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

First, to respond to the Minister and to Deputy McAuliffe, in my view, this is exactly the place where this discussion should be happening. The reason I say that is because the strategic housing development planning process and the section 28 ministerial guidelines on heights and design standards are a package and it is the interaction of that package that has caused so much conflict and led to so many judicial reviews and decisions by the board being overturned. One cannot treat them separately. I agree with the Minister that we need very careful consideration of these matters but that is what this session is for.

Also, the Minister is incorrect in his characterisation of the first of the amendments. I absolutely believe a Minister should have the authority to bring forward proposals that try to achieve a consistency of planning across local authorities. The difficulty I have with the current legislative framework is the Minister can do that without the vote of the Oireachtas. If a Minister wants to make profound changes to planning law and to significantly restrict the scope of action of local authorities in their city and county development plans, he or she should, of course, have the right to do so but it should be voted on. In fact, I suspect if the former Minister, Eoghan Murphy's mandatory ministerial guidelines had had to go to a vote of the Oireachtas in 2018 we would not necessarily be in the mess that we are in today because there would have been far greater scrutiny of those guidelines, particularly with respect not only to co-living but also to the inferior design standards for built-to-rent. In fact, this is crucial.

I also want to agree with Deputy McAuliffe. Something that frustrates me about the debate about heights is that those of us who opposed former Minister Eoghan Murphy's mandatory ministerial guidelines on the issue are wrongly described as being against height. The Dublin City Council development plan identified 11 separate locations where high-rise buildings were permitted. The issue, however, is that where high-rise buildings are built should be subject to a deliberative, consultative process and a democratic agreement in the city and county development plan. Deputy Higgins knows well, for example, from some of the challenges in the Clonburris strategic development zone, SDZ , that issue of what was the most appropriate height in proximity to the train stations was a very significant matter of public concern. Ultimately, a democratic process by the local authority, and then finally decided by the board, was the way that was done. That is much better than a ministerial guideline and it is important to stress that.

I would also say that much of the debate around heights is misplaced because the real debate is about density. If we want to increase the density of our city, we have to decide the best way to do that. In fact, high-rise buildings are not the optimum way to achieve density. Mid-rise, mixed-use developments achieve far greater levels of density. In fact, you can even get density at low rise. It is concerning that the local authorities still do not have the guidance on densities despite the fact that they are at an advanced stage in the development plan. I do not accept the Minister's responses to the amendments.

I also think Deputy McAuliffe is a little mistaken.

There is nothing in these amendments that would have prevented, or could prevent in the future, the Minister issuing the kind of circular he issued recently about the change of use for student accommodation. That would still be permissible. This is about profound changes to planning law being made by a Minister without a democratic mandate. That should be removed, as should the two sets of guidelines. I will be pressing the amendments.