Government amendment No. 252b:

In page 85, subsection (1), line 13 to 16, to delete the definition of "eligible person" and substitute the following definition:

"'eligible person' means, subject to subsection (3) and to the regulations, if any, made by the Minister under section 85(1)(b), a person who is in need of accommodation and whose income would not be adequate to meet the payments on a mortgage for the purchase of a house to meet his or her accommodation needs because the payments calculated over the course of a year would exceed 35 per cent. of that person's annual income net of income tax and pay related social insurance;".

Mr. Dempsey: These amendments relate to the change being proposed to the definition of eligible persons for the purposes of the affordable housing provisions in this part of the Bill. In the original text, an eligible person was defined as a person who could not obtain a sufficient mortgage to purchase a house on the basis of a loan of two and a half times the principal income plus once the subsidiary income, if any. However, on further consideration, this would create two wide a target group for eligibility and it fails to take into account the critical aspect of interest rates in determining affordability. Clearly, a house at any given price is more affordable to a greater number of people when interest rates are lower. Any index of affordability trends would take account of prices, interest rates and incomes.

For these reasons, the definition of eligible persons is being amended to persons whose mortgage repayments would exceed 35% of income net of income tax and PRSI. In the case of a two income household, one half of the second net income would be taken into account for the purposes of determining eligibility. This criterion captures the three critical variables and reflects local authority practice in determining eligibility under existing leases and shared ownership schemes.

A household on a given level of income may need and be eligible for affordable housing in one area where prices are high while a similar household on the same income would not need or be eligible for affordable housing in another area where market prices were lower. For the purposes of applying the 35% eligibility test, a mortgage is defined as a loan for 90% of the price of a dwelling which meets the accommodation of the person or household concerned.

Amendment No. 252d deletes the definition of relevant income as this is no longer required in the context of the new 35% criterion. Amendment No. 252e makes provision for the treatment of second or subsidiary income in applying this eligibility test. One half of the net income, after the deduction of income tax and PRSI, will be taken into account in the case of a second income. This approach recognises that the economics of a two income household are different from those of a household where one spouse or partner earns an income and the other does not.

The financial circumstances of a household, other than income, must also be taken into account in determining eligibility. Relevant circumstances would be where capital was available from the sale of another house, an inheritance or even, perhaps, a national lottery win.

By allowing half the subsidiary income instead of the entire amount, the Minister is casting his net in too constrained a fashion. I understand his concern that the provision might be too broad but there have been exorbitant increases in the price of houses. Unless we pitch the affordability of housing to a sufficiently low level, many people who need housing but who cannot afford a large mortgage will still face great difficulties.

In terms of local authority shared ownership schemes, to which the concept of socially affordable housing will mainly apply, I had thought that the threshold was two and a half times the income of the main earner plus the entire income of the second earner. It would be reasonable to retain this threshold, particularly when interest rates are low, which would offer people on low incomes a realistic opportunity to enter the market.

The Minister's amendments will tighten up the provisions in the section because they could not be left as they were. The stipulation that the repayments on a mortgage must not exceed 35% of a person's income is reasonable, as long as there is sufficient flexibility for other incomes to be taken on board in terms of paying off a mortgage.

Mr. Coogan: I ask the Chair's indulgence in respect of the debate on these amendments. I was prohibited from replying to them in writing when they were received because there was no time available to do so. In other words, they came in very late. If possible, a Second Stage debate would be more appropriate on these amendments. I wish to refer to what the Minister said. The Government and the Opposition are interested in ensuring that people go back to work. This is of interest at a time when unemployment is low and there is a need for people to go to work. However, this amendment prohibits people from going back to work.

The Minister explained the revised definition, which the Department has drawn up, saying:

The definition of eligible persons is being amended to persons whose mortgage repayments would exceed 35% of net of income tax and PRSI. In the case of a two income household, one half of the second net income would be taken into account for the purposes of determining eligibility.

A single person with a gross income of £25,000 would be able to afford a mortgage of £87,000 and a married couple with one income of £30,000 could afford a mortgage of £120,000. However, if the couple had two incomes - one of £20,000 and the second of £10,000 - totalling £30,000, it only allows for a mortgage of £106,000. How did the Minister come up with those figures? We are trying to encourage people back to work. However, if second earner in the household has an income of £10,000 they might as well not be working. There is no justification for this - it simply does not add up. If the total income of the household is £30,000, based on two incomes, the entitlement is £106,000, but if it based on one income it is £120,000. Perhaps the Minister would explain how he came to this conclusion.

Mr. Walsh: It is necessary to define the category of applicant that will qualify for affordable housing and this amendment has much to recommend it. One can argue about the detail of the figures and where the cut-off point is, but there is a significant aspect to this. Many local and national politicians have sought for some time that when people are assessed for qualification for a range of social and other services, the assessment should use net rather than gross income. It is good that this provision refers to net income, income subject to the deduction of tax and PRSI.

The manner in which this amendment is constructed allows for the fluctuation of interest rates. It will be calculated according to the current interest rates. In addition, this is a scheme which will qualify and will probably be used extensively as part of the shared ownership scheme. The amendment also takes other income earners in the house into account. On that matter I ask the Minister to clarify whether the income of children of a couple who would qualify for affordable housing, will be taken into account. That might create an anomaly because they may be there for a short period and may move out of the family home and seek accommodation in their own right. It could be a factor in disqualifying people who otherwise might qualify. It could also deter people from staying at home which, from a social point of view, might not be the right move.

There seems to be a certain scope in it. Amendment 252e refers to "shall" take into account rather than "may" take into account. The rest of the amendment indicates that the local authority may have discretion about which income earners will be included.

Dr. Henry: The Minister knows we share his objective to make affordable housing available to people. This seems a better scheme than the social housing scheme, which was instituted some years ago in several areas of the city but appears only to help those who are on corporation housing lists. I share Senator Costello's concern about interest rates but is the Minister wise to put in an upper income level for the primary earner? The Dublin Docklands Authority has a very imaginative scheme, of which the Minister is aware, and it operates an upper income level. Could it be indexed? We have seen the problems with inheritance tax which was not indexed. Would that be worthwhile?

