Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have significant concerns about this in terms of deadweight, the massive tax break for developers and the opportunity costs of this as well. The millions of euro here could be better spent subsidising the construction of affordable homes to buy or rent. There would be no deadweight in that. We would get thousands of additional homes that people could afford. There would be no question of it boosting profits, boosting land prices or anything like that. We would know what we were getting for the cost of this. It would be a much better approach.

I also have huge concerns about the failure to link this with affordability measures, which would be a normal practice in most European countries. If a government was making substantial interventions like this, it would be to drive affordability or to provide more affordable homes. There is no consideration of that. Indeed, there does not seem to have been any assessment around home ownership. Has this been assessed in terms of its impacts on home ownership?

I want to make a point on the distorting effect that this section could have. There is no question that apartments will go in on high-density sites. It is the only thing that is appropriate on high-density sites. On medium-density sites, you could have apartment blocks of three to four storeys or what are effectively ground floor own door apartments. I do not mean apartments per the previous definition, but something apartment-sized with a duplex above. They do not require the same separation distances that apartments blocks do, so you can get in as much housing in with that format design as you can with three-to-four-storey apartment blocks. It would be an excellent design use for medium-density sites. It is quite viable in terms of construction costs and can be more affordable. You can get higher levels of home ownership from it. The ground floor apartments can be a really good design for older people, people with reduced mobility and people with disabilities. People living in these communities long term do not have the same ongoing maintenance costs through management companies’ annual fees because they do not have the shared common areas or lifts that have to be maintained and all of that. It is a really good design solution for those medium-density sites. It is not a runner for higher density sites at all.

This section could have a distorting effect by driving away from that type of design by creating incentives for the traditional apartment block-style development, which will saddle residents with the ongoing costs. Was the potential distorting effect of the section considered? Was the impact on home ownership levels also considered?