Debate contribution: Housebuilding on Public Land

Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on 31 March 2025.

MLA

Mr Mark Durkan

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

31 March 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Housebuilding on Public Land

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4871579

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Housing is a fundamental right. It is the foundation on which people build their lives, communities and futures, yet thousands of families across Northern Ireland remain in desperate need of a home while publicly owned land lies idle. The motion provides a common-sense solution that will help to tackle our housing crisis head-on. A public land agency would ensure that publicly owned land was strategically identified and used efficiently to deliver much-needed social and affordable homes, rather than gathering dust and growing weeds at a huge cost to the taxpayer and a huge opportunity cost to the Executive. The Department for Communities has set an ambitious target of delivering at least 33,000 social homes under the housing supply strategy, yet social housing build targets are missed constantly. With just 7,000 social homes built in the past five years, there is no realistic path to achieving 33,000 over the next 15 years without proper funding and fresh ideas. The SDLP's recently published 'Building Firm Foundations' outlines some practical solutions, such as a public land agency to make better use of public land. It is baffling and disappointing that the parties in power fail to engage in that type of thinking. That said, we welcome the introduction of the intermediate rent model as a step in the right direction and exactly the kind of innovative thinking that we need to see more of. The funding that was recently allocated to co-ownership is another positive, but we need there to be more. Our figures show that between 68,000 and 136,000 homes could be built if we used just 10% to 20% of public land, of which we have 11,000 hectares at our disposal. That figure does not include DAERA land, given that much of that is forestry and unusable or unsuitable for housing, nor does it include council-owned land. We need to ensure that land is suitable for development, but those numbers are not pie in the sky; they are based on a pragmatic assessment of the land at our disposal in consultation with the housing and construction sectors. Even in a more modest scenario in which we built 50% of new and social housing stock, 1,300 homes could be delivered each year using public land alone. That is a transformative opportunity to build more homes, faster and more cheaply. As I said, that does not even include land owned by councils: the estimate that we are giving for the total land is conservative. Currently, land acquisition typically accounts for around 30% of the cost of building social housing. If we can cut out that cost, the money that we have for housing could go 30% further and the number of houses that we build on that land could be 30% more. That is hundreds of millions of pounds of public money that could be reinvested in construction rather than spent on competing in a broken market. Making strategic use of public land could be a game changer, delivering better value for public money and ensuring that more homes are built where they are needed. Currently, however, no single body is responsible for coordinating the use of public land to meet housing need. While Land and Property Services (LPS) tracks ownership, it does not play any sort of proactive role in ensuring that land is used to deliver homes, and that is where our proposal for a public land agency comes in. A public land agency would act as a central coordinating body, identifying viable land, working across Departments and partnering with housing associations and developers to deliver homes at scale. It would take a delivery-focused approach, ensuring that our land is used in a way that maximises public benefit. Let us be clear: this is not about just creating another layer of bureaucracy. The Land Development Agency in the Republic of Ireland provides a useful benchmark for set-up costs. Excluding borrowing powers, we estimate those costs at around €3 million a year, which would be money well spent, considering what we currently spend on maintaining disused land and empty buildings. That brings me to another point. Over the past three years alone, Departments have spent over £5 million on maintaining empty land and buildings. Through Assembly questions for written answer that I submitted to every Department, it has come to light that an abandoned nuclear bunker in Ballymena has cost the Executive over £300,000 in maintenance in that three-year period. That facility, which was constructed during the Cold War era, has remained unused for decades, yet it has become a black hole for public funds. That is just one example of many. That is a scandalous waste of resources, particularly at a time when the number of families facing homelessness has skyrocketed. I do not propose that we use the bunker for social housing, although it might be an area of high demand, given the current global climate. However, we need and will seek clarity from TEO on what its intentions are in keeping the bunker and why it has spent so much money on it. I will provide some context. In 2023-24, when the Executive expressed concern over a dire Budget that left them unable to allocate one penny to homelessness prevention, there appeared to be enough in the coffers to spend nearly a quarter of a million pounds of public funds on maintaining an underground bunker. It appears that the Executive are more worried about preparing for an apocalypse that, we hope, may never arrive than helping people to face the crises that they have to live through every day. Such expenditure highlights the urgent need for a public land agency to ensure that public assets are repurposed effectively or disposed of responsibly, rather than allowing them to become financial liabilities. It is a gross misallocation of resources at a time when housing lists are growing, families are struggling and homelessness remains on the rise. We cannot afford to keep throwing money into maintaining derelict buildings while people sleep in cars, on sofas or in overcrowded and completely unsuitable temporary accommodation. Last year alone, as we covered — an Audit Office report was published last week — £39 million was spent on temporary emergency accommodation, yet the Executive have struggled to find funding for social housing. Maybe — just maybe — if we spent money more strategically and wisely, we could get out of that costly cycle. I welcome the Housing Executive's announcement last week that it intends to build 600 units specifically for temporary housing. What better way to deliver on that ambition than by utilising public land to do so, ensuring that we all get a bigger bang for our buck? As a constructive Opposition, the SDLP is committed to tackling the housing emergency and delivering real change. We were elected to provide firm foundations for our constituents and communities, and I have faith that everyone here today shares that goal. Right now, we have a real opportunity to make a real difference. By maximising the use of public land, we can cut through the bureaucracy, speed up housebuilding and meet housing supply targets. The motion is about solutions. We are often asked what our solutions are: here is just one. It is not about excuses; it is about using the assets that we already have to deliver for people, communities and our economy. A home is more than just bricks and mortar; it is the foundation of security, stability and opportunity. Housing is the foundation on which my party, the SDLP, was built, and it is why we stand here today. Let us all work together to ensure that people have the opportunity to build from that same foundation. I commend the motion.

1,297 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:15 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification