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

The Bill covers a broad spectrum of issues, including apartment guidelines. Planning and development legislation offers ample opportunity to refer to the Mahon report and note the unfortunate fact that the Government has not seen fit to implement many of the recommendations emanating from the various tribunals. This Bill deals with but one such recommendation.

The Fianna Fáil Party is committed to drawing from the lessons of the Mahon tribunal and implementing its recommendations. Building on strong action while we were in power, it is vital that we continue to put in place the legal and institutional framework to prevent the venal corruption that the Mahon tribunal uncovered. We call on the Government to implement as many as possible of the recommendations made in light of the findings of the Mahon and Moriarty tribunals. It is unfortunate that, to date, it has failed to implement a number of these recommendations.

One of the Government's worst sins, as it were, has been its decision to abolish the national spatial strategy, which the Mahon tribunal recommended be placed on a statutory footing. Perhaps the single most important recommendation of the tribunal - the establishment of an independent planning regulator – has been set aside by the Government. The new planning regulator it established has an advisory role to the Minister and is not a check on ministerial power, as the Mahon tribunal called for.

The Mahon tribunal's recommendation that the National Transport Authority be appointed by an independent appointments board rather than directly by the Minister has also been set aside and ignored. The Government has perpetuated political cronyism, with only one in five of its appointments drawn from open public advertising. Greater transparency on councillors to amend developments acts has not been introduced.

The Fine Gael Party exhibited hypocrisy on the issue of corporate financing when the Taoiseach, as leader of his party, reinstated corporate donations, which had been banned in 1992 by his predecessor, the current Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan. It is a great pity that despite much talk of a democratic revolution by the Labour Party and Fine Gael, the Government has failed to implement most of the Mahon tribunal's recommendations.

I will now speak specifically on the main provisions of the Bill. I welcome that main provision and purpose of the Bill, namely, to introduce a new power whereby the Minister may expressly state specific planning policy requirements to be applied by planning authorities or An Bord Pleanála in the exercise of their functions. At present, under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act, local authorities shall have regard to ministerial guidelines in determining planning applications and drafting their development plans. It appears that future guidelines will be divided into the categories of advisory-optional and specific-mandatory, with the planning authorities required to apply those that fall into the latter category. The Bill is vague, however, and does not specify how the distinction between general and specific guidelines will be made in practice.

In effect, this means that county development plans will be subordinate to the national planning regulations issued by the Minister. The main benefit of these will be to ensure that planning and building standards will be applied more consistently across local authorities. For instance, the immediate implication of this legislation will be to ensure that guidelines on apartment standards, which contain specific new requirements on minimum apartment sizes, the ratio of lifts to apartments, car parking provision, floor to ceiling heights, the provision of dual aspect apartments, etc., will be included in county development plans. This will ensure their consistent application across the country.

Some matters need to be clarified in respect of how the Minister's new planning power will work. For instance, what will happen in cases where planning regulations and apartment standards issued by local authorities are stronger or more prescriptive than those set out in the Department's guidelines? Perhaps more important, how will disputes between local authorities and the Department be settled? Will the Department simply be able to dictate to local authorities the content of their development plans? It is important that an appeals mechanism is in place and open public consultation takes place on any apartment standards that are proposed in development plans.

It is important for local democracy and to maintain local flexibility in the planning system that the Minister will not be in a position to simply overrule local development plans. Flexibility in local planning standards across local authorities must be allowed and retained. Planning standards in dense urban areas should not necessarily be identical to those in place in suburban or rural areas. This is the purpose of planning being local.

While it is recognised that consistent planning guidelines at the upper end are important in the sense of absolute minimum construction and quality standards, it is essential that the new specific department guidelines are not excessively prescriptive and provide considerable scope to local authorities in setting planning guidelines that best fit local circumstances and preferences.

Some questions also need to be answered regarding the scope of the Minister's new planning powers under the Bill. Specifically, what will happen in cases where planning regulations issued by local authorities are stronger and more prescriptive than the Department's guidelines? A case in point is the passive house building standards provided for in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council's development plan. It seems extraordinary that the Minister will be able to deny local authorities the right to include higher building standards in their planning regulations without proper consultation.

