It was hailed as one of the most socially progressive policies when it was unveiled more than a decade ago.
To address years of ghettoised social housing estates, changes to planning laws held the promise of helping to create stable and socially integrated communities.
Up to 20 per cent of new developments would be set aside for social or affordable housing, as is the case in many European countries.
But Part V of the Planning Act never really delivered. Instead, developers were able to buy their way out of their obligations or swap land in lieu of social housing.
Housing list grew
This amendment to the legislation by former minister for the environment Martin Cullen came on foot of heavy lobbying by the construction industry.
The results speak for themselves. Between 2002 and 2011, some 400,000 homes were built in new housing developments as the property boom was in full flow. In theory, Part V should have delivered up to 20 per cent – or 80,000 – social or affordable homes. In practice, it produced just over 15,000, or 3.5 per cent.
"It is one of the biggest mistakes in social policy of the past decade or so," says Ned Brennan of the Respond! voluntary housing association which has experience of developing socially mixed communities. "Housing waiting lists increased dramatically during that time."
The fear that social housing might depress property prices was one reason why the legislation didn’t work.
Developers also found the bureaucratic world of local authorities a nightmare to deal with.
The revised planning laws to be announced today are likely to close loopholes that allowed exchanging money or land in lieu of social housing. Only a close reading of the legislation will show if this time there really are no opt-outs.
Prices not affected
If successful, the law once again may hold the promise of delivering where the previous one failed and help to meet the needs of more vulnerable people.
Simon Brooke of Clúid, a voluntary housing association, has no doubt that mixed tenure developments will benefit wider society. “It’s an urban myth that some social housing in a new development lowers the value of other properties,” he says. “There’s no evidence for it. In these developments, all homes look the same. And when residents see that social tenants don’t have two heads and don’t have all-night parties every night, then there won’t be an issue.”