Mr. Dempsey: I thank the Members for their support for this amendment and this part of the Bill. The scheme applies to people who qualify under the shared ownership scheme, which was mentioned by Senator Costello and Senator Walsh. On the point about interest variations and rises in interest rates, the new formula is more flexible than the old one and it takes this into account. One of the reasons we have changed this scheme is that it gives us flexibility if interest rates rise to revise arrangements so that people will not be caught. The provisions mean that instead of having to change the Bill to change these criteria we can change the regulations. In keeping with other parts of the Bill, we are trying to be as flexible as possible because the housing market changes so quickly and needs change quickly. Senator Costello's concerns are addressed by the new formula which will allow for variations.

On Senator's Coogan's point, the 35% test does not discriminate against two-income households. There were some suggestions of that. At first glance it may appear to be harder on one-income families because a higher mortgage is affordable to them and they would, therefore, be excluded from affordable housing at a given price, whereas a two-income family on the same combined income would be eligible for affordable housing at the same price. It arises because only one half of the net income of the second earner is taken into account. There are good and equitable reasons for this.

The economics of a two-income household are completely different in many respects from those of a single-income family because two people going to work involves additional expenses, for instance, travelling to work, eating out and, critically nowadays, child care and child minding costs. These eat into the income of a two-income household. It is still a factor, perhaps less so nowadays than in the past, that the second of two incomes is less secure on average and more vulnerable to changes in circumstances, such as the arrival of children. The formula now proposed is as close to we can get to a general formula for equal treatment of different income circumstances and it does not discriminate against two-income households.

In terms of the loan amount affordable, a second income has never been treated on the same basis as the main income or the two incomes simply aggregated. By taking into account half of the second income, we are reflecting the reality of the situation and established practice by commercial agencies and public bodies. The formula used which was quoted by Senator Coogan concerns the levels at which people will qualify on the index of affordability rather than mortgages as appears from the note. In the case of a couple with two incomes of £20,000 and £10,000 respectively, the maximum affordable loan would be £106,000. However, this section outlines when a person qualifies for the waiting list for affordable housing rather than his or her eligibility for a loan.

Senator Walsh asked whether the incomes of sons and daughters would be included in the formula. The formula could include such incomes if the individuals involved might reasonably be expected to reside with the eligible person and contribute to the mortgage payment. While it is a fair question, it is better to deal with this issue through guidelines rather than legislation. It is also probably better to deal with the upper income limit in guidelines and allow flexibility. Given the nature of house prices, if it were written into the legislation, it would be too rigid.

Mr. Coogan: Sociologically, there are dramatic changes in dual income households in so far as the second income earner is staying in the workforce much longer than was previously the case. This is necessitated by the increase in house prices and the recognition that they need a house. People wait longer to have children and family size is reducing. The second income is almost as solid as the primary income. This change should be taken into account in the calculations. However, most households must have dual incomes in order to qualify for any State or private mortgage.

Mr. Costello: The Minister has changed the formula for eligibility from two and a half times the primary income plus once the income of any subsidiary income to two and a half times the primary income plus half the annual income of the second person. Normally, the second income is provided by a spouse or partner. For that reason, would it be better if the Minister reverted to the original guidelines where the full second income was taken into consideration rather than half of it? People work on community employment schemes for three years. If they are aged 35 or over they could be expected under the jobs initiative to achieve permanent social employment. Will such people be considered for affordable housing?

Mr. Dempsey: These are points of detail that must be carefully considered in the context of the guidelines that will issue. It is important not to be too prescriptive. The market has changed a great deal over the past four or five years and continues to do so. Everybody recognises that but it is important that such detail is included in guidelines because a more flexible approach can then be adopted. The manner is which the second income is treated reflects the policy of all commercial lending agencies currently and even local authorities treat it the same way. If the circumstances change the fact that the second income will be dealt with through guidelines rather than legislation will allow us to adapt the formula. The Senator is trying to ensure that we can adapt to changed circumstances and the new amendment reflects that. The section provides for the eligibility test for affordable housing and its calculation and not whether an individual will get a mortgage. I acknowledge Senator Coogan's comment that the second income is becoming a more permanent feature.

Mr. J. Doyle: I welcome the Minister's flexibility in this matter. I am a member of the docklands authority, which was the first to debate social and affordable housing. I have seen the schedule which has been drawn up and am concerned that it is rigid. The Minister is quite right to allow flexibility in these measures.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment 252c:

In page 85, subsection (1), between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following definition:

"'mortgage' means a loan for the purchase of a house secured by mortgage in an amount not exceeding 90 per cent of the price of the house.".

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment 252d:

In page 85, subsection (1), lines 22 to 28, to delete the definition of "relevant income".

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment 252e:

In page 85, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following new subsection:

"(3) In determining the eligibility of a person for the purposes of this Part, the planning authority shall take into account -

(a) half the annual income, net of income tax and pay related social insurance, of any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with the eligible person and contribute to the mortgage payments, and

(b) any other financial circumstances of the eligible person and any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with the eligible person and contribute to the mortgage payments.".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 79, as amended, agreed.

An Cathaoirleach: Amendment No. 253 is in the name of Senator O'Meara. We are dealing with the substitute amendment that was circulated on 23 November.

Mr. Costello: I move amendment No. 253:

In page 85, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following subsection:

"(1) Where an application for permission in relation to a residential development involving more than 2 dwellings is made on or after the date of publication of the Bill for this Act, and has not been finally disposed of on the date of passing of this Act, it shall be lawful for the planning authority or the Board, as the case may be, if it decides to grant the application, to attach as a condition of the permission a requirement that the applicant or any other person with an interest in the land to which the application relates enter into an agreement with the planning authority concerning the development, for social or affordable housing, of land, which agreement may -

(a) provide for any of the following:

(i) the transfer to the planning authority of the ownership of up to 20 per cent of the land concerned, to be reserved for the provision of social or affordable housing,

(ii) the making of arrangements for the applicant to provide up to 20 per cent of the land concerned for social and affordable housing in a manner satisfactory to the planning authority, or

(iii) the payment by the applicant to the planning authority of an equivalent sum based on the value of the land with the permission less the amount of compensation which would be paid if the land were to be transferred, which sum shall be used for the purposes of a housing authority only or under this Act), and

(b) identify the land to be transferred in accordance with paragraph (a), whether in one or more parts.".

This is an important amendment and I would be delighted if the Minister considered it. It would change the timing of the Minister's proposal, not the principle of it. He outlines his housing strategy in this section in terms of how the 20% social and affordable housing element will be implemented and the timescale that is required. The housing strategy must be prepared and then there must be a variation of the development plan.

