Pearse Doherty
Ceist:133. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the number of social homes and affordable homes, respectively, that have been built by NAMA debtors since its launch. [2854/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraTuesday, 22 January 2019
Ceisteanna (133, 134, 135)
Pearse Doherty
Ceist:134. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the number of homes built by NAMA debtors since its launch; and the number of these homes built under Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000. [2855/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraPearse Doherty
Ceist:135. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the number of units per development (details supplied) that have been allocated to the various local authorities under Part V agreements; and the agreement which was reached in place of an allocation of units. [2856/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí scríofa
I propose to take Questions Nos. 133 to 135, inclusive, together.
I am advised that NAMA funded the delivery of 9,669 homes by its debtors and receivers between January 2014 and December 2018.
I am advised that debtors and receivers whose projects are funded by NAMA must comply with the same statutory obligations in relation to Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as all other residential developers. The Deputy will be aware that legislation covering Part V obligations has been amended over the years. In many cases, even residential developments currently under construction may relate to older planning permissions granted at a time when legislation provided that Part V obligations could be fulfilled through a range of options, including monetary payments to local authorities, the transfer of land, the construction and transfer of houses on-site, the transfer of houses off-site or a combination of two or more options. I am also advised that, for some NAMA-funded developments, the Part V obligations had already been met prior to the transfer of the associated loans to NAMA.
The specific means by which Part V obligations are met is the subject of negotiation between the developer and the local authority in each particular instance and ultimately it is for the local authority to determine its preference, based on its own criteria and circumstances. In relation to NAMA-funded projects, I am advised that NAMA does not participate in those negotiations. On a project-by-project basis, NAMA supports and facilitates debtors and receivers in meeting their Part V obligations, however given the broad range of options that have been open to debtors in meeting those obligations in the past, NAMA does not track the overall delivery of Part V obligations which is a matter for the local authorities.
The Deputy will be aware that there is no statutory obligation on developers to provide affordable homes. Debtors and receivers funded by NAMA are no different in this respect from developers whose funding is from other sources.
I would point out to the Deputy that, since 2012, NAMA has worked with its debtors and receivers to deliver social housing units beyond the requirements of Part V. The purpose of its social housing initiative was to maximise social housing delivery from the assets securing NAMA’s loan portfolio. Through this programme, NAMA has delivered 2,481 units directly through approved housing bodies (AHBs), local authorities and its special purpose vehicle, NARPS.
As regards the Deputy’s question in relation to a number of named development sites, the Deputy will be aware that I am prohibited from providing information on specific assets under the control of NAMA debtors and receivers as such information is considered to be confidential by reference to Sections 99 and 202 of the NAMA Act 2009. Agreements reached between local authorities and developers in relation to the fulfilment of Part V obligations are a matter for the parties involved.