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

On costs, the answer depends on the type of housing. If a private developer has bought private land then increasing the overall floor space will cost but that can be mitigated. For social housing, there should not be a significant extra cost in this instance. For example, in most cases social housing, where it is developed directly by a local authority, is on land that has an historic value rather than a market value. So 10% does not increase the overall development cost by 10% and is only a relatively marginal increase. Moreover, local authorities can recoup those costs in different ways.

If I understood Ms O'Reilly correctly, the problem is the minimum floor sizes within the social housing standards of the Department clearly need to change. Whether there is an extra cost for that is a secondary issue and I suspect that the cost would not be that significant but that depends on the project.

Earlier I asked Ms Lally and Ms Carthy to talk us through these things a little more. Please do not assume that we know anything about any of these things and give us an idiot's guide to liveability. I ask for that because it is important that we put on the record what we exclude people from doing by having the restrictive Part M. In everyday terms, if the witnesses do not mind, please talk us through some of those things.

Earlier Dr. Hartney made a good point and I ask both Ms Lally and Dr. Hartney to clarify the following. Universal design is a little like affordable housing. I mean everybody thinks that they know what it means yet everybody talks about something else. At the end of this meeting ,it would be useful if witnesses clarified what is meant by the various phrases that we have talked about. For example, Part M, which is the minimum standards, and the universal design, UD+ and UD++ standards. Please assume that we are idiots and explain what these terms mean because it is important that we understand.

Ms Lally mentioned Britain. How do Part M, UD, UD+ and UD++ standards relate to what happens in Britain? She said that the UK's equivalent to Part M has three categories: visitable dwellings; properties that are easier to adapt; and liveable dwellings. I presume that if the Minister were to announce a review of Part M, what the witnesses really want is a Part M with multiple parts. I mean that there would be a minimum standard for certain types of properties and higher standards for other types of properties. I ask the witnesses to tell us what they would like to see at the end of the review, and not just get a review.

I think that in addition to a review of Part M we want an addition made to the design manual for quality housing that includes a chapter setting out a bunch of designs. I say that because I understand that the Housing Agency has some research funding at the minute and it is working with some Traveller organisations to consider standardised designs for culturally appropriate Traveller-specific accommodation to be developed for local authorities. I presume that one of the things we want to come out of the review is not just a revision of Part M, we want every local authority manager to have a manual that lists five, ten, 12 or 15 types of UD, UD+ and UD++ standards and acts as a design tool. I invite the witnesses to tell us what recommendations they would like us to put in our report. I suggest that Ms Carthy, Ms Lally and Dr. Hartney treat me like an idiot but do so for the benefit of the committee and explain and outline.