Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We support this Bill and the dissolution of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA. It was established in 1997 to be the lead driver of regeneration in the Dublin docklands area but we acknowledge that major mistakes were made by the body, most significantly in the Irish Glass Bottle site fiasco. Nevertheless, the decision to designate the 66 ha in the docklands area as a special planning zone has, overall, been a success. This area has become part of the central business district in Dublin city and an engine of growth for the greater Dublin area. The docklands area has much development potential for commercial and residential development but this remains the case, many would say, due to the failures of the Government; the residential units are not being built at the rate required to meet the massive demand for housing in core city centre areas. The special planning powers for the docklands must be backed up by real action by the Government to revitalise construction levels.

As I stated, we welcome the dissolution of the DDDA but its role in resolving fire safety issues at the Longboat Quay complex has to be subsumed by Dublin City Council. We believe that until an agreement can be reached between residents and the DDDA, and until such time as costs can be recouped from the receivership process, Dublin City Council should meet the up-front expenses required to keep the residents in their homes. That would include the cost of remedial works. We welcome that, as under the DDDA, fast-track planning powers are being retained for the docklands, which will allow the council to grant development permission that cannot be appealed to An Bord Pleanála. Much potential remains in this strategic zone and up to 2,600 new homes and 350,000 sq m of commercial space could be built. It is essential that the area can be developed further as an engine of growth for the city as a whole.

There is much scope for residential development within the docklands zone but in many ways the area is symptomatic of wider issues in the private construction and rental markets in Dublin city. Despite the massive supply problem and out of control rental market, figures indicate that house and apartment completions continue to stall this year. There is development potential for over 2,600 housing units in the area but despite the attractiveness of the docklands area, residential development appears to be stalled. Completions for each of the four Dublin local authorities from January to March this year are very low and nowhere near what is required. Only 652 houses were completed in Dublin for the first three months of 2015, and based on these levels, the greater Dublin area may only have 2,600 new houses completed this year, compared with 2,591 in 2014. There has been no increase and it is likely there will be none.

This issue exists while there is an overall requirement for 20,000 residential units per year, with an immediate need - this year alone - for 6,000 units in Dublin. We must ask why there is an absence of new housing construction across the city despite the massive unmet housing demand. The actual level of house building is much lower than the Government's completion figures suggest. The figures used by many Government sources in recent weeks and months, for example, relate to ESB connections but these do not automatically correlate with new house completions. The difference must be realised and publicised in order to let people know that real need is not being met.

In 2014 there were only 8,700 new homes built but the Housing Agency estimates that at least 16,000 new homes are required for each year for the next four years specifically. The lack of supply in Dublin means that despite rent increases of more than 11% in Dublin this year, next year may well be much worse. With less than 30% of current demand for new homes being achieved in 2015, it is most likely the rent increases will be even greater next year. It is unfortunate that there appears to be no policy to deal with this growing housing crisis and what I have outlined has exacerbated the housing supply issue.

We acknowledge that a strong regulatory structure is vital to ensuring high quality home building across the country. The examples of Priory Hall, Longboat Quay and Milford Manor are a sharp reminder of this. However, the new framework approved by the Government and passed earlier this year is convoluted, difficult to manage, costly and it may not be fit for purpose. The Minister introduced new fire safety regulations in March 2014 but this is just another system of self-regulation that will not provide enough protection against negligent developers. There may be a greater recourse to liability under the assigned certifier as contained in that system, but it is still a self-regulated regime, whereby the professional issuing the fire safety certificate is employed directly by the developer. This is a clear conflict of interest but the bar for sanction and disqualification has deliberately been set very high, with removal from a professional register being a very remote possibility for members only in the event of gross misconduct. We have learned through bitter experience, unfortunately, that self-regulation of fire regulations does not work. We firmly believe that State authorities must check every new development to ensure they are fire-safe.

Many would argue that there is a process within existing legislation and local authority powers for enforcement offices in the planning departments. It is my contention that these are resourced with neither the manpower nor funds to be the regulatory force they can be. Failure to have adequately funded or resourced these offices has left us in a position where that avenue cannot be used to nip much of this in the bud before it becomes a real issue.