I propose to bypass that to an extent and fast-track this desirable proposal through the system much more quickly than the Minister has proposed. The timescale envisaged by the Minister is outlined in this section and sections 12 and 13. It is difficult to envisage that a housing strategy would be in place in less than 12 months and a development plan would be varied in less than two years. The Minister can intervene at that stage and impose the adoption of the development plan. However, it will be delayed because it is many people's interest that that happens. It will take three years to introduce variation into most development plans and thus provide 20% social and affordable housing. Most local authorities have already had their development plans adopted - Dublin Corporation's was adopted earlier this year.

Mr. J. Doyle: Within one year.

Mr. Costello: The Minister has new proposals in regard to the development plan. It must begin within four years and finish within six. He therefore envisages two years for it to be processed. The final stages might be dealt with within one year but a great deal of work will have taken place prior to that. The key is whether a mechanism can be provided whereby this eminently desirable principle can be adopted in a meaningful fashion and it will not be constrained by objectors or the planning process. At the same time I can appreciate that everything must be done in accordance with constitutional requirements. If we could, as we propose in the amendment, condition each new planning application before a new development plan is adopted, that would be the norm for the future but before that kicks into place we would have this window of two, three or more years whereby our hands would be tied behind our back in relation to implementing this legislation. The benefit of the social and affordable housing is required now. We have the crisis and no measure that has been proposed, including the Bacon report and we have discussed it ad nauseam in this House and in the local authorities, has been effective. This is the only effective measure that will solve the problem in the long term but it will not solve it in the short term unless an amendment of this nature is accepted. I earnestly urge the Minister to take the amendment on board considering that the principle is excellent but its implementation may be delayed to such an extent that the benefits are not realised.

Mr. Walsh: I fully support the motivation behind Senator Costello's amendment but I wonder whether, in practice, it would achieve what we all desire, that is, the early implementation of these provisions in law and their application by local government. We cannot lose sight of the fact that local authorities will have a certain time lag in which to develop their own housing strategies properly and comprehensively to ensure the success of this section. The whole application of this section, which probably impacts most on the development of planning laws, goes to the heart of the whole ethos of what republicanism is all about and it is good to see the support for that in the House. The early implementation of the Bill and its co-operative passage through the Seanad is what is called for. That is the route we should follow.

Mr. J. Doyle: I will be interested to hear the Minister's reply. The purpose of the amendment, as I understand it, is to expedite the principle of social and affordable housing. If that can achieve ahead of the Bill I would support it.

Mr. Dempsey: I acknowledge the support I have received from Members for the principle involved in this section. It is something that has been spoken about by people from all parties and the Labour Party in particular have been trying to expedite that. If I could do what is proposed in this amendment I would have done it 18 months ago but unfortunately it cannot be done. I appreciate the support from all sides for the principles underlined in the amendment. Rarely has something so controversial had such all party support. It behoves me to acknowledge that and to thank people for it.

My reasons for not accepting this amendment or, indeed, the proposal to take Part V out of the Bill and treat it separately, are strongly based on the legal and constitutional advice I have received. Depending on which side of the fence one is on, if one is a builder this is draconian, involving confiscation and so on but on my side and that of most Members of the Oireachtas, it is a measured social action to deal with a particular problem that affects a number of citizens. From all the legal and constitutional advice available to me, a housing strategy must be in place before the conditions for social and affordable housing can be realistically attached to planning permissions. You cannot, if you wish to remain within the parameters of the Constitution apply these provisions in an arbitrary manner. They must be based on a reasonable endeavour to quantify and define the housing needs in a particular area for a start. That must be established. That is the aim of the housing strategy. Therefore, a local authority has to have a credible housing strategy before embarking on this and it has to be worked out by reference to perspective and existing housing circumstances in its area before the quota of social or affordable housing, to be applied in its area, can be determined. While everybody speaks of the 20% social or affordable housing, that is an upper limit as is clear from the Bill. A local authority has to have a credible housing strategy and has to decide what percentage is fair and reasonable to meet the housing needs and circumstances in its area and also to ensure it has sufficient land zoned to cater for that demand.

The Bill requires all future developments and plans to incorporate a housing strategy. In the case of an existing strategy, the procedures to vary the plan must be started within a year of the commencement of the Act. It would not be realistic to require a shorter period of local authorities since the preparation of a housing strategy is very demanding and they must have a reasonable time to do a proper job. I am aware, and Members will be aware also, that local authorities have already commenced preliminary work on housing strategies in anticipation of the Bill being passed. Where there are difficulties I would anticipate and request Members to use their influence to ensure that all the preliminary work for the housing strategy is done during the passage of the Bill and finalised shortly after the commencement of the Act. A great deal of work can be done to put this in place much quicker.

A further measure to ensure the provisions on social and affordable housing have effect as soon as possible is the amendment to section 83 which will put a time limit on permissions for housing development granted before the housing strategy is made and the relevant quota applied. Obviously this will be discussed later but it is an important provision which improves the Bill.

The amendment to speed up the implementation of the housing strategies and the new time limit on existing planning permissions go as far as we can legally and constitutionally in giving effect to the provisions as rapidly and as urgently as possible. As Senator Walsh said, the best way to ensure the housing strategies and the Bill are in place is to expedite its passage through the Houses. In that regard I thank Members for the co-operation so far.

An Cathaoirleach: Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Costello: No. The Minister has said he is sympathetic towards the amendment but that he does not think, on legal and constitutional grounds, it can be accepted. The Minister said he might request local authorities to get started on their strategies but the Bill seems to indicate that the strategy would commence one year from the passage of the Bill rather than publication of the Bill. It could take another six months before the Bill gets through the Dáil. Is there some way the Minister could be empowered to amend this section so that the one year provision could operate before the passage of the legislation in the expectation that the Bill would be enacted containing this 20% provision? If there is a delay in enacting the legislation there may be no benefit from it. Applications for development will be introduced on all existing zoned land. Our present development plan finishes this year and I have no doubt that before our new development plan is in place every piece of land will be included under the old dispensation. This legislation will not be able to deal with that. There is a danger that the best of intentions may be curtailed because of difficulties with proceeding.

