Mr. Michael Stanley:

The only thing I would add echoes some of Mr. O'Gorman's points. Maybe it is the best way to understand it. Time is important to a development but what that affects is the total amount of capital that needs to be invested for one type of product versus the other. If any home builder is building a traditional low-density scheme, the old saying goes that you can build a third of the street and sell it. The peak working capital requirement for a low-density housing scheme can be as low as €10 million or €15 million. That is the amount you have to invest into the ground before you get to the first completed home. You hand the keys over the first purchaser, which recoups your investment. Apartments are dramatically different. Peak working capital for mid-sized and large apartment schemes can be between €80 million and €100 million just for one apartment development. This echoes what the Housing Alliance is talking about. The capital requirement to deliver apartments is so much larger.

Regarding our planning system and judicial reviews, there is a lot of misunderstanding about who drives and decides what we apply for as an industry. We do not. We have no say whatsoever in the density per hectare we put into our planning applications. That is dictated by the national development plan implemented by local authorities. Regarding a piece of land we own, and this can change based on the national planning framework or whatever central policy is adjusted or refined, we must build apartments because the density target is set.

If is lower, we can build houses. Today, it is extraordinary when we look at the available land that is currently zoned to build on, about 85% of it sits in that medium to high-density bracket. There is a misunderstanding about who dictates the unit typology and the type of homes we build. It is not like we have a choice. Funding is interconnected with delivery, delivery cost and that quantum of funding that is needed to build apartment schemes.