Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 17 September 2014
8. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if the review of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 has been completed; the outcome of this review and any legislative changes he will make on foot of it; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34323/14]
View answerI too would like to wish the two Ministers well. With regard to the question, the previous Minister with responsibility for housing stated in the House a few months ago that "Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 has contributed to increased ... integration and more sustainable mixed tenure communities". We know that is not true. It did not happen. Over a ten year period only 5,000 social units were delivered under the Part V mechanism. What are the Government's plans for dealing with that now?
The Part V review, carried out by the housing agency at my Department’s request, has been completed and will be submitted to Government in the coming weeks - obviously, it has to go through there first. It is anticipated that any legislative changes required on foot of the review, subject to Government approval, will be incorporated into the general scheme of a new planning Bill, to which I have referred a number of times here today and which is expected to be published shortly.
As the extent of social housing gain from Part V is directly related to private housing construction, the current situation is that there is very limited Part V delivery in terms of social housing, and we all know that. I am committed to the principle of a social housing gain from private development - let me be quite clear about that - but to maximise that gain we need a properly functioning and sustainable construction sector, hence the Construction 2020 strategy. I believe that the Part V mechanism has the potential to again be a significant contributor to social housing in the context of a recovering housing market.
The Government’s Construction 2020 strategy, published in May this year, aims to build a competitive, innovative and sustainable construction sector. My intention is that the social housing strategy, which will be published in the coming weeks, required under action 8 of Construction 2020 and now in preparation, will be both challenging and innovative, and will provide the basis for an enhanced approach to social housing provision in Ireland. I expect that the strategy will be considered by Government in the coming weeks and the Part V mechanism will be considered also in the very near future and subsequent to that obviously it will be published.
I will be interested to see what the Government comes up with. It is vital that this is done right as it was not done right previously. The Government has an opportunity to put it right. There is no doubt that it must be workable for the developer and the builder, otherwise the houses will not be built, but the Government will have to insist on a minimum of 10% in respect of social housing.
It is possible to come up with a mechanism that would be workable and ensure the developer would not lose his or shirt on a project. That mechanism could be framed in such a way that it would be workable and, more than anything else, ensure the provision of more units, greater progress towards social integration and the tackling of ghettoisation.
In June, the international hedge fund, Kennedy Wilson, was granted planning permission for the development of more than 160 units at the former Clancy Barracks, in respect of which the only condition in terms of social and affordable unit provision is that the developer meet the local authority on the matter, which meeting will obviously take place behind closed doors. I would like to know if the Government is interested in having an impact in the development of this site which the developer says and may well believe is unsuitable for social housing provision. The Government has an obligation to ensure the local authority will insist on a minimum of 10% of the former Clancy Barracks development being social housing.
As I said, all of this must be discussed by the Government prior to publication. By and large, I do not disagree with much of what the Deputy had to say. In terms of the process and the outcome of the Government's decision, a lot has yet to happen. The Deputy is correct that a balanced approach is needed. We must ensure those building the units and houses are interested and will deliver. As I said, I am a huge supporter of the provision of social housing through this process. We must ensure this will happen and that the statistics quoted in the Deputy's first contribution are not repeated. We must ensure a real contribution to social housing provision through this process. It is my intention to ensure - this matter will soon go through the process of government - we will get the balance right, thus ensuring developers will be incentivised to build houses and that, as part of the social housing strategies, units will be delivered on a scale not matched in recent years.
It will be interesting to see what develops. It is important that the Government learns from the mistakes of the previous Government. Every site over 800 sq. m was supposed to be subject to the social and affordable housing requirement. However, that did not happen. Originally, developers were not allowed to move such houses off site. If the Government is interested in tackling ghettoisation and working towards greater social integration, it must ensure this requirement is not met off site. Whether a site is located in Ballsbridge or Darndale, the 10% social housing provision must apply.
Another issue is that builders were allowed to buy their way out of meeting the 10% social housing requirement. That must also be stopped. The Government must also insist on there being no difference between the materials used in the construction of private and social units. Previously, there was wholesale use of white deal in the construction of social housing units and oak in private units, many of which were located side-by-side. This was signed off on by the local authorities. The Government must insist on local authorities not signing off on units that do not meet the agreed standards.
To be fair, there is little in the Deputy's contribution with which I would take issue. All of the issues he raises will be dealt with. I favour mixed developments. We need mixed developments to prevent ghettoisation, as described by the Deputy. We must ensure future developments are sustainable and mixed. To add to what the Deputy said, we must also ensure construction of units we require. The requirements for social housing in the context of the demographics of those who need it have changed. The same level of development as was previously required in particular sectors is no longer necessary. For example, owing to the social factors that have derived there is now a requirement for more houses for one person or one person plus a child. We have to adapt to this.
The Deputy raised many issues, including the use of different materials in social units. I have heard many such stories and the issue will be addressed. I am also looking at a number of other areas within the planning legislation that would support having the mix right, ensuring construction would happen and that the percentage of social housing units required would be delivered.
There are other planning issues coming down the road also.
