Ms Mary Hughes:

Deputy Stanley raised a number of issues and I will try to go through them. The first concerned a regulator's office. The IPI wholeheartedly supports the establishment of a regulator and fundamentally believes such a regulator should be independent. If a decision is taken that the regulator would not be independent, there should be complete transparency in the direction and processes under which the regulator would function. It is very important that we have a transparent and credible planning system, and we see the establishment of the office of the planning regulator as a fundamental catalyst in enhancing public confidence in the planning system. The office of the regulator should have and fulfil a research function and role. The housing crisis emanating today indicates a lack of joined-up thinking and research when it comes to housing provision supply and demand, and the regulator's office would also fulfil that important function.

My colleagues will address the issues relating to the national spatial scheme and rural housing, so I will skip to the issue of apartment sizes. The IPI believes we need quality developments and that we cannot compromise standards or afford to go back to the apartment sizes and the lack of quality in developments prevalent in the 1990s. This is exemplified by the shoebox apartments constructed, particularly under the urban renewal schemes in the 1990s. The Department has published minimum apartment sizes which are guidelines to which all local authorities have regard and which they implement. Recently, the media and lobbyists have called for a reduction in those standards. If there is one message we would like to get across today, it is that quality development is of the utmost importance. There is a need for a variety of house types and apartment sizes and it is very important that we ultimately have quality development that can be flexible not only to meet current needs but those which may arise in future.

Mr. Henk van der Kamp will address the other issues.