Richard Boyd Barrett: Lehigh cash delivered no affordable homes

I also want to ask about the infrastructure fund, because the infrastructure fund is going to get 200 million is a follow-on from Lehigh, but some commitments under Lehigh are going to continue. Now, I believe this is an absolute scandal if my area is anything to go by, because 13 million in our case went into Cherrywood, of Lehigh funding. When Lehigh was first introduced, the first set of conditions around Lehigh funding, it was to be that in any development funded by Lehigh, 40% of the housing had to be affordable. You might remind me in that first circular what affordable was, was it affordable purchase or cost rental or whatever. Within weeks at the time, that was taken out. And then it became unclear as to what the affordable conditionality around Lehigh was going to be. But there was supposed to be some, at least equal to the amount of money that the state was putting in to the infrastructure, spread across the development. So there would be some discount on the market. Now you are telling us, because in Cherrywood that did not happen either, Cherrywood is the biggest residential development in the country, not a single affordable house for the 13 million of Lehigh funding, and now you are telling us that we are going to continue to give 200 million a year and there is no conditionality. So, what happened to the conditionality on affordable housing and how could it have been let go? Are you aware of this? That we still haven't got a single affordable house for the... People need to understand the scandal of this, because the developers who got the benefit of that money have made a fortune, an absolute fortune. They are flogging houses up there at €600,000 and €700,000. They flipped properties based on the infrastructural investment that has been put in by the public. Right? I mean, some estimates, Mel Relin said to me one day he reckoned that before they built anything in Cherrywood, Hines had made a profit. So, is there, like, are you serious that we are just going to continue this infrastructural funding to produce houses that are at €600,000 and €700,000 and that we are not even going to do anything to enforce the previous conditionality that did attach to these large public investments? I mean, it is just beggar's belief. I mean, what the hell use is building houses that cost €600,000 and €700,000? It is of very little use to the people I am dealing with. I mean, who can afford them? So, I just really like to know if you have any comments on that? Are you serious that that is the policy? Because it is shocking. You might also just comment, you know, given that your whole mantra is if we drive up supply, eventually that will deal with price being so high, being excessively high. We have just had the Department of Finance come in here talking about Future 40 and in the paper they produced they said supply is not going to meet demand until the end of the 2030s. Until the end of the 2030s. Now, people should let that sink into their head what that means. Because there is no way that prices can come down until supply reaches demand, even if you believe in that market dogma. So what we are being told is, realistically, that we are going to have demand far outstripping the supply that is available until the end of the 2030s, according to the Department of Finance. Right, I mean, does that concern the Minister? Is that, you know, because those are the objections we have just heard from the Department of Finance. Last question I have, sports infrastructure, there are big demands when we are doing all this residential development for sports infrastructure. Is there any additional money for sports and community infrastructure? Again, very, very lacking in places like Cherrywood, let me tell you. But I asked a question to your department and I did not get an answer about whether you have been asked for money, because there are rumours circulating that a consortium of private investors are looking for between 60 and 80 million for an ice hockey arena and convention centre in Cherrywood, and we are looking for money off the government. Now, I asked a question of your department whether there have been any requests from that money and I got an answer back saying we are trying to gather up the information, but that is a lot of money. So I am just wondering, does it figure anywhere here? Is there any consideration being given to the department of the department to give out money for these private developers who are building, are proposing to build an ice hockey arena? Not something that there has been a big demand for. Well, sports infrastructure would be in there, wouldn't it? It would be, not just through the local authorities, if there was any big capital investment. I might address some of those questions. Just in relation to future 40 and the Department of Finance projections, that is based on a no-change scenario and we will make significant changes in terms of how we deliver housing and part of it, for example, will be increasing the level of zoning and I will ask Minister Cummins maybe to address the zoning in a second in relation to it. The old IHALF was, I think there was only something like 16 of those projects that were completed and there was an affordability element to that, but there was no affordable purchase at the time, there was no cost rental at the time, there was no critical cities at the time, and they ended up being very complicated and I think that is why they were not utilised as much as they could have been. The Housing Activation Office Fund is about funding localised critical infrastructure that can be delivered at speed to maximise housing delivery across the country. There is no sports element to it, so I am not aware of any application in relation to the Hockey Stadium Department of Housing. It doesn't mean that someone hasn't sent in a letter, we won't be funding it, so I probably never, if they did, never made it up to myself for good reason in relation to it. In relation to the Housing Activation Office, the only thing outside of, if you like, critical infrastructure is that there may be some funding in it to help develop a park area where it is part of the local authority county development plan, for example, to activate the housing, but even then that is even starting to stray away from the critical infrastructure. I will ask Minister Cummins just to address around the zoning and how, through future 40, we are going to change those projections through the changes that we are bringing. So, obviously, under Section 28 guidance that were issued last July, we have asked every local authority in the country to vary their development plan. It is true to say that some local authorities have acted at different speeds, to put it mildly, in relation to how they have handled that variation process. Both Minister Brown and I issued a reminder letter, I suppose, prior to Christmas, and we issued further correspondence to all CEOs last Friday. It is critical that we have significant zoning of land to enable us to be able to achieve our housing targets. We come into the Dáil and into these committees every single day of the week and everyone wants more housing, but in order to have that, you have to have the zoned land and you have to have the critical services put in place. That is what Minister Brown is doing with the Housing Infrastructure Fund. Notwithstanding some of the comments that you have made in relation to the Lie half, I have seen positive outturn out of Lie half. In my own county in Watford, we have over 180 affordable purchase units that have been delivered off that Lie half road that would not be there if it was not for the funding that was put in place. Okay, well, in the little bit of time, we have not had a single one for £13 million. Not a single affordable house in Cherrywood, right? And now you are telling us you are dropping the affordability condition of giving out that money. And what we are getting in Dublin, I don't know about Waterford, but in Dublin, we are getting houses delivered on sites like that for €600,000 and €700,000. Now, I honestly don't know what use that is to ordinary working people, because they are not affordable by ordinary workers. Would you agree there is a bit of a problem that should be rectified? If we are putting millions into infrastructure and sites like that, and that is what is delivered, apart from the 10% social that we get, the rest of it is coming in at prices of £600,000 and £700,000. Is that a problem, do you think? Because I certainly think it is a problem. We need all forms of housing, Deputy. We need social, affordable and private homes. It is not one tenure type that is going to address the housing challenges that we have. The majority for purchase housing is coming in at £600,000 and £700,000 and you think that is okay? Did I say that, Deputy? You are putting words in my mouth. I said we need all forms of housing in this state and I think everyone, with any good reason, would acknowledge that.