The Fianna Fáil Party welcomes the provisions on special development zones or SDZs. The relevant section introduces a minor amendment to the Planning and Development Act 2006, which provides for the making to An Bord Pleanála of applications for planning permission in respect of certain proposed developments of strategic importance to the State, and for certain other amendments to the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2004. This Bill ensures that strategic issues will be rapidly dealt with outside the local authority structure.

Under the new section 4 provisions, An Bord Pleanála will also be allowed to approve a special development zone planning scheme that includes modifications which would constitute a material change to the scheme, provided the modifications do not constitute a change in the overall objectives of the scheme concerned. This was an anomaly in the special development zone planning process, which did not make sense to any of the stakeholders involved. The proposed change is, therefore, welcome and necessary and should assist in streamlining the special development zone planning process.

On the new apartment regulations, the amendment to section 28 will allow the Minister to set consistent guidelines across local authorities. The main motivation for the Minister giving himself this new power under the planning legislation is to implement national standards for apartment construction. This is to be welcomed in the main. New apartment regulations are required in certain parts of the country to better ensure that apartments are of high quality and are affordable and abundant. Some of the new apartment regulations introduced in recent years, especially those in Dublin city since 2008, have been misguided. The effect of the Dublin city regulations has been to make new apartments in the city centre unaffordable for everyone but the very wealthy. As a result, apartments are not being built in Dublin. The figures on construction speak for themselves. While there is significant scope for residential development in the city, new construction has been extremely limited, if not virtually non-existent.

Despite the serious supply problem and out-of-control rental market, figures indicate that house and apartment completions continue to stall in 2015. In the Docklands area alone, there is development potential for more than 2,600 new housing units, yet residential development appears to be stalled, notwithstanding the attractiveness of the area. Completions for each of the four Dublin local authorities from January to March 2015 were very low and nowhere near what is required. Only 652 houses were completed in Dublin in the first quarter of the year, with only 182 of these units in the Dublin City Council area. Based on these levels, the greater Dublin area may have only 2,600 new houses completed this year. This compares to 2,591 in 2014, which means, remarkably, that there will be no increase in the rate of new housing construction in 2015. This comes at a time when we have an overall requirement for 20,000 residential units a year, with an immediate need this year for 6,000 units in Dublin alone.

We must ask the reason for the absence of new housing construction across the city, despite such significant unmet housing need and demand. The lack of supply in Dublin means that, despite rent increases of upwards of 11% in the capital this year, next year will be worse, with less than 30% of current demand for new homes being met in 2015. While the new apartment standards have not been published, it is understood that they will force Dublin City Council to revise its 2008 apartment standards, which prescribe that new apartments must be a minimum of 55 sq. m. and a standard two-bedroom apartment must have two balconies, a lift and a basement car parking space. The regulations in Dublin have been cited as one reason for the lack of new residential construction in the capital since 2008.

Without doubt, many of the new apartment regulations in Dublin are misguided. It has been said that Dublin City Council's apartment guidelines are anti-poor because they increase the cost of apartments in the city centre.

By doing so, they make the cost of building apartments at the lower end of the market uneconomic, and, as a result, they are simply not being built. According to the economist Ronan Lyons, the final price of building a new two-bed apartment in Dublin is currently €460,000, whereas it would be €345,000 if the standards that apply elsewhere in Ireland applied in central Dublin. This means the monthly rent required for a two-bed in the city centre to be feasible for an investor to buy, assuming a 6% yield, and thus for a developer to build, would be €2,750 per month. This level of rent is simply not affordable for any couple on a low or middle income.