The new inspection regime has done nothing to increase public safety. It has massively increased the cost of building new homes for those who employ these certifiers, whose qualification levels are such that they can charge the sort of amounts that are being bandied about. I know that process is under review. Perhaps this offers an opportunity to address the wider issue regarding the regulatory process that needs to be put in place, whether it is an independent authority, with the requisite jurisdiction, or local authorities, with sufficient funds, resources and manpower in the enforcement offices to allow them to carry out that duty.

It is completely unacceptable that residents of the Longboat Quay apartments would be expected to foot the bill for making their homes safe. These problems are through no fault of those homeowners who trusted that the building had passed inspection and, therefore, was safe and habitable. However, as has been stated both inside and outside the House in recent weeks - particularly as many Members have come into direct contact with those affected - the residents are terrified that they will be thrown out on the street on the orders of Dublin Fire Brigade. We believe, as I said earlier, that Dublin City Council, while not assuming ultimate liability - although it must be noted that the developer is now in liquidation - cannot allow a situation to develop where these homeowners will be forced to pick up the tab. I know questions must be answered with regard to who bears responsibility but, as I said earlier, until an agreement can be made between the residents and the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, DDDA, and the cost can be recouped from the receivership process. Dublin City Council, as the lead authority which is subsuming the powers of the DDDA, should meet upfront expenses required to keep the residents in their homes, including the cost of remedial works, which, we are informed, will be in the region of €4 million.

While the refurbishment of Priory Hall was expensive at €10 million, close to €2 million of that was spent on emergency accommodation for residents while the work was being carried out. The sooner Dublin City Council decides to fund those remedial works in Longboat Quay, the less, if anything, will be spent on emergency accommodation for residents. We propose the establishment of a national building inspectorate, as opposed to the continuation of the assigned certifier system, which would examine at least 40% of the buildings under construction, and a system of licensing or registration for builders. Information on builders should be shared among the relevant authorities, with full prosecution of any designers or contractors who are negligent in their duties. A building inspectorate, much like the NCT system, with dedicated specialist staff and standardised systems, monitored by local authorities, would be more cost-effective, easier to quality control, and, ultimately, safer, than the assigned certifier system we have retained under the new regime as initiated in March 2014.

We debated the supply issue in this House previously. We hope to do so again in the very near future in order that we might address the deficiencies we perceive in the Government's policy on this. I call on the Minister of State to use his influence to facilitate such a debate, so that I and other Members can be afforded the opportunity to put forward meaningful presentations and costed, constructive suggestions, which might meet the immediacy of the crisis in Dublin and beyond.

For the purpose of the Second Stage debate on the Bill before the House, we support the Government's intention to dissolve the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and for its functions to be transferred to Dublin City Council. There are pressing issues for which there is great responsibility and we would use this forum to ensure that the immediate issues regarding Longboat Quay are addressed properly and effectively. I heard the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Taoiseach, when discussing the housing crisis in recent months, saying that there is no issue in respect of funding to meet the demands of reinstating homes and local authority dwellings. While I have contradicted that at times, I acknowledge the good intentions and the good faith of the Government in this regard and I hope the same good faith and intention can be impressed upon Dublin City Council to make the funds available immediately to address this issue. Agreement can be reached thereafter in respect of the residents, the DDDA - the powers of which are being subsumed by Dublin City Council - and the funds recouped from the receiver, who has a responsibility to the taxpayer on foot of the failure in the regulation of the system in such a way as to cause this unfortunate problem. For the purpose of progressing the Bill, we support it in its current form and will discuss on later Stages the various impacts it will have. We will scrutinise its contents to ensure that the dissolution is fair and appropriate, that the responsibilities of Dublin City Council are properly met and that the intentions in respect of the docklands area are retained in the planning provision it contains in order to ensure that the development will continue in a way that will drive development elsewhere in the city.

See this speech in context