Vol. 952 No. 2
1. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government his plans to reintroduce affordable housing schemes of the type suspended in 2012 for owner-occupiers and-or renters rather than providing public land subsidies to developers to provide cheaper housing to home buyers, as proposed in the landbank initiative. [25112/17]
4. Deputy Jan O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government if he will introduce an affordable housing scheme to ensure the large tracts of publicly-owned land that are currently under consideration for mostly private development will be used to build housing that is affordable to persons on average incomes; the control mechanisms in place to ensure public lands are not used to generate excessive private profit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25051/17]
5. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government the way in which his new landbank plan will ensure there will be a significant dividend for social housing and affordable housing; and his plans to address concerns that there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that, following the disposal of public sites for private developments, funds will be reinvested in social housing elsewhere. [25113/17]
A reply from the Minister to my recent parliamentary question seemed to indicate that there were no specific plans by his Department to ensure he would play his part in providing affordable homes, notwithstanding the fact the Government of which he was a member, on assuming office, reduced the Part V provision from 20% to 10%, retained the social housing aspect but dropped the affordable homes provision. It has become a very real issue again with the rise in prices. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure it plays its part in providing such affordable units.
I do not ever remember this grouping of questions happening with priority questions.
They are virtually identical questions.
We will give equal time to Deputies.
Will the Minister introduce an affordable housing scheme now that very large tracts of publicly owned land are being given to private developers? While there will be a 10% element of social housing, we all want to ensure there will also be affordable housing, be it affordable for rent or for purchase. There are many people on low or middle incomes who simply cannot afford to buy a house in the current context, especially in our capital city.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 4 and 5 together.
Of course we need to provide affordable homes for people. The approach we are taking is different from the way it was done previously. What ended in 2011 was an affordable housing scheme. We are now trying to put together affordable housing projects as part of schemes on a case-by-case basis. We have asked local authorities to publish, in a very transparent way and for everybody to see, the 700 sites throughout the State where local authorities own public land that is suitable for housing. We have asked local authorities to produce a development plan for each of those sites. We want the local authorities to design an affordable element within those plans. Sometimes it will be a certain percentage of social housing, a certain percentage of affordable housing and a certain parentage of private housing. Depending on where the site is in the country and the demand in that area, the construct of that affordable housing plan will be different.
Last week, after quite a lot of negotiation and discussion with Dublin City Council and even though Sinn Féin voted against it in the end, there was agreement among a majority of councillors on Dublin City Council on how, through a massive planning process, we would develop on the Poolbeg Irish Glass Bottle site, which is a privately owned piece of land. This will involve some affordable and social housing. It will also include some specialist social housing for older people and so on. We are trying to ensure we have mixed tenure, diverse, healthy communities as part of many projects around the country.
Sometimes projects may be all affordable housing and sometimes they may be 10%, 15% or 20% affordable housing. The prudent thing to do here is to demand of local authorities to come back to us with proposals that suit the area and the site. We will then sign off on the affordable housing projects. We need to give guidance to some local authorities around the thresholds under which and over which people will qualify for those affordable housing schemes. Let us consider the docklands in Dublin as an example. Affordable housing was provided through many of the apartment developments in the docklands and the affordable housing was allocated through the drawing of lots. That is the kind of template we want to see as part of mixed tenure communities.
With regard to Deputy O'Sullivan's comment, we are not giving away sites to private developers; it is not happening. We will ensure we will get a full State public interest dividend from every one of those sites. The dividend may be in the form of affordable housing, it may be social housing or it could be something else. If appropriate, it could be cash but in most cases I do not think it will be. We are trying to do social housing differently from the ways in which it was done in the past. We are trying to build stronger and more progressive communities than has been the case previously in how the State approached social housing. It is in this context I encourage local authorities to be ambitious in their proposals around affordable housing schemes as part of how they use and develop landbanks we have throughout the country and which have the capacity to deliver 50,000 houses. I believe it is about 5,000 acres over 700 sites. It is a significant opportunity. We are doing it differently from the way it was done in the past. It will result in much healthier communities and a lot more affordable housing.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The Government has no plans at this stage to introduce a new affordable housing purchase scheme of the kind that existed up to 2011. However, the Government recognises the housing affordability pressures in certain areas and is determined to see increases in the supply of high-quality social and affordable homes, to buy or rent, as quickly as possible, particularly in the major urban areas where demand is greatest.
