Mr. John O'Mahony:

The whole idea about not having a big sign saying, "I am an old person living here", is very interesting. That whole point about mixed community is really critical. I refer to one of the areas we have been looking at, particularly since apartments are moving outside the range of affordability. The studies of the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland, SCSI, and of Department have shown that it is proving very difficult to try to bring traditional apartments - core, served apartments - down to a level where they fall within the affordability range so we have been looking at is other models. When one looks at density, currently there are densities that are as low as 20 to 25 per hectare, the old traditional eight to ten to the acre jobs. Then one has the 150, the typical apartment. What we have been working on is a model that bridges that and Ms Neary referred to this a few times and is aware of this.

What we have been doing is building up models of walk-up apartments which are three or four storeys high that effectively treble the traditional density; that provide one and two bed apartments and surface car parking; that minimise the amount of service and maintained elements that one needs; and that minimises the amount of managed space so all the while trying to keep it as efficient, as easy and as economical to build as is possible. We have been pricing those models and we find that they fall right into the affordability level.

There is very good scheme, which was carried out in 2004 and which would need adapted. To me it was the perfect model of how one uses public land and private developers to deliver an affordable model of housing. It was carried out in Ballyfermot on Dublin City Council land. There was a competition, the rules of which were: to provide affordable housing at the same cost as traditional housing and apartments, with no underground parking and surface parking only; to use modern methods of construction; to be built as quickly as possible; to cover as wide a need as possible; to be sold within the community at a fixed price which would be less than the market; that there would be a clawback; that no developers or investors would be allowed to buy into the scheme; and that the developer would build it and give back 30% as social housing. One effectively had 30% social housing, and the balance was affordable housing. This model worked and 375 units were completed. The density was close to 95 per hectare. It was sold out, although there was a high demand at the time. The developer made a profit, the council got its housing back in return, and it was an exceptionally successful scheme.

We are again seeing that as a model for a public private partnerships, PPP, delivery system. Unfortunately, what we find is that local authorities are really well-intentioned but delivery is highly bureaucratic and even housing architects in our local authorities are tearing their hair out because the delivery programmes are so slow. We could mix and develop both, bring in the efficiencies of the private sector and deliver on the public sector land bank. It would not have to be sold on either in that it could be leased on. Why give it up if one can come up with a leasing model that allows one to get a long-term value back on one's land while delivering affordable housing?

We have asked for the system we are currently looking at to be priced. We are doing this with one of the large contracting companies. The idea we are trying to fix is that one of these properties can be built for the same price as a domestic house. It works. We have got the prices back. We are looking to develop that. We are looking at models like new suburbs with no traditional housing that start with the intermediate model of housing before going to the higher densities. Given that we have 900,000 family houses, as has been mentioned, why should we be building more?

One of the difficulties we have is in convincing the private market to stop building houses. It is easy for financial institutions to provide short-term funding for developments that are sold in phases because they get their money back quickly, and Bob's your uncle. The problem is how to convince them that there is a market for other types of property. It is starting to happen. I know of a developer who was building duplexes as an add-on because he had to achieve a certain density. In order to get up to the minimum density, he threw in a few duplexes. The duplexes walked out the door so quickly that his mind was changed. It is a case of changing attitudes. One bedroom and two bedroom properties satisfy both markets. They satisfy first-time house buyers and they also satisfy the independent living requirements.

I want to make the point that this is about places as well as homes. We have spoken about how towns, villages and suburbs can be adapted. Suburbs need to be densified. Local authorities have to identify where that densification will take place. Now that we have the 2040 framework plan, the next thing is to look at where we densify and how we achieve densification. It is like a softening-up process. People are going to have to accept densification. It is a question of where it is going to happen. Local authorities can start looking at that now. They can start the process of convincing local populations of what those changes are going to have to be.

I would like to explain the idea behind the urban design toolkit that is being developed by the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland. The toolkit will be offered as an award within the Tidy Towns competition to a town that wants to participate. Architects will engage with particular villages and towns that will be selected to develop plans for how to improve the public realm by adapting it for older people, etc. The aim of this approach is to start to convince people that design is not just about the house one lives in - it is also about the place one lives in. That toolkit is going to be available to everybody. It will probably be available this summer.