139. Deputy Eoin Ó Broin asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to provide an update on the regeneration of Oliver Bond House following his meeting with the regeneration forum. [37767/26]
Sentiment score: 0.00
I understand the Minister had a very frank and potentially positive meeting with the Oliver Bond regeneration forum, so I am hoping he can update the House on the progress that was made and also listen to some of the concerns some of us continue to have with the approach being taken by the Department, not just with respect to the Oliver Bond complex but also concerning the other inner-city flat complex regeneration projects across Dublin.
Sentiment score: 0.54
I thank the Minister. This may be one of those rare occasions where we might have more in common than we have to disagree about. I do think the letter sent by the Minister’s officials to Dublin City Council in April was a mistake. The Department’s position had shifted significantly from the stage 1 approval in 2023 or 2024. The amalgamation of blocks L, M and N from 74 units to 46 units had already been approved in principle two years ago. In fact, the revised scheme from Dublin City Council includes a significant improvement with the addition of a community centre. Likewise, I refer to the explanation given by the Minister’s officials to us in the housing committee last week that it was possible to build 13 units inside the existing development but that the Bridgefoot Street development could not be considered, in which case it would be possible to get 43 units as part of the overall scheme. That is a mistake.
Sentiment score: 0.07
I am hoping to hear that there is some flexibility to return to the good elements of the Dublin City Council scheme so we can get the resolution that the residents of the Oliver Bond complex, in particular, desperately need.
Sentiment score: 0.67
The hardening attitude of the Department to the issue of amalgamations is a problem. The issue here, in the first instance, should be to ensure that these homes are brought up to modern standards and, exactly as the Minister said, for good estate management, that there is an appropriate mix in each block, as well as across the development. I disagree with the Minister slightly in that I think Dublin City Council had actually put forward not just the proposals for the three blocks in question and Bridgefoot Street, but had also set out to the Department its intentions for the remainder of the complex. There needs to be a clear understanding that the priority has to be to bring these homes up to standard. Where it is possible to get additional units on site or near the site, we absolutely should do that, but it should not be a condition. I would hate to see that we will have the same problems every time a new proposal goes in for each of the subsequent phases or other developments. The sooner that issue is clarified, the better.
Sentiment score: -0.01
Again, I am not hearing anything from the Minister that I disagree with. The quicker all of us can move on right across the inner-city flat complexes, the better.
Sentiment score: 0.03
143. Deputy Eoin Ó Broin asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to provide an update on the Celtic tiger-era building defects redress scheme and the interim fire safety remediation scheme. [37769/26]
Sentiment score: 0.11
The Minister previously informed us that it was his intention to have the legislation to underpin the Celtic tiger-era defects redress scheme not just introduced but passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas by the summer, with the objective that homeowners and owners' management companies could apply for inclusion in the scheme before the end of the year. Obviously, that legislation has not been published. Can he give an update on when it will be published and when he expects to have it passed by the Oireachtas and open to applicants?
Sentiment score: -0.07
I appreciate the answer, although none of that is new information. The specific question I asked was when this legislation will be published. When does the Minister expect it to complete its passage through the Oireachtas? When does he hope owners’ management companies will be able to apply? With respect to the interim scheme, I appreciate that finally four pathfinder projects have been approved, but that relates to over 200 schemes that desperately need this funding and it has been two years or more since the scheme was originally agreed in principle by the Government. Will the Minister give us some clarity on when the legislation will be published, when it will be passed and when it will be open to applications, and some indication of the extent to which he will be able to accelerate funding approval for more of the 22,000 homes that urgently need interim fire safety funding?
Sentiment score: 0.34
I thank the Minister for that clarity. One assumes that while the Minister may publish before the summer recess, it is likely the Bill will only come before the Oireachtas in the autumn. It is fair to say, to give some clarity to owners' management companies, that that means it is highly unlikely a scheme will open for applications this year, and it will more likely be next year. With respect to the memo the Minister spoke about regarding retrospective pathfinders, there was some media commentary that there might have been some consideration of the issue of caps. Can the Minister give us some assurance that no caps will be included in the overall scheme and that where the issue of caps is being discussed with respect to procurement challenges for retrospective payments, he is hoping to find a solution so nobody is out of pocket and they get the full cost remediation, whether retrospectively or into the future?
Sentiment score: 0.51
150. Deputy Eoin Ó Broin asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to explain why open market value, OMV, is used as the starting price point for the affordable purchase scheme rather than all-in development costs; and to justify this policy in cases where the OMV is higher than the all-in development costs. [37509/26]
Sentiment score: 0.11
I have raised this with the Minister before. It is really to try to understand where this particular policy originated. As he knows, OMV is calculated prior to any discounts being applied for the purposes of affordable purchase schemes. That open market valuation does not necessarily have to be based on the all-in cost of development and in some developments is coming in significantly above that. It is not in the legislation or in any of the statutory instruments. When I discussed the matter with local authorities they told us that they do not know the origin of it. I am looking for the origin and an explanation of why this is the policy.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I thank the Minister for that explanation. The difficulty is that part of the problem is that not only is he not meeting his formal purchase targets, but in many instances the full cost of those properties is exceptionally high. In fact, in some developments it is as much as €500,000 and others, including the ones he referenced in my constituency, it is €440,000 to own the property outright. The difficulty is that by using open market value rather than all-in cost of development, we are increasing the cost to the purchaser and making the homes even less affordable. For example, we do not get any benefits if the land is provided by the local authority, or indeed if there is a significant gap between the development costs and the OMV. Let us take, for example, Glenveagh in Oscar Traynor Road. Those homes probably cost - what Glenveagh was probably paid for those - about €50,000 less than the open market value, so people end up paying far more. There are better ways to deal with the challenges of future sale under the scheme. I just do not understand why the Minister would use a valuation that significantly increases the cost of development when the price of those homes is already too high for far too many working people.
Sentiment score: 0.09
This is probably the only product in the world where the price you pay for it is not the price that it cost to deliver it, plus profits, but a fictional valuation of an open market value. As for the only additional question I will ask, the Minister may not be able to answer it because it predates him taking up his current role. At any stage was the consideration of using open market value a concern about the potential impact of an affordable housing scheme on surrounding private market houses? Unlike cost rental where there is a deliberate Government policy - which I support - for cost rental to moderate private sector rents over time as that grows, was that a policy that was deliberately avoided with affordable purchase so as not to have any impact or to moderate rising private market home prices in neighbouring housing estates?
Sentiment score: 0.25
First, I fully agree with my committee colleague. In the Minister's consideration of this, it should not just be a question of the limit. When the Minister spoke about this at committee before, he was also looking at possibly linking the eligibility thresholds to some metric, and I have given that some thought since the committee meeting. Given that social housing is typically for a set percentage of households depending on their income, EU-SILC data, which is updated every year, could provide a useful link. In addition, I urge the Minister to look at the income disregard. We have a situation where, for example, the State awards the working family payment because it recognises that the working income of families is too low to meet an adequate standard of living, but that can then push them above the threshold. It is the same with disability allowance. We also have a larger number of working adult children forced to live at home because of the housing crisis, which can also result in families losing their position on the list. I am talking to colleagues in my own parliamentary party, and I am sure the Minister is doing likewise, who are having constituents removed off the list and they have no other option. This is something we would be keen to work with the Minister on, but it is quite urgent.
Sentiment score: 0.09