At a strategic level, under the new 20-year national planning framework, there will be an emphasis on managing and utilising State lands to deliver housing and to ensure an active and healthy market for development land. The opening up of State-owned lands for the development of mixed tenure housing is also a key objective under Rebuilding Ireland. Rebuilding Ireland also commits to the introduction of an affordable rental scheme to enhance the provision of affordable accommodation for households currently paying a disproportionate amount of disposable income on rent. As set out in the strategy for the rental sector, this commitment is being progressed through kick-starting supply in rent pressure zones and leveraging the value of State-owned sites to deliver units for rental, targeting middle-income households.
On 27 April 2017, I published the Rebuilding Ireland housing land map, a vital initial step in the new strategic approach to State land management. The datasets published on the map include details of more than 700 local authority and housing agency owned sites, totalling some 1,700 ha, as well 30 sites covering about 200 ha owned by State or semi-State bodies. The map is available to view on the Rebuilding Ireland website.
It is crucial that much-needed housing for families and individuals on the social housing waiting list, and for those on low to middle incomes, is delivered from local authority and State-owned sites as soon as possible. In the first instance, the specific approach to housing delivery on each site, including the optimum tenure mix, is a matter for the local authority concerned, the elected council members included, who best understand the housing needs in their area. In this regard, I welcome the fact that two of the Dublin local authorities have brought forward four key large-scale sites capable of delivering 3,000 of these new homes, and I expect other local authorities to follow suit.
Mixed tenure development on publicly-owned land provides the best way forward to deliver social and affordable housing quickly in a fully integrated and sustainable community. Importantly, it allows for risk-sharing and far quicker delivery of social housing and badly needed housing more generally as part of the full development of individual sites. Opening up the supply of State land in this way, for mixed-tenure housing, is a critically important intervention in addressing a situation where the pace of recovery in the house development sector is slower than we would like it to be. In practical terms, the development of these sites will mean accelerating social housing delivery and securing more homes for sale and rent at lower and more affordable price points.
I am committed to ensuring the State secures the most beneficial use of its currently under-utilised assets for much-needed housing in the shortest possible timeframe and maximises the public good dividend through increased and speedier delivery of high-quality social and affordable homes. My Department is working closely with local authorities and other State agencies to ensure that the optimum mix of social and affordable housing is delivered from public landbanks in the shortest possible timeframe and in a manner which achieves value for money and the best possible housing outcomes. The approach to be adopted to individual sites will be decided case by case, taking account of the specific aspects of each site and the particular local housing considerations arising.
I thank the Minister for his response. I accept and acknowledge that there is potential in the future development of the sites the Minister spoke of. I would have hoped for them to come on stream much earlier than this, but I accept the mechanism under which the Minister believes the development can take place and the benefit that can accrue to the State, as he said. I would hazard a small warning on the Minister describing the projects as being assessed individually and case by case.
It may be that we can derive benefit from the dividend in the provision of social and affordable housing, but I would advise against the provision of cash. To be honest, the Part V scheme had that option and it did not prove fruitful for the local authorities. More importantly, it did not prove fruitful for those who were hoping to acquire or receive the benefit of a home from the scheme. I ask the Minister not to consider cash as a dividend in this respect.
While I do see the merit, as private developments take place there are concerns. This week Cairn Homes, for example, announced quite substantial profits. It was public knowledge. This says that the methodology of the Government, where it sets the bar in order to encourage builders into the market, is a dangerous one. In the absence of a specific obligation on such private sector developers, a select few of whom have funds available again, it should be incumbent on them from a legislative perspective in the House to ensure there is a benefit to the State through Part V. It was a mistake to decrease it to 10%. I ask the Minister to increase it and to have 10% affordable and 10% social housing.
I have some real concerns about this. I do not understand how local authorities can control affordability when there is not a national scheme. Perhaps the Minister could clarify how the local authorities will deal with this aspect. I have spoken to councillors who are struggling with what they are being asked to do.
