Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1a:

1a. In page 3, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “3. Section 28 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting the following after subsection (1C):

“(1D) These guidelines shall include, but are not limited to, the standards for apartments laid out in Tables 1, 2 and 3 and in paragraphs (a) to (e):

(a) the minimum sizes for apartments in these guidelines shall be as laid out in Table 1;

(b) the minimum ceiling height for apartments in these guidelines shall be 2.7m;

(c) the minimum storage areas for apartments in these guidelines shall be as laid out in Table 2;

(d) the minimum balcony size for apartments in these guidelines shall be as laid out in Table 3;

(e) the guidelines shall include a provision that all apartment developments contain adequate play areas for children;

(f) in drawing up the guidelines, the Minister shall have due regard to Ireland’s emissions and climate obligations and targets.

Table 1

No. of bedrooms	Minimum apartment size
1 bedroom	45 sq. m.
2 bedroom	80 sq. m.
3 bedroom	100 sq. m.

Table 2

No. of bedrooms	Minimum storage area
1 bedroom	3 sq. m.
2 bedroom	7 sq. m.
3 bedroom	9 sq. m.

Table 3

No. of bedrooms	Minimum balcony size
1 bedroom	6 sq. m.
2 bedroom	8 sq. m.
3 bedroom	10 sq. m.

The amendment seeks to insert certain changes in the section. The guidelines should include but would not be limited to the standards for apartments laid out in Tables 1, 2 and 3 and paragraphs (a) to (e), inclusive. The minimum sizes for apartments in the guidelines should be as laid out in Table 1. The size of 45 sq. m for a one-bedroom apartment refers back to the old legislation. I am not opposing the Government's move. It is, obviously, a climbdown from Dublin City Council's recommendation of March 2007 of 55 sq. m. for a single bedroom apartment. We can live with small sizes for single bedroom apartments.

Likewise, I have not opposed the idea of a studio apartment, given that more and more people are living separately and alone in Irish society than ever before. Nine out of ten people who got married last year will probably separate within 15 to 20 years - a lot of them perhaps within ten years. There is nothing wrong with this; I am separated myself and can recommend it. It is all part of life and I have no regrets either way. There is a demand for small studio apartments. The average size of a one-bedroom apartment in Paris is about 35 sq. m. The idea that we only build one bedroom apartments here of 55 sq. m is a little off the wall.

I have included 80 sq. m as the minimum size of a two-bedroom apartment and 100 sq. m as the minimum size of a three-bedroom apartment. The Government might think that is draconian, but I do not. We have a serious problem with apartments in Ireland and how we approach their construction. We have never built apartments fit for family use. I have to hold up my hands and say that, as a company, we did not build apartments that were good enough for families either. If we are to avoid covering the country in concrete, Ireland will have to embrace the idea of apartment living. If we are to do so, however, it is unfair to expect people to raise families in the apartments we have been building. Therefore, my proposal for a minimum size of 80 sq. m for a two-bedroom apartment and 100 sq. m for a three-bedroom apartment is geared towards the idea that we must stop thinking about apartments being a transitory place for single people or childless couples until they have children and then have to move to a house. That is not the way forward. We have to start building apartments in which families can live. There are many aspects to it, but we have to examine the European model. I have looked at many apartments elsewhere in Europe in which families live very well. They work, but they are a very different animal from what we are producing here.

In dealing with the spatial aspects if one is to built two-bedroom apartments of less than 80 sq. m, they will not be fit for family use. There are, obviously, other dimensions in terms of what an apartment should have if it is to be fit for used by a family. For example, a big problem in Dublin city is that there are no play areas for kids in apartment complexes. We provide basement car parks and sometimes small landscaped areas in a courtyard, but there are no proper play areas. In general, apartments do not have nearly enough storage space or large balconies. Some may think it is all right for Europeans on the Continent to have balconies because they enjoy suitable weather conditions. In fact, however, the winters in northern Italy are much colder than in Ireland, yet one sees big balconies there. Of course, they have better summers than we do, with much more heat. They are able to seal balconies for the winter with perspex or glass and remove it during the summer. We could do the same here. It makes a massive difference if an apartment is airy and has balcony space.

In the Bill the Minister of State is agreeing to move to a depth of 2 m for balconies. The amendment also addresses the issue of minimum balcony sizes. It proposes a minimum size of 6 sq. m for a one-bedroom apartment, 8 sq. m for a two-bedroom apartment and 10 sq. m for a three-bedroom apartment.

It is doable. In the last apartment complex we built, the two-bedroom apartments had an average of just under 12 sq. m. It makes a considerable difference to an apartment. To build good apartments the element of a balcony is crucial.

The same applies to storage space. There was no storage space in the original apartments we built in Dublin in the 1990s. Some apartments have almost zero storage space and one would wonder how it could work. It does not work very well. Storage space is not something one thinks of in a house because there is not really a shortage of it in a house, but it is a big challenge in an apartment. Especially in an apartment block of 30 to 40 units, there is nowhere else to put stuff. With a house there can be a garage, outhouses etc., but there is always space. There is an attic in a house. There is no attic in the average apartment. There is a 300 mm concrete floor sitting above one's head. There is a huge lack of storage space. One just cannot pretