Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses very much; it is all very interesting. I have a couple of questions. To pick up on Deputy Cian O'Callaghan's point, obviously, one of the challenges is that we are trying to talk about ways of accelerating the use of these technologies but we always end up having a conversation about the need to strengthen building controls, which is a separate day's argument.

In the review of Part B - I presume Mr. O'Toole has seen some of the documents - is there any indication that consideration has been given to some modest changes in the restriction, for example, of timber structures even for medium-sized or medium-height buildings?

Sometimes it takes something like that to change for other things to fall into place. If there were such a change, people would be interested all of a sudden in going beyond the one or two storeys that Mr. O'Connor has talked about. Is there resistance to change?

I have spoken to several building control and fire safety officials and have learned their view is that once what is permissible is changed, the standards have to reflect that. For example, if going above the 10 m, certain types of sprinkler systems, cores or concrete stairwells might be needed. These things are not insurmountable but there will be no change until whatever is deemed permissible under Part B is dealt with. I would be interested in hearing the delegates' thoughts on that.

Mr. O'Connor had the joy of not having to secure planning permission because there was a planning exemption and it was a very particular kind of project. If the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage were to say it would like to determine the viability of the methodology for one or several medium-sized social housing projects – I can think of a few in my constituency – it would be ideal. How do we get what has been done with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth in very specific circumstances mainstreamed into several exemplar social housing projects? That would seem to be the logical first step, even if Part B remains as it is. In Clonburris, for example, there will be a 250-unit social and affordable housing project. It has gone through planning and will be a fantastic site. That presents a significant opportunity to determine whether what we are discussing is doable at the scale in question.

My other question is on the cost. Having regard to social housing, it is a bit generous to say the costs are comparable. Last year's costs for standard new-build social housing projects, whether for social housing investment programme, SHIP, construction or turnkey or Part V construction, are considerably below €3,750 per square metre, where a comparison can be made. Obviously, the figures for apartments and medium-rise buildings are different. I presume the argument is one of scale and that once you start moving beyond the €500,000 or €700,000, you start to see costs more reflective of what local authorities are currently paying. I am interested in whether there has been any comparison with European jurisdictions that are doing both types of construction at scale. Some of the architects and local authority representatives I spoke to in London before Covid, or three years ago, said that they were able even then to do medium-rise, high-density, infill affordable housing developments using cross-laminated timber or similar products and that they were coming in at €1,000 less per square metre. Here, the cost comparison is at an earlier stage, but are costs becoming more competitive elsewhere? If the technologies are of an equally high standard in all areas and the units are quicker to produce, have lower embodied carbon and come in at a comparable cost or cheaper, there are, all of a sudden, so many reasons to proceed. It becomes hard to argue against it.

I am really interested in hearing our guests' thoughts specifically on what regulations we should change to positively incentivise, particularly in the public sector, the use of the new building technologies. What do we need to start phasing out, and over what period? I regularly converse with concrete manufacturers and distributors about our need to set a date by which we will have to have to reduce our overall concrete consumption in new builds by about 80%. Of the 20% remaining, a lot will have to be low carbon. I am really interested in specific ideas on the regulations that need to change and on what reasonable periods of phase-out would be. Unless we proceed by way of regulation and incentivisation, and unless we set a date by which current practices will no longer be possible, as with gas boilers, things will continue to move very slowly. I am very interested in people's thoughts on these questions.