If each local authority must agree each scheme individually with the Department, will this not entail all the difficulties we currently have with the amount of time it takes between funding being given for public housing and when the homes are delivered. Is this approach not just setting up this process to have the same issues as before? There is no national scheme, and if there is to be individual agreement between the Department and the local authorities on each scheme, I would have a concern that it is going to be very slow process.
It does not have to be a slow process at all. It requires some urgency and initiative from local authorities. They have landbanks that have sat there doing nothing, in some cases for decades.
That is because the Government gave them no money to spend on doing anything with the land.
There is no shortage of money now. None. We have more than 10,000 social housing units in the pipeline today. That figure was 8,400 back in January.
The figures are not true.
It is true. The Deputy will have his opportunity in a minute, but he did not even table a question on this area. That shows his interest in it.
I get five questions, Minister.
The issue is that we are asking the local authorities to do things a little differently.
It will not necessarily be the same as it was previously, whereby the Department has to do everything in terms of designing an affordable housing scheme and then the local authorities implement it. We are asking people to take a much more innovative approach towards building more diverse and healthier communities on publicly owned land which, in some cases, is not being used for any purpose. In some cases, the development will be 100% social housing and we will fully fund it. If that is what local authorities want to bring forward, that is fine. I am not aware that I have refused any local authority council housing projects since I became Minister. Funding is not the barrier. We are asking local authorities to look at the new housing policy that encourages mixed tenure, a mix of social, affordable, private and other specialist housing units, for elderly people in particular, such as the 81 social housing units development currently under way in Limerick city centre. It is the largest social housing site in the country.
It commenced during my time as Minister with responsibility for housing.
Yes. Some 57 of those houses are specifically being designed for elderly people. That is the type of mix we are looking for now. If local authorities need guidance, they can get it from the Department's housing delivery unit. There are teams of staff in the Department who are willing to meet local authorities to work out what is appropriate on a site-by-site basis in order that we can get a lot of development of sites at the same time. We can get private sector innovation and finance as part of the development of these sites, which means we can do a lot more a lot quicker.
As two of the questions in this grouping are in my name, I hope that will be reflected in my time allocation. As I said earlier, I understand the mentality behind the proposal but it was late coming to the pitch. What mechanisms and processes have been put in place to adjudicate the performance and reaction to the publication of the lists in regard to each local authority? I accept each local authority's needs are different and that how sites will be developed will vary from authority to authority, place to place and so forth. Aside from publication of the list, what processes and mechanisms have been put in place to ascertain what progress is being made? In the event of proposals coming forward from the private sector, how quickly will these be responded to by the Department and local authorities? As I have previously said on several occasions, those conventional methods have failed a previous plan sanctioned by the then Minister, Deputy Kelly. His plan was very ambitious and bold and money was not a problem either but yet the results expected were not achieved. We all want to see this issue dealt with.
I will reiterate one of the questions I asked earlier because the Minister did not answer it. I accept he had a lot of questions to answer but in regard to the private developers whom, as I said, are posting large profits on foot of the Government policy which I believe increases house prices rather broadens the spectrum for which construction can take place and more houses can be provided - they are supply initiatives that we can discuss again - will the Minister give serious consideration to the reintroduction of the Part V affordable element that existed previously and ensured that where private development took place, it adhered to Part V social and affordable housing? The issue of affordable housing must be addressed with as much gusto, effort and determination as the provision of social housing.
I agree with the Minister that funding is not a barrier and that there is need for more urgency and initiative on the part of local authorities. The Minister will be aware that when a local authority is asked why a particular initiative is not being implemented, the response is usually that the Department has not approved a particular part of it and that the Department when asked the same question will respond to the effect that the local authority has not moved on it. Is the timescale for these projects five years? Perhaps the Minister will clarify when he expects these projects to be completed. Leaving aside that we need initiative on the part of the local authorities, we need to ensure that this type of passing the buck between the Department and the local authorities stops. A site in my constituency, which I drive pass almost every day, which was supposed to be developed and inhabited in the middle of last year, is still full of weeds. When one asks the council why that project has not commenced, the response is that the Department is holding it up.
It is wrong.
This is the reality. We need these developments completed as quickly as possible.
There are 607 projects, which will comprise 10,074 housing units, at various stages in the pipeline. Some of them are in the assessment process, some are in the Part 8 process and others are on-site. I agree there is a need for urgency. When I became Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government I asked the same question that Deputy Jan O'Sullivan just asked. When I, or the Minister of State, Deputy English, visited local authorities, we were told that they could not get decisions from the Department. I probed that issue in the Department. It was not as straightforward as many people like to think. It is a convenient excuse to blame the Department for everything. There is a system in the Department that is about driving projects as quickly as is reasonable, while still carrying out a very robust assessment to ensure we get value for money. Staff visit local authorities where they meet engineers, quantity surveyors and architects to get projects approved quickly. That is happening. If there are cases where it is not happening I would like to know about them and I will ensure they are addressed.
In regard to the sites, two of the Dublin local authorities have already brought forward four key large-scale sites that are capable of delivering 3,000 new homes. I expect other local authorities will follow suit fairly quickly. The Dublin local authorities have already advertised with regard to those four sites. In the coming months, I will be asking each local authority to produce plans for all the sites that are ready to go now. It will not be possible to have movement on the 700 sites within the same year. The target is to have delivery across all of these sites over a five-year timeframe. There will be a significant ramping up of the volume of units that is being delivered. As I said, on many of these sites the housing will be either all social housing or a significant portion of social housing. Some of them are small infill sites and others are large sites which need proper tenure mix such that essentially what would be created is a new town centre and community of the type that exists in Poolbeg, Cherrywood or Adamstown.
On Part V, I do not propose to repeat the mistake made in the past whereby a developer could buy out an obligation under Part V. If I understood Deputy Cowen correctly, he agrees with me in this regard. That was a big mistake at the time. Although money was handed over it often was not spent on social housing. Let us not forget that we are not building enough houses in Ireland. Many developers are not making enough money to be able to justify building a lot more houses. If I were to ask them to contribute more than 10% that would, in my view, slow down the momentum that is already starting to take hold in some parts of the country. What is encouraging is that many developers are asking to provide more than 10% because based on the plans, they can get paid upfront by the local authorities, which can help them to finance the remainder of a project. The level of social housing being provided by projects such as Poolbeg and O'Devaney Gardens, which is on State-owned land, is way beyond 10%. Some projects are providing up to 25% social housing. In the case of O'Devaney Gardens, 50% of the units are non-private housing. Different sites require different solutions and local authorities should be able to deal with them on a case-by-case basis.
2. Deputy Eoin Ó Broin asked the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government the number of affordable housing units that will be built on a site (details supplied) in view of the fact that a number of housing development sites, including a site and other sites around the State, received a substantial amount of funding from the local infrastructure housing activation fund, which contained a requirement for affordable housing; the percentage of the units built which will be affordable; and the amount these homes will cost. [25050/17]
I would like first to correct the Minister on a point he made earlier. Sinn Féin councillors did support the final Poolbeg proposal partly because they managed, along with councillors from other parties, to get an additional 350 social houses to the 620 originally proposed. A good job was done by the councillors in Dublin City Council.
On Question No. 2, when the local infrastructure housing activation fund, LIHAF, was announced, Sinn Féin did not oppose it but what we did want to know then and what I am asking the Minister again today is how can he guarantee the affordability of the units such that developers will benefit and people will be able to buy the houses?
The aim of the local infrastructure housing activation fund is to relieve critical infrastructural blockages to enable the accelerated delivery of housing on key development sites in urban areas with high demand for housing.
Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council received approval for funding of €15.19 million for Cherrywood for the provision of public infrastructure that will support the delivery of 2,000 housing units by 2021 and the potential for a further 6,000 homes in the longer term. LIHAF will facilitate additional social housing of 200 housing units in Cherrywood in the short term through the 10% Part V social housing dividend, with a further potential for 600 housing units in the longer term. Moreover, the overall significant increase of private housing from this strategically located and well-serviced site will help ease the pressure on the housing market generally and on rental accommodation.
In addition to the increased supply of housing generally, the Government is also seeking an increased affordability dividend for the eventual purchasers of private housing. My Department has asked Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council to secure commitments from the developers in this regard. The council is currently engaging with the housing developers to conclude specific agreements relating to finalising the timelines for delivery of the housing and the required affordability commitments. My Department expects that final agreements will be in place by the end of June to facilitate the signing of a formal grant agreement with the local authority in respect of LIHAF funding.
