Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is not my phone.

If we want to build two-bedroom apartments and three-bedroom apartments in which families will be willing to live, we must change how we go about it. In the past, we did not build apartments that were fit for families. My company generally built apartments that were 15 sq. m to 20 sq. m larger than the norm but I still would not say they were fit for families. In Ireland, apartments are usually a stepping stone on the way to purchasing a house. By contrast, the apartments I have seen elsewhere in Europe really are suited to families. We will have to build more apartments than houses in the future because we cannot keep covering the country in concrete. Apartment blocks need to be higher, there must be more play areas and more communal space. The provisions in the Bill in this regard seem reasonable but they are very vague. It is not at all clear to what we are being asked to sign up.

Lifts are a huge expense for management companies. I had the misfortune to be the director of eight management companies and I could not wait to get rid of the lifts because the cost of their maintenance meant we could not possibly make ends meet. By European standards, we have tended to put in fewer apartments per lift. Provided people can stand over the number of apartments a lift can serve, I do not see a problem with reducing the number of lifts per number of apartments.

Car park provision is a hugely challenging issue. We must ask ourselves whether we wish to promote the use of more cars in city and town centres. There are already too many cars in Dublin city centre and the M50 has become a parking lot at peak times. I have no problem with the provisions reducing the number of car spaces a developer is obliged to provide with apartments. If we keep ignoring the increasing number of vehicles on Dublin's roads, I do not know how we will cope.

I have very strong views on the issue of floor-to-ceiling heights. In the aftermath of the Second World War, the authorities in Turin, between 1945 and 1965 or 1970, built social housing with a floor-to-ceiling minimum of 10 ft., with some of the homes having a height of 11 ft. or 12 ft. They are fantastic living spaces. A floor-to-ceiling height of 8 ft., or 2.4 m, on the other hand, is simply not good enough for a living space. I like to build units with a 2.7 m floor-to-ceiling measurement. If we were doing six floors of, say, 300 sq. m each, that ran to 1,800 sq. m plus an extra square metre for the ground floor. The local authority would say we could have the 1,900 sq. m but there would be issues with how many floors were going in. At the same time, the bank was saying we needed to squeeze in more units. There was pressure on one side from the financial institution to make the project stand up and from the council on the other. In effect, we were being forced to go with the 2.4 m floor-to-ceiling height. I urge the Government not to allow apartments to be built with a ceiling height of less than 2.7 m. The difference between 2.4 m and 2.7 m has a massive impact on the living space and on the quality of life of people living there. It would be excellent progress for this country if we never again saw a development of housing units with 2.4 m ceilings. It would be a breathtaking, historical change and we can make it happen. The developer and the bank can be kept happy by getting the local authority to accept that if we do not want to cover the country in concrete, we need to go a little higher with the buildings. It makes sense to take that approach.

It goes without saying that it is generally a good thing to have apartments that are dual aspect. I do realise, however, that it is a very restrictive requirement to meet. I have in mind a site where we found it was almost impossible to put dual aspect into more than some 60% of the units. In fact, if it was a requirement for all of them to have it, we would not have been able to build the other 40%, in which case we would have ended up not doing the development at all because we would not have got finance for it. This is a challenging requirement to meet. Perhaps the Minister of State will detail what is being proposed in this regard.

An issue that has not been mentioned is the safety of balconies, which was brought to the forefront of our minds in the wake of the tragedy in Berkeley during the summer. I acknowledge the weather is different on the Continent but it is mild enough in Ireland for people to sit outside much of the time. Balconies can be sheltered somewhat by putting Perspex or proper glass around them, thereby providing a beautiful space to spend time in. That type of weatherproofing can be done without costing a fortune. Likewise, it does not involve a massive cost for the developer to ensure balconies are an adequate size. It is easy to build a bad balcony but it is just as easy to build a good one. There is a style of doing a balcony which guarantees it will stay up and every builder knows how to do it. There is also, however, a cheaper way of doing it and it should no longer be allowed. The material used is a factor. For example, using mild steel in a balcony is looking for trouble. It is a bad example to use but when I went out to look at Priory Hall, I was struck by the poor quality of the balconies. I am not afraid of much but I was afraid to stand on the balconies there because they looked like they were about to fall down. The mild steel used in their construction had not been galvanised properly and was beginning to corrode. All steel of a mild nature in terms of the structure must be properly galvanised. If at all possible, the balcony should be made of stainless steel.

I would like to hear more details from the Minister of State about what he is planning to do. Some aspects of the Bill are sensible and to be welcomed. I look forward to the Minister of State's response.

See this speech in context