The Attorney General told the Supreme Court yesterday that increases in the cost of housing had led to a situation where home ownership was beyond the reach of many on reasonable incomes, and the cost of land to local authorities was prohibitive.
The Constitution did not demand that a local authority pay compensation equal to full market value for the transfer to it of land or sites or houses needed to meet social and affordable housing requirements, Mr Michael McDowell SC, argued.
He was defending the constitutionality of Part V of the Planning and Development Bill, 1999, which was referred to the court by the President, Mrs McAleese. The court has engaged lawyers to argue for and against the constitutionality of the Bill.
Part V deals with the transfer to a planning authority of land required for social and affordable housing purposes. It provides for the transfer of up to 20 per cent of land with permission for housing development.
The procedure for transfer of lands to a planning authority is triggered by any future application for planning permission for houses. One of the principal arguments against Part V is a claim that the compensation provisions are inadequate.
Mr McDowell, with Mr Donal O'Donnell SC and Mr Bryan Murray, form the team arguing in favour of the constitutionality of Part V.
He said the legislation was intended to secure a legitimate objective in a rational manner and interfered with the rights of landowners only to the extent necessary to achieve that objective. It provided for fair and adequate compensation for any such interference with property rights.
The Constitution not only permitted, but might require, a limitation on the exercise of property rights when such limitation was demanded by the exigencies of the common good and principles of social justice.
It was central to the theory on which Part V was based that the Constitution, while requiring that private property be respected as an essential stabilising element in society, nevertheless did not require or indeed permit the untrammelled exercise of property rights for private gain to the detriment of the general community interest.
In written submissions, the Attorney General contends there has been an increasing net demand for social housing because of an increased population and changes in society which had happened at a time when the high cost of land meant there was a decreasing stock of land for local authorities to acquire.
Another major problem was the rapid increase in the cost of housing which had put first homes out of the reach of people who in previous years would have become home-owners. Such people needed affordable housing to bridge the gap between what they could afford and what was available on the market. The hearing continues today.