Legal and constitutional difficulties present a problem, but any development plan implemented to date would have had to consider the social agenda and appropriate housing strategies. They may not have been as perfect as the very specific provision included in this legislation, which calls for a housing strategy and a variation in development plans. However, that is the new dispensation. Is it not possible that, pending the establishment of the new structures, existing planning applications would be treated under the 20% affordable and social housing provision as local authorities review their needs? I am concerned to explore a way around this problem without leaving it open to developers to run a coach and four through it and have the provision effectively nullified by the time this provision becomes operative.

Mr. Dempsey: Following acceptance of the amendment the Bill will require that within one year of the commencement of the Act and irrespective of what development plans are in place, housing strategies must be agreed by local authorities and inserted into their current development plans. If local authorities are in the middle of compiling their development plans when the Bill is passed they can then insert their housing strategy into them.

Shortly after the Bill was published I met with all local authority managers over a period of two to three weeks. I pointed out these provisions to them and asked them to start drawing up their housing strategies, especially those authorities with acute housing needs who need to use the provisions of the Bill. There is nothing to stop a local authority drawing up a housing strategy and engaging in all the preliminary work on demographics, housing needs, land availability, zoned land and so on. When this legislation is enacted, which it will be as soon as the Bill is passed by both Houses and signed by the President, the authorities can put the legislation before their elected members and proceed with varying their plans.

Local authorities could have this strategy in place within a couple of months of the enactment of the legislation and I hope they will proceed on this basis because housing and affordable housing is the greatest social issue we face. I am confident local authorities are aware of this and that they will give it the necessary priority.

With regard to the Senator's question on validating existing provisions, our advice is that the Bill must be in place before procedures to alter a local authority development plan or its housing strategy. These cannot be retrospectively validated, although it would be nice if we could do that. Having asked managers to look at drafting housing strategies, we have already started to look at guidelines and we will not wait for the Bill to be passed before submitting them to local authority managers. Even before the guidelines are in place we will assist in every way we can to give a general idea of the thinking and how it might be approached. I agree with the Senator on the importance of that.

These amendments present the best possible legal and constitutional way we can proceed. I appreciate the Senator's interest and commitment to this section. If we can find any way to expedite matters, legally and otherwise, we will do so. It is important that those Senators who are members of local authorities also ask these questions of them.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Dardis): There should be an amendment to the printed list. Amendment No. 253a should have an asterisk before it to indicate it is a Government amendment. Amendment No. 256d is related and amendment Nos. 253a and 256d will be taken together by agreement.

 Government amendment No. 253a:

In page 86, subsection (1), lines 1 to 14, to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) and substitute the following new paragraphs:

"(b) (i) Subject to subparagraph (ii), any development plan made by a planning authority after the commencement of this section shall include a housing strategy in respect of the area of the development plan.

(ii) Where before the commencement of this section a planning authority has given notice under section 21A(2) (inserted by the Act of 1976) of the Act of 1963 of a proposed amendment of a draft development plan, it may proceed in accordance with section 241, without complying with subparagraph (i), but where a development plan is so made the planning authority shall take such actions as are necessary to ensure that, as soon as possible and in any event within a period of one year from the commencement of this section a housing strategy is prepared in respect of the area of the development plan and the procedures under section 13 are commenced to vary the development plan in order to insert the strategy in the plan and to make such other changes as are necessary arising from the insertion of the strategy in the plan pursuant to this Part.

(c) A planning authority shall take such actions as are necessary to ensure that, as soon as possible and in any event within a period of one year from the commencement of this section, a housing strategy is prepared in respect of the area of the development plan and the procedures under section 13 are commenced to vary the development plan in order to insert the strategy in the plan and to make such other changes as are necessary arising from the insertion of the strategy in the plan pursuant to this Part.

(d) A housing strategy shall relate to the period of the development plan or, in the case of a strategy prepared under paragraph (c), to the remaining period of the existing development plan.

(e) A housing strategy under this section may, or pursuant to the direction of the Minister shall, be prepared jointly by 2 or more planning authorities in respect of the combined area of their development plans and such a joint strategy shall be included in any development plan that relates to the whole or any part of the area covered by the strategy and the provisions of this Part shall apply accordingly.".

Mr. Dempsey: This is relevant to what we discussed earlier. There are a number of changes to subsection (1) designed to ensure that in general any development plan being made after the coming into force of Part V would include a housing strategy. However, where a local authority has already advanced its plan and review to the point where it has published final amendments, it will not be required to make its housing strategy before finalising the development plan.

Second, all authorities must have their housing strategies prepared within one year, at most, and the procedure for consequential variation of the development plan commenced. Where a local authority may have recently adopted a development plan, it will have to set about compiling its housing strategy immediately Part V comes into force and revise the plan within a year. We are trying to ensure that housing strategies are put in place as quickly as possible following the passing of the Bill.

A new provision is also provided in paragraph (e) to provide for the making of joint housing strategies between two or more authorities. For example, it might make sense for a county council and an urban council to come together to make a joint housing strategy which could then be reflected as appropriate in the individual development plans. It is also possible that the Dublin authorities could prepare a joint housing strategy given that they are currently working together in that context. As this paragraph now deals with the making of joint strategies, amendment No. 256d is a consequential amendment.

Mr. Costello: This covers essentially the same ground we debated earlier. I am pleased to note the Minister's request to the local authorities. I have no doubt we will be doing the same thing. However, the development plan still has to be varied and one must go through the normal procedures of consultation, publication and so on. Will the Minister give me an idea of the timescale? Can it be fast-tracked in respect of the development plan? Dublin Corporation has adopted its development plan so we are not working on it at present. Therefore, we cannot simply insert the housing strategy but must go through the normal procedure of dealing with a development plan which can be cumbersome and time consuming. Can the Minister give us any succour on that point?

Mr. J. Doyle: It is my understanding that a variation can be adopted in a three month period and that would speed up the process. I do not think we can limit it beyond that. As far as I can recall, the statutory period in the last development plan had a variation of three months.

Mr. Dempsey: That was the situation. When this Bill is passed there will be a variation period of four weeks which considerably speeds it up.

Amendment agreed to.

Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Acting Chairman: Amendment No. 253b is a Government amendment, as is amendment No. 253c which is consequential and amendment No. 253d. All are related and may be discussed together.

Government amendment No. 253b:

In page 86, subsection (3)(a), line 20, to delete "needs" and substitute "existing needs and the likely future needs".

