bill.

On the issue of whether the majority of a site is idle, we could argue until the cows come home about the degree to which a site is idle. It does not make sense that owners of land zoned for development who are not building on their sites and may be doing something else with them while they wait for the value of their investments to rise are not required to pay a levy on their sites. This legislation should catch the owners of land banks and ensure there are no loopholes available to them. The Bill is riddled with loopholes and will not catch 20% of those who are engaged in land-banking.

On Deputy Boyd Barrett's point about the potential to seize houses that are not being utilised, the Constitution provides for property rights and we must be careful not to impinge on them. The Bill provides for due process and identifies clear criteria for designating a site as vacant. The statutory responsibility for this process lies with local authorities, which, as Deputy Wallace noted, are best placed to understand their respective local areas, development plans and housing needs. A number of factors must be taken into account in determining housing need, the first of which is the local housing list. While Deputy Boyd Barrett is correct that there is a demand for housing throughout the country, demand varies and is much stronger in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford than in smaller towns and villages. We do not want to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. For this reason, we are providing flexibility and setting out clear criteria for allowing the designation of sites in areas where strong demand exists. I want to avoid circumstances in which small towns and villages with vacant sites and weak housing demand are excessively burdened with levies. These areas need to regenerate themselves and demand needs to be allowed to build.

The legislation provides local authorities with the flexibility to prioritise areas where they wish to designate sites and apply the levy to focus minds on regenerating these sites. Without these criteria and the clarity provided, this legislation and the powers of local authorities would not be as effective as they should be. I will oppose the amendments on that basis.

With regard to site size, I listened to the arguments made by Deputy Wallace and other Deputies on this issue on Second and Committee Stages. Deputies have generally welcomed the decision to decrease the size at which a site may be designated as vacant from the previous threshold of 0.1 ha to allow smaller vacant sites in urban areas which are unsightly or a blight on the streetscape to be designated, subject to due process. I will oppose the amendments for the reasons I have outlined.

The Minister of State failed to respond to my question on whether it will be a prerequisite for the imposition of a levy that the lands, ground or property in question be zoned for residential development. Will it be the case that the levy cannot be applied to land that is not zoned in the development plan of a local authority area?

On the revised threshold for designating vacant sites, to what does the new size equate? Will it cover in-fill sites on housing estates, for example? Will the Minister of State clearly define the revised site size?

The Minister of State is precluded from speaking again on this amendment.

I would like him to respond because this change is causing confusion.

The procedure is that the proposer of an amendment speaks first-----

I understand but I would be grateful if the Minister of State would provide a clear definition of the revised size because it is unclear.

The Minister of State did not answer my question.

To be helpful to Deputy Cowen, the site must be zoned in a local area plan. The revised site size will be 500 sq. m, which equates to two or three houses in a streetscape.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, to delete line 34.

Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 72.

  • Boyd Barrett, Richard.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Coppinger, Ruth.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Fitzmaurice, Michael.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Murphy, Paul.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O'Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Tóibín, Peadar.
  • Wallace, Mick.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Conaghan, Michael.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Ferris, Anne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lyons, John.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McEntee, Helen.
  • McFadden, Gabrielle.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • McNamara, Michael.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Dowd, Fergus.
  • O'Mahony, John.
  • O'Reilly, Joe.
  • O'Sullivan, Jan.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Phelan, Ann.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Sherlock, Sean.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Walsh, Brian.
  • White, Alex.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Mick Wallace and Richard Boyd Barrett; Níl, Deputies Paudie Coffey and Emmet Stagg.
Amendment declared lost.
Debate adjourned.
Top
Share