Lack of expertise in local authorities is a problem for new housing plan 

There's no evidence that the measures in the Government's new housing plan are sufficient to tackle what is now a full-blown crisis, writes Anthony Leddin, a former member of the Department of Economics at the University of Limerick

The annual average total of 6,572 social housing units is almost half of the new targets of 12,000 per annum. File photo

The Government's new housing plan, Delivering Homes, Building Communities 2025 – 2030, aspires to deliver an average 12,000 new-build social homes per year over a six-year period; that is a total of 72,000 new homes.

Record levels of funding of almost €20 billion will be provided. Over the previous six years €8.1 billion was spent on social housing new-builds. In expenditure terms, the plan is a significant step-up.

But is the plan an example of throwing good money at bad policy? What is in the plan that differentiates it from its predecessors?

There are three parts to the provision of social housing: the output of the local authorities; Approved Housing Bodies (AHB), which are non-profit charitable bodies; and Part V. The latter requires private sector developers to provide the State with a portion of their properties and land for social housing.

Over the last six years the average output from these three sources was 2,485, 2,738 and 1,349 respectively. The annual average total of 6,572 is around half of the new targets of 12,000 per annum.

Any objective analysis leads to the inescapable conclusion that the local authorities have not delivered the required amount of social housing. Despite this, the new plan states that the local authorities are key to solving the problem.

To this end a plethora of new measures are being introduced:

• An emphasis on larger projects; 
• A single stage, rather than a four-stage, approval process;
• A new design and build approach which could reduce delivery times by 18 months; 
• The land acquisition fund has been increased from €239 million to €500 million;
• Measures to reduce the time it takes to re-let vacant properties.

There are no new measures with regards to AHBs other than to strengthen the oversight or resilience of the sector. This is not surprising given the recent disclosures regarding the Peter McVerry Trust.

Most of these measures should have been introduced years ago and, collectively, are unlikely to double the supply of social housing.

'New-build teams'

The big new initiative is the creation of a fully-funded 'new-build team' in each of the 31 local authorities. These new teams are ring-fenced from other local authority activities, including the housing section.

Their mandate is to deliver new social housing, and all expenditure will be reimbursed from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage on a performance pay basis.

However, there are a number of concerns with this new proposal.

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here

First, why separate the new-build team from the original housing department? Why not amalgamate the two and make the enlarged department independent of the local authorities’ other activities?

The current problem with housing departments is that they do not employ qualified, skilled staff with the expertise to efficiently provide, manage and maintain social housing.

Issues arose when funding was reduced after the crash of 2007 and retiring or departing housing staff were not replaced. When funding was subsequentially restored, many local authorities found it difficult to recruit the necessary skilled professionals.

Also, a generalist administrative staffing model is employed which means that staff transfer between different departments during their careers. This makes it difficult for staff to develop the necessary expertise.

Furthermore, funds can be diverted between the various local authority departments and this can lead to a financial shortfall in the housing section. These issues can, however, be addressed within an enlarged housing department.

Second, it is very likely that staff in the housing department will transfer to the new-build team in anticipation of higher pay or promotion. 

Anthony Leddin: 'Why not aim for something more ambitious and take the first tentative steps towards a State-owned national construction company geared specifically towards social housing? '

This will undermine the housing department's ability to achieve their housing targets which are still in place. Other than a name-and-shame policy there are no penalties for not achieving the targets.

Third, it makes little sense to have 31 New Build Teams with little or no link-up. There should be an overall co-ordinating body that ensures the teams are digitally integrated and costs are minimised through specialisation and economies of scale.

Fourth, the local authorities and the AHBs franchise out all housing developments to private sector developers at prices that are 5-10% more expensive than in the private sector.  

Why not aim for something more ambitious and take the first tentative steps towards a State-owned national construction company geared specifically towards social housing? 

There are endless positive possibilities including design awards for architecture and engineering, apprenticeship and craft schemes. Already AI technology can produce environmentally sustainable, low-cost, housing units the installation of which requires new specialized skill sets.

At the end of 2024 there were 60,000 households on social housing waiting lists and an additional 87,000 households having their rents subsidized by the State. 

Against a backdrop of rapidly rising population, demand for social housing will continue to surge. It is not at all evident that the measures in the new housing plan are sufficient to tackle what is now a full-blown crisis.

• Anthony Leddin is a former member of the Department of Economics, University of Limerick