Mr. Dempsey: The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that a planning authority in estimating the housing needs of its area should also have regard to its likely future needs. The needs study carried out under the Housing Acts will give the authorities the information on existing needs. Future needs can be extrapolated from these figures and also from population forecasts carried out, for example, in drafting the development plan or, indeed, the regional planning guidelines, particularly in the Dublin area. The other two amendments to this subsection are purely technical in replacing "are" with "is" and the words "or handicaps" are deleted following "and persons suffering disability" as they are superfluous.

Dr. Henry: I am glad the Minister has been specific here. One could have looked on the Bill as providing cheaper housing for families who do not have an adequate income to continue living in an area. I am glad he has inserted these provisions as they are extraordinarily important. The elderly, people with handicaps and so forth can be extraordinarily isolated in social strategies and sometimes get depressed because when we look at economic policy we do not consider frequently enough the social consequences. I compliment the Minister for including such provisions.

Mr. J. Doyle: I am glad the Minister is not only looking at present needs but also at future needs. Recent reports show that the greater Dublin area has a population of approximately 1.3 million and could rise to 2 million in the next ten years. Therefore, it is very important that future needs are considered in drawing up this procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 253c:

In page 86, subsection (3)(c), line 25, to delete "are" and substitute "is".

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 253d:

In page 86, subsection (3)(c), line 29, to delete "or handicaps".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 254 not moved.

Government amendment No. 254a:

In page 86, subsection (4)(a)(i), line 34, to delete "to be required".

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman: Amendments Nos. 254b, 254c, 254e and 254f are Government amendments, they are related and may be discussed together.

Government amendment No. 254b:

In page 86, subsection (4)(a)(ii), line 38, after "plan" to insert "and the estimate may state the different requirements for different areas within the area of the development plan".

Mr. Dempsey: This amendment arose from consultations and adds an additional clause to the paragraph to clarify that the assessment of social and affordable housing needs can be area specific and can differ from one area to another within the territory of the local authority. As this is relevant to the quota to be reserved for social and affordable housing, it is important to be clear as to the intent. Paragraph (b) is inserted by amendment 254c to permit a local authority when making an estimate of the need for affordable housing to confine it to the expected demand from first time purchasers even though the definition of eligible persons can go beyond first time purchasers. However, the vast majority of those qualifying for affordable housing will be first time purchasers. I want to make it clear that persons needing accommodation as a result, say, of divorce would not be excluded.

In subsection (5)(a) a new paragraph is added by amendment No. 254e to provide that the rates of interest of a mortgage for house purchasers should be an issue to which planning authorities should have regard in making an estimate of the amount of affordable housing needed in the area. There is a consequential amendment to paragraph (5) to include rates of interest.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 254c:

In page 86, subsection (4), between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following new paragraph:

"(b) for the purpose of making an estimate under paragraph (a)(ii), a planning authority may exclude eligible persons who own or have previously owned a house.".

Mr. Costello: The Minister referred to the point that the planning authority may exclude eligible persons who own or previously owned a house. This is specifically in the context of separation. A person may have lived in a house that was previously in joint ownership. While he may find himself in different circumstances he would not be a first time buyer and would be in a difficult situation and may well be in need of affordable housing. Is the amendment specifically broad enough in that it states "may exclude eligible persons"? What guidelines is the Minister prepared to draw up to ensure that some people who are in need of affordable housing will not be discriminated against? These people will qualify for local authority housing lists, will be in need of and, in many cases, will expect to qualify for, social as well as affordable housing.

Mr. Coogan: The point I was going to raise was raised by Senator Costello. Are there guidelines on the possibility of exclusion or is it totally at the discretion of the planning officer? Senator Costello made the point where separated people may be in need of a house for either themselves and/or their children, even though previously they may have been householders. As this means they may be disbarred, will it be discretionary disbarment and, if so, on what basis? What guidelines does the Minister intend to draw up in this regard?

Mr. Walsh: Most of what we have talked about on the development plan related to discretion to local councils. It is the councillors rather than the officers who will have the say in what is in the strategy plans. The plans should be specific.

Ms Ormonde: I agree with Senator Walsh. There would be a weakness if too much discretion is given to the county planner and the personalities of people might also be taken into account. I would not like to see that happening. Because of past experiences in dealing with the problem, I have a fear in this regard and I would like to hear the Minister's views.

Mr. Dempsey: The important word in many respects is "may", not "shall". Confining the estimate for affordable housing needs to just first time purchasers is purely a practical matter to avoid any challenges with regard to other groups being excluded. It does not affect eligibility. With regard to persons needing accommodation, I gave the example of persons who had been divorced, they will not be excluded. In this case the discretion will rest with the members rather than individuals in the planning department because the housing strategy will be a document which will be approved by the local authority members.

Mr. J. Doyle: I understand from the members that it might be interpreted differently by different planning or housing officers. Would the Minister be prepared to issue guidelines on this section?

Mr. Dempsey: That will be a matter which will be included in guidelines for drawing up the housing strategy.

Mr. Costello: Do we need this amendment? If we are talking about eligible persons, do we need to insert this into the Bill? I do not know whether we should provide for allowing the discretion to exclude eligible persons in primary legislation. Given that they are eligible, perhaps it might be better that the guidelines reflect how they will be dealt with on a national basis having regard to the priorities.

Mr. Dempsey: That is certainly a point at which I will look. The advice I have received to date is that the amendment is necessary. I will have a look at it again to double check on the basis of what the Senator raised there. At present I am satisfied that it is necessary to include it in the Bill.

Dr. Henry: I would also be grateful if the Minister would look at it again because in the definition of an eligible person there is nothing about the previous ownership of houses.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 254d:

In page 86, subsection (4), lines 39 to 44, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following new paragraph:

"(c) A housing strategy shall provide that as a general policy a specified percentage, not being more than 20 per cent, of the land zoned for residential use, or for a mixture of residential and other uses, shall be reserved under this Part for the provision of housing for the purposes of either or both subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (a).".

Mr. Dempsey: The purpose of this amendment is to use common English - to use the word zoning instead of objectives for using land. It is to simplify the language.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 254e:

In page 87, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following new subparagraph:

"(iv) the rates of interest on mortgages for house purchase;".

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 254f:

In page 87, subsection (5), lines 8 and 9, to delete "and incomes under subparagraph (iii)" and substitute ", incomes under subparagraph (iii) and rates of interest under subparagraph (iv)".

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 254g:

In page 87, subsection (5)(b), line 15, to delete "prejudice" and substitute "affect".

Mr. Dempsey: This is a technical amendment, to change the word "affect" to "prejudice" in paragraph (b). We believe it is a more appropriate word. It has no substantive affect. It is just technical.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 80, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 81.

Acting Chairman: Amendment No. 254h is a Government amendment. Amendments Nos. 254i and 254m are consequential. Therefore, amendments Nos. 254h, 254i and 254m may be taken together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 254h:

In page 87, lines 18 to 39, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following new subsection:

"(1) (a) In conjunction with the inclusion of the housing strategy in its development plan, a planning authority shall ensure that sufficient and suitable land is zoned for residential use, or for a mixture of residential and other uses, to meet the requirements of the housing strategy and to ensure that a scarcity of such land does not occur at any time during the period of the development plan.

(b) A planning authority shall include objectives in the development plan in order to secure the implementation of the housing strategy, in particular, any of the matters referred to in section 80(3), including specific objectives in relation to the areas zoned for residential use, or for a mixture of residential and other uses, in the plan.

(c) Specific objectives as referred to in paragraph (b) may be indicated in respect of each area zoned for residential use, or for a mixture of residential and other uses, and, where required by local circumstances relating to the amount of housing required as estimated in the housing strategy under section 80(4)(a), different specific objectives may be indicated in respect of different areas, subject to the specified percentage referred to in section 80 (4)(c) not being exceeded.

(d) In order to counteract undue segregation in housing between persons of different social backgrounds, the planning authority may indicate in respect of any particular area referred to in paragraph (c) that there is no requirement for housing referred to in section 80(4)(a) in respect of that area, or that a lower percentage than that specified in the housing strategy may instead be required.".

Mr. Dempsey: Subsection (1) is being strengthened to make it clear that the planning authorities are obliged, having done their housing strategy, to ensure that sufficient is then zoned for residential development to accommodate the housing needs of the area over the planned period and also to ensure that a scarcity of development land does not occur, pushing up prices due to an excess of demand over supply. The local authority must ensure that the objectives of the development plan deliver on the implementation of the housing strategy.

Particular reference is made to the aspects referred to in section 80(3), that is social housing needs. The needs for a supply of housing which is affordable to persons on lower incomes, the demand for different sizes and types of houses and specific objectives can by applied in accordance with the housing strategy to residential or mixed zonings in the development plan. For example, a certain mixture of house types or sizes, a certain number of houses for first-time purchasers or a requirement that a stated percentage of land be reserved for social and affordable housing. The previous subsection (1)(a) has now been split into two and there is a consequential amendment, amendment No. 254m, to section 82(2) to replace the reference to section 81(1)(a) with section 81(1)(b). There is a change to paragraph (b), which will become paragraph (c), to make it clear that different specific objectives can by applied to different areas within the local authority's territory where this is indicated by the needs as assessed in the housing strategy.

Subsection (2) provided that the provisions in relation to the implementation of the housing strategy did not prevent the development of land exclusively for social housing, and that is a clarification. Amendment No. 254i amends this provision to include affordable housing.

Mr. J. Doyle: In its last development plan Dublin Corporation rezoned the last piece of agricultural land within the city boundaries. We are running out of suitable land for housing. There is very little land to rezone even though there is a great need for housing. How can Dublin Corporation deal with that issue? That is the difficulty with this section of the Bill.

Mr. Costello: I like the emphasis of the section on trying to achieve a mix of residential and other uses and to avoid undue segregation. What I presume is intended regarding the housing strategies which will be developed is that the local authority, when it has conducted its consultation, will determine how the 20% social housing will be applied in a particular development and it will use anti-segregation measures, for example, so that the entire 20%, if it is as much as that, will not be in one particular pocket and create segregation. I welcome that proposal.

Dr. Henry: Senator Joe Doyle and the other Senators have much more experience of this issue than I as they are members of local authorities, but it is extraordinarily depressing to see the increased urban sprawl in the Dublin area, particularly in north Dublin, which has taken up huge areas of good agricultural land which had been so important to the supply of vegetables, fruit, etc. to the city for generations. One can only hope the national plan will help to take away some of the incredible burden of planning authorities in the Dublin region. As Senator Doyle said, the last bit of agricultural land in the Dublin Corporation area is gone. Where is it supposed to find further land?

Mr. Costello: Senator Joe Doyle supported it. I opposed it.

Mr. J. Doyle: Pelletstown was a very good decision.

Mr. Costello: It was the last piece of agricultural land and it was zoned for development.

Dr. Henry: I look with regret at what is happening in north Dublin.

Ms Ormonde: I would be concerned about this aspect, that there will be a single housing strategy to deal with this problem. How will this single strategy work in regard to local elected representatives, who want to have an input? I agree with the concept that up to 20% will be earmarked for social housing and I would be conscious of the anti-segregation measures which we will have to endorse in our own areas. Senator Joe Doyle pointed out that Dublin Corporation has no land left and that will have an impact in the Fingal or South Dublin county council areas.

Mr. Costello: We will go down to Navan, County Meath.

Ms Ormonde: It is difficult to see how the single housing strategy will work with regard to this problem. It is a thorny problem in the wider issue of planning in which I am very interested.

Mr. Walsh: I welcome the amendment. It is essential that there is an onus on local authorities to provide adequate suitable land for housing. In the past we have tended not to do that. I have some sympathy for Senator Joe Doyle and his colleagues in Dublin who were pilloried for many of the zoning decisions they made when, in fact, inadequate rather than too much zoning was the order of the day.

I also support strongly the anti-segregation measures. There is a real need for social inclusion. I pointed out on Second Stage that in many public housing schemes there is a problem of anti-social behaviour. While the legislation exists, in practice very little effective action has been taken to remedy such anti-social behaviour. I have serious concerns that people who, over a period of 25 or 30 years, will have to pay a very high price to provide their own house - an achievement that everybody aspires to - will end up in a situation where anti-social behaviour in their housing estate is not being tackled. The Minister should insert in the guidelines some sort of provision that a local authority would have to take effective action. Therefore, the onus would be on local government and the Garda authorities to deal with instances of anti-social behaviour.

