Mr. Philip Jones:

I would have them sufficiently narrow that everyone knows what they cannot do. In a greenfield situation you do not want someone to say they want a two-storey, semi-detached, own-door house when you are trying to get higher densities for good reasons but equally if you have a reasonable area you do not want ten- to 15-storey apartment blocks when low-rise medium density of six- and seven-storey buildings work better for the people who are going to live there. You cannot be so prescriptive as to design but you have to be clear so that when the designers go in, they know what they are not allowed to do and then the public knows when they see the scheme if something is clearly not in accordance with it, and there are no out clauses. One of the problems with any legislation involving money is that you do not build in loopholes. You try to close the loopholes before you do the legislation. As the members here know, every year the Oireachtas has a Finance Act and Revenue comes up with a few more words to plug the loopholes that the clever tax accountants have found. I would say that in drafting this legislation, the Houses should try to word it in such a way that there are no loopholes, as far as you can see, and therefore there are no unintended consequences. There may be intended consequences but you try to plug the loopholes as much as possible. Vague wording like "building envelopes" can mean anything to anybody. You need to be clear.

I take the Senator's point that there is a range. That can be a numerical range or it could be floor area. Someone might say they want 2,000 m2 on this block. They might be told "Sorry, the SDZ says they are getting 1,500 m2, so no". Once it is clear then everybody knows. That is the best way of dealing with it. In the North Quays there was much more than zonings. There were drawings and everything.