In other words, we will not sign off until we see the detail of the affordability commitment developers will have to make. We are putting in €15 million and we want a dividend from that, in the context of affordability as well as getting houses built quickly.
To summarise, the Minister's answer to my question is that he does not know, despite the fact that he has been working on the scheme for a year. A circular issued by the Department in August stated that a minimum of 40% of the homes to be delivered would be available at 10% less than the average market cost, though in Dún Laoghaire that would be no guarantee of affordability. In October the Department issued another circular rowing back on this, stating that following discussions with officials and others, the commitment would not be possible. One has to ask why a company as profitable as the company providing the houses in Cherrywood needs any LIHAF funding at all. Even if it does, the Minister designed the programme so it should not just be up to the local authority to negotiate affordability. What is the Department's threshold in terms of numbers of units and price? If, as in the August circular, it is 10% of market value in Dún Laoghaire, it comes nowhere close to being affordable and this would also be the case in many other parts of Dublin. I am concerned that the Minister does not know how he will guarantee affordability and that he has now rowed back on commitments made in the August circular.
We have not rowed back on anything. As usual, the Deputy is trying to create an impression of something that does not exist. We do not have an agreement yet but the Deputy is drawing conclusions as to what the agreement might look like.
I have read the circulars.
It is typical of the Deputy that he is trying to put a negative spin on something that does not even exist. We are not going to sign off on any financing deal until we see the detail. It is up to the local authority to finalise the detail in negotiations with the various developers on site, as is the case with many of the other aspects of the Cherrywood development. We have assisted that process through the housing delivery unit, which has been very helpful and has ensured that the negotiations received the necessary urgency. The project is moving forward and we will get detail on the affordability dividend before formally signing off on LIHAF funding. The Deputy will just have to wait for that, I am afraid.
The Minister should read his own departmental circulars. In the August circular, it stated that affordable homes would be delivered and that a minimum of 40% would be available at prices 10% below the average cost in the market. That suggests it was a target but the October circular states that it may not always be possible to deliver 40% of new homes under the LIHAF bids at prices 10% below the average market cost. The Minister was looking for a certain number of properties at a certain percentage less than the market in August but rowed back in October and is now saying that his Department is just providing the funding, with local authorities having to negotiate it. I am not making stuff up - it looks like the Department and the Minister is making this up on the hoof. Public money is being spent but unfortunately, people will not get access to greater affordability.
If there is not an adequate level of affordability, will the Minister pull funding from these projects? A "Yes" or "No" answer would be great.
I am not here to indulge the Deputy. I am here to answer questions.
An answer would be nice. It would make a change.
We will know what the affordability agreement looks like when it is in place.
Will the Minister pull funding if he does not like it?
If we are not happy, we will not sign off on any agreement. Otherwise we would have approved the money by now. It is up to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown to negotiate with the developers, of whom there are a number, and to put in place an adequate affordability agreement. We have deliberately said we will not sign off formally on funding until we see the detail. The Deputy can read anything he wants into it.
They are the Minister's circulars.
We are holding back on the formal sign-off of the money until we get full details. When we get full details we will have the opportunity to debate them.
3. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government his views on whether national planning standards should be set to increase the height of apartment buildings in view of the high break-even costs of building apartments and absence of supply of new apartment buildings despite the high demand. [25217/17]
Despite high rents it still seems uneconomic to build apartments in Dublin and major cities. If we are serious about attracting investment and financial services jobs to Dublin in the wake of Brexit, we have to provide homes but we cannot add to the sprawl in Dublin and other cities. Is the Minister open to amending national planning guidelines to allow high-rise development in order to provide apartments in cities, which would mean people could work and live in those cities?
My Department routinely monitors the planning process and acts to ensure that it facilitates appropriate multi-unit housing developments to meet the broader housing requirements of society. My Department's 2009 guidelines for planning authorities on sustainable residential development in urban areas encourage local authorities to bring about high-quality and sustainable urban development, using their development planning and management functions to deliver quality homes and neighbourhoods where people want to live, work and raise families. In particular, the guidelines outline a range of densities appropriate to different location types, from lower densities at the edges of smaller towns through to densities in the range of a minimum of 50 dwellings per hectare in larger urban areas along public transport corridors.