Mr. Dempsey: A number of points have been raised by Senators Joe Doyle, Ormonde and Henry about what might happen in Dublin. Those Members will be aware of the strategic planning guidelines for the greater Dublin area, which examined the potential growth not just in Dublin city and county but also in the neighbouring counties of Meath, Kildare and Wicklow which were taken as a unit. The aim of the guidelines, which will be reflected in the local development plans, is for a more compact city. Local authorities in Dublin have come up with a common strategy to tackle the housing situation. Within the city area itself, the Bacon report and other reports from various professional bodies have advocated a greater use of brownfield sites and increased housing density as a means of trying to make the city more compact and ensuring that the urban sprawl does not continue. There are ways and means of trying to contain this. It is no longer sustainable to build houses in the Dublin suburbs or in Meath and Kildare at levels of four, five or six houses per acre. It just cannot continue. The strategic planning guidelines indicate the need for integrated measures, not just for housing but also for public transport. This is also catered for in the national development plan.

Housing strategies in Dublin will be matters for members of the city's local authorities. They will make policy decisions and the execution of policy will be a matter for local officials. It is vitally important that local authority members in Dublin and elsewhere should make themselves aware of the necessity for higher density housing and sustainable development throughout the area.

I thank Members for their support for the social integration aspects of the legislation. As they will know, the bodies that have been most vociferous in their objections to the proposals in Part V of the Bill are the builders, developers and auctioneers who do not support the concept of social integration. My answer to that is to look at the alternative. Unfortunately, we have plenty of examples of it around Dublin and other cities. It was a mistake in the past and we should not repeat it in future. I have no doubt there will be some difficulties with this matter. The construction industry and the developers are more than welcome to talk to me about aspects of the legislation and its implementation, including the guidelines, provided they realise that I will not back off the principles in this section of the Bill - of obtaining affordable social housing and social integration.

As Senator Walsh said, most of the anti-social behaviour we have in various parts of Dublin and in other parts of the country has arisen because we did not plan properly for socially integrated housing estates in the past. While there will probably be difficulties, this is the way to get to the root of the problem. There will be a greater enforcement of action against people who are anti-social if there is a better mix. Generally, two or three very anti-social people can intimidate other residents of a housing estate, but with a greater social mix I do not think that would happen. People would be more aware of their rights. I certainly think it will be a huge advance and something we will not see the benefits of for ten, 15 or 20 years.

Ms Ormonde: I welcome the Minister's view on the concept of social integration. It seems that this will be worked out between the developer and the planning authority. That can vary from one area to another, however, depending on the personality of the planner. Will it be up to the developer to decide who will go into the affordable accommodation which is integrated into a housing scheme, or will the local authority decide? It is an important point because the developers would like to be able to make the selection. In the midst of a scheme of nice houses there may be ten affordable ones which will be integrated into the scheme, but it is important to know who will make the decision on allocation. If it is entirely a matter between the developer and the planner there is a weakness because the arrangement could be an ad hoc one, depending upon the personalities involved at a given time.

Mr. Coogan: I fully concur with what the Minister is recommending. In the past we zoned particular areas purely for social housing and what happened was very simple. A handful of people created a disturbance so the area became labelled. As a result, people who had a commitment to the community decided to move out, yet they were the very people who would be able to build up a community spirit in the area. When a label attaches itself to a place it is very hard to shake off.

As regards the percentages involved in social integration, it is hard to categorise but sociological categories exist for those on various incomes, the unemployed or unskilled workers. To what degree would integration occur and how? Houses do not make communities, so when a plan is being developed it is critical to recognise that for true integration to take place it is not enough to mix a certain percentage of social housing with private housing. The people living there will have to be integrated also and that must be taken into account in the plan. Whatever local authorities can do to enhance community spirit and integration should be put into place at the time. I am thinking of the provision of open space and its allocation, so that it is not segregated, with an open space at one end of a social continuum and another space at the other end. The result of that would be that people from one end would be segregated, or would segregate themselves deliberately. That must also be taken into account in the plan.

Dr. Henry: My concerns are similar to those of Senator Coogan. I am not too sympathetic to those who are putting up the developments because we are talking about an upper limit of 20%. No lower limit is being discussed so we could end up with it being one or two houses. That would be my concern. Like Senator Coogan, I would not like to see the sheep on one side of the green space and the goats on the other. Will any attempt be made to ensure there is some sort of integration? The fact that a percentage of a scheme is given over to social housing does not ensure social integration. Arising from what Senator Walsh said, there is a concern on this side of the House about adequate infrastructure. The lack of infrastructure such as schools, shops and so on has led to disaster in many large housing estates. I look forward to the Minister's comments on this.

Mr. Walsh: I support Senator Coogan. Some social housing schemes have set a fine example in including community facilities. What is envisaged in the Bill might contain something similar. It may not be necessary to specify it in the Bill but could be included in guidelines or in the development plans of local authorities. This has been a positive development for social housing.

Mr. Costello: I was struck by what Senator Ormonde had to say. I had presumed that was being dealt with in the Bill and perhaps the Minister will clarify the method of allocating the 20% of social or affordable housing. Will it be done purely in consultation between the planning authority and the builder or will local representatives have a role in it? We are discussing housing strategy but it is not clear how a planning application for an individual parcel of land will be dealt with or how the allocation of the 20% of affordable housing will be determined geographically and in a manner which promotes social inclusion. These matters must be teased out. We want to build up cohesive communities which are not two-tiered. Senator Doyle cited the example of Pelletstown. An action plan was put together and approximately 40 of the100 acres have been set aside for amenities. The development will take into consideration the Royal Canal amenity and the builder has agreed to this. This plan will be put to the local councillors who know the area and can judge whether it would work, rather than being agreed between the planning section and the builder. Can the Minister confirm that this method of agreeing a scheme is covered by this section? I am not sure it is.

Mr. Dempsey: The local authority will decide on the allocation of affordable housing in accordance with the scheme of priorities decided by the members. Members have that reserved function and management will execute it. In drawing up and passing a housing strategy, members will deal with issues raised by Senators regarding the geographic location of affordable housing and so on. General housing strategy will be decided by local authority members based on the information available to the local authority.