The core goal of apartment standards and housing policy should be to ensure good quality accommodation is affordable and abundant. The Dublin City Council guidelines ensure neither is the case in the city at present. Of course, this does not mean Dublin needs to allow shoddy construction or miserable accommodation. We believe that new building and more effective regulations are required in Dublin. Costly and cumbersome regulation does not mean effective regulation. Apartment standards regulations need to be focused and sensible. They need to focus on construction standards that add value for tenants. In particular, higher standard regulations should focus on achieving high energy efficiency as well as community and quality of life standards, like green space regulations and build quality. These standards do the most to enhance quality of life and the value of a unit. We believe that new quality standards regulations should focus on energy efficiency and green space. It seems strange that despite the need for high energy efficiency and home heating standards on account of their proven ability to add value to an apartment for little cost, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Kelly, has expressly demanded local authorities, in particular, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and Wexford, to delete all references to passive house building standards in their 2016-21 development plans. If they do not, he has threatened to issue a veto from the Department under section 31 of the Planning Act 2000. This provision allows him to veto local development plans. The reason the Minister has given for deleting all reference to passive house standards in the development plan is that "such requirements are in excess of relevant national standards".

The Minister's argument against passive house standards is that traditional standards offer faster delivery and higher standards could impede new supply. Why is the Minister against higher energy efficiency standards for homes? It is extremely short-sighted of the Minister to reject available passive house technology, which diminishes the need for fossil fuel, without even engaging in consultation with construction industry stakeholders. This is one reason to fear how the Minister's new planning powers might be used under such a Bill.

This is especially true in light of Ireland's failure to meet obligations under the EU effort sharing programme for dealing with climate change. This stance is being exposed at the Paris climate conference as we speak. Ireland has to meet the target whereby 12% of home heating comes from renewable sources by 2020 or face onerous and costly sanctions. However, there has been virtually no progress on meeting these targets since the Government came to power. It is extraordinary that the Department responsible for construction quality is objecting to higher standards, especially without any debate, consultation, study or pilot review.

There is ample evidence from Ireland and elsewhere, including the Brussels region, that passive houses do not slow down construction. Passive house construction is often quicker because of the thorough design process involved and because much of the building is prefabricated. There is also considerable evidence that passive house regulations are not necessarily more costly than constructing to the current building regulations, provided builders and tradespeople understand the passive standards. The regional government of Brussels has made the passive house standard mandatory for all buildings since January 2015. This is something Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council is seeking as well. The move has not slowed down construction activity or made it more costly. Since January, over 1 million sq. m of passive house projects have been completed to date in Brussels. Many of these projects have cost less than conventional construction.

We need to know whether the new provision inserted into the Planning and Development Act will allow the Minister simply to rule out of order county development plans that are deemed in excess of national standards. It seems extraordinary that the Minister can deny local authorities the right to include higher building standards to form part of local planning regulations, apparently without any proper consultation with the sector or any members within that sector.

While we welcome this Bill and the new powers, numerous questions need to be clarified in respect of how these powers will be exercised, as I have outlined. It is essential that local development plans are allowed to be set by local authorities rather than simply dictated by the Minister. Flexibility in local planning has to be retained. I find it extraordinary that this is the case as we discuss the contents of this Bill and the powers under the Minister's remit.

Let us consider the many local development plans in the country and the efforts those involved have made to adjust the plans to take account of the increased scale, size, height and extent of wind energy turbines. Many of those involved have been waiting close on two years for national guidelines to be set by the Department and Minister responsible. Despite repeated calls from many local authorities engaged in the setting of local development plans for clarity, they have had to proceed without national guidelines in place. Given this scenario, applications are being made under guidelines that are in no way reflective of the height, scale or extent of such applications. Regardless, applications are being submitted under guidelines that have been outdated since 2006. There is a duty, onus and responsibility on the Government to publish and set appropriate guidelines rather than hide behind them, something the Government has done for the past two years.

We have had local and European elections that have deflected the publication and setting of the necessary guidelines. Now, we fear that because of the onset of a general election these guidelines will still not be put in place. I understand there are difficulties within Government, specifically within two Departments, in respect of agreeing the guidelines. Anyway, I implore the Minister of State and the Government to be fair and reasonable with the electorate and the people from those areas and regions where certain applications are more prolific. It is incumbent on the Government to put in place guidelines that reflect today's market and technology rather than relying on outdated guidelines which do no service to the public, in other words, to the people the Government supposedly serves.

See this speech in context