However, the guidelines do not set out specific policy advice in respect of height of buildings alone, in isolation from broader location, design and layout considerations nor would it be appropriate to do so, given variability in urban contexts and the inappropriateness of a one-size-fits-all height policy for very diverse urban areas. Rather, it is a matter for local authorities to ensure the appropriate application of the guidelines in their statutory development plan and development management processes.
Notwithstanding the above, my Department is currently in the final stages of completing a cost review of multi-unit and apartment developments, which is due to be finalised later this summer. This review is examining the key aspects of viability issues, including building height limitations, and will inform further policy development in respect of this matter. In light of the review outcomes, the intention is to engage further with relevant local authorities like Dublin City Council to address any building height issues arising.
The Deputy will have heard me say previously that I am very much in favour of higher buildings and higher density in the right locations and we should be doing a lot more of that, particularly in Dublin but also in my own city and other cities. We do not want high-rise buildings on Georgian squares but high-rise buildings are the only way we will create significant numbers of homes, along with affordability, in Dublin city centre.
I agree with the Minister but he has the opportunity to make sure it happens sooner rather than later. This is relevant because of the opportunities we might have following Brexit but also, and more important, because of the crisis in housing provision and the lack of adequate units in the city to enable city living. He says a cost-effectiveness review by his Department will report in early summer but he, or whoever holds the esteemed office at that time, should provide the necessary amendments to national planning guidelines to ensure this is done, rather than engaging eternally with local authorities on the issue.
I implore the Minister to use his office and, if necessary, to seek assistance from Members in order to bring forward legislation to provide for planning guidelines which would supersede those that apply to local authorities. I am not recommending that this happen in the suburbs but, as the Minister said, in the centre of cities such as Dublin, Cork and so on.
The Deputy should take cognisance of developments that are currently under way, such as the Poolbeg site. It will be the highest density residential development ever in Ireland. It will comprise 3,500 units on a medium-sized site. Several very tall buildings will be part of the scheme and will be factored into the overall design, taking account of the needs of the community and so on. That needs to be done on many other sites. I have strongly indicated to Dublin City Council in particular that it should be more ambitious in regard to building height restrictions. That can now be seen in the master planning of strategic development zones. If there is a need to legislate after examining the forthcoming report on the costings, potential problems and limitations involved in the building of apartment complexes, I will do so. Local authorities should show initiative because it is very difficult to legislate in this area and also avoid the one-size-fits-all approach which can lead to problems in some areas.
The Minister should instruct local authorities rather than hope that they will be receptive to his wishes. Office blocks of six or seven storeys are being built on Nassau Street. I see no reason why there should not be another five or six stories of apartments on top of those developments. That is what is needed. Urban sprawl has gone too far and for too long. It has crippled the public transport system. I acknowledge there are issues in terms of parking. Student developments are being constructed across the city. They are greatly appreciated and badly needed. Restrictions on car parking are not overly severe in those developments, in spite of the fact that the developments will eventually come into wider use. The Minister needs to use the available space. There needs to be outside-the-box thinking and instruction given to local authorities, even if it is for a sunset period, in order to address this issue while we can.
Higher buildings are beginning to emerge. Planning permission will probably be granted in the coming weeks or months for the highest building in the country. It is to be built on a super site in the Cork docklands in the middle of the city centre. Planning permission has previously been granted for a building of 36 storeys in the docklands in Cork. It is possible for developers to develop very tall buildings if they do so in the right locations. The Deputy is asking me to legislate to require certain building heights in certain areas, or at least the facilitation of certain building heights. In some parts of Dublin, there is no restriction on the height of development for which one can apply. Planning permission has been refused for residential buildings with ambitious heights, such as a recent application for a development in Donnybrook. Perhaps planning guideline issues can be examined to ascertain if it is possible to allow more ambition from the private sector in terms of building higher buildings. However, caution is required. We have an historic and very beautiful city which needs to be protected. However, parts of Dublin have very low population density and if we are serious about providing affordable homes in the city centre, building heights must be more ambitious than previously.