The allocation of the houses will be entirely a matter for the local authority, based on the ordinary social housing list and the list for this affordable housing scheme. The local authority and the developer will agree on the precise outcome under the terms of the Bill and having regard to the needs of the housing strategy. It is necessary to have some flexibility with regard to this but any decision made between the builder and the local authority, in an executive fashion, must be done in accordance with the housing strategy. That is why it is important that members who want to ensure there is social integration pay careful attention to what is presented to them for agreement. Management will provide a draft housing strategy and members can have an input into the strategy at that stage. If there is a dispute with regard to the exact land to be transferred it will be referred to An Bord Pleanála for decision. Everything will be done in the context of the general housing strategy.

I accept the points that have been very adequately made by Senator Walsh, Senator Coogan and Senator Costello about social integration and the importance of estate management. Senators Henry and Walsh will recall our long discussion at an earlier stage of the Bill about the necessity for adequate infrastructure. Provision for these facilities can be made in other sections of the Bill and does not need to be specified here. Senator Coogan also asked about the method of allocating the percentage of affordable housing. This matter and the question of estate management are catered for elsewhere in the Bill or in previous legislation. Proper implementation will ensure proper social integration.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 245i:

In page 87, subsection (2), line 41, after "(i)" to insert "or (ii)".

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman: Amendments No. 254j and 254k are related and may be discussed together.

Government amendment No. 254j:

In page 87, subsection (3)(b), line 49, to delete "may at any time" and substitute "shall".

 

Mr. Dempsey: These amendments will ensure that the provisions of the Bill are applied flexibly and that members of local authorities are kept fully informed. They strengthen the provisions and place a duty on the manager to report on the housing strategy where a significant change in the housing market has occurred. This also applies where ministerial regulations change the definitions of eligibility for affordable housing. The provisions will ensure that members are fully informed of all changes.

Ms Ormonde: I support these amendments. In the past I found that local authority members were not informed of what was happening. I welcome these measures to ensure that managers inform members of what is going on.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 254k:

In page 87, subsection (3)(b), line 51, after "market" to insert ", or in the regulations made by the Minister under section 85,".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 81, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 82.

Government amendment No. 254l:

In page 88, subsection (1), line 5, to delete "subsection (10)" and substitute "subsection (12)".

Mr. Dempsey: This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 254t, which we will discuss later, and corrects a reference because of the insertion of the new subsections.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 254m:

In page 88, subsection (2), line 16, to delete "section (81)(1)(a)" and substitute "section (81)(1)(b)".

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Dardis): Amendments Nos. 254o, 254p, and 254q are consequential on amendment No. 254n. Amendment No. 254r is related. All may be taken together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 254n:

In page 88, subsection (3), lines 17 to 23, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following paragraphs:

"(a) An agreement under this section may provide for--

(i) the transfer to the planning authority of the ownership of the land required by the agreement to be reserved for the provision of housing referred to in section 80(4)(a),

(ii) instead of the transfer of land referred to in subparagraph (i), the building and transfer, on completion, to the planning authority, or to persons nominated by the authority in accordance with this Part, of houses of such number and description as may be specified in the agreement at a price determined on the basis of--

(I) the site cost of the houses being calculated as if it was equal to the cost of land transferred to the authority under subparagraph (i), and

(II) the building and attributable development costs as agreed between the authority and the developer, including profit on the costs,

or

(iii) instead of the transfer of land referred to in subparagraph (i), the transfer of such number of fully or partially serviced sites as the agreement may specify to the planning authority, or to persons nominated by the authority in accordance with this Part, at a price determined on the basis of--

(I) the site cost of the sites being calculated as if it was equal to the cost of land transferred to the authority under subparagraph (i) and

(II) the attributable development costs as agreed between the authority and the developer, including profit on the costs,

(b) Where an agreement provides for the transfer of land, houses or sites in accordance with paragraph (a), the houses or sites or the land, whether in one or more parts, shall be identified in the agreement.

(c) In so far as it is known at the time of the agreement, the planning authority shall indicate to the applicant its intention in relation to the provision of housing, including a description of the proposed houses, on the land or sites to be transferred in accordance with paragraph (a) (i) or (iii).

(d) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as requiring the applicant or other person to enter into an agreement to transfer houses or sites in accordance with subparagraphs (ii) or (iii) of paragraph (a) instead of transferring land in accordance with subparagraph (i) of that paragraph.".

Mr. Dempsey: These are a number of very significant amendments to section 82, which is an obviously pivotal section in terms of the operation of Part V and delivering the policy objectives underlying this Part. A new subsection (3) is being inserted to enable the local authority and the developer to make more flexible arrangements for securing the provision of social and/or affordable housing in conjunction with the provision of private housing.

Instead of transferring the land to be reserved for social and affordable housing to the local authority, with the authority contracting for the erection of the houses afterwards, there is now an express provision enabling the authority and the developer to enter an agreement which would result in the developer building the social and affordable houses at an agreed cost and transferring them to the local authority on completion. The cost of these houses would be based on the existing use value of the land or site, but the builder would be entitled to charge the full commercial price on the building and site development costs.

This type of arrangement would, in some circumstances, be advantageous to both the local authority and the developer. The local authority would get the houses much more quickly than otherwise and the whole development could be built in a more coherent and integrated manner.

It also holds out possibilities for builders to work with voluntary housing associations and bodies in putting together proposals that would meet the social and/or affordable housing requirements without a transfer of land to the local authority, but with the land being costed at existing use value. Some developers may prefer to work in this way, especially those who have experience of working with housing associations in Britain.

As an additional element of flexibility, arrangements can also be made for the transfer of fully or partially developed sites to meet the social and affordable housing elements of a development. These could be transferred directly to the local authority or to nominated eligible persons who could then arrange to build for themselves. The builder would be able to charge a commercial price for the development works carried out, which would have to be agreed with the local authority.

However, all these alternative arrangements are entirely at the election of the developer, who always has the option of agreeing a straight transfer of the land. The wording of the section also makes it clear that the essential obligation which the local authority can enforce is the requirement to transfer land.

There is a new provision urging the local authority, where it can do so, to indicate to the developer its intentions in regard to the type of housing it proposes to build on the transferred land. In fairness to the developer, he or she is entitled to know the kind of development a local authority has in mind, so that the impact on the overall development can be assessed.

There is a new provision requiring the local authority to have regard to the views of the developer in relation to the impact of the agreement concerning the transfer of land or other arrangements on the development. This might include, for instance, such aspects as the viability and phasing of the development. It is important to stress, however, that this does not affect the requirement and the principle to transfer land but is, rather, in relation to the identification of the particular piece of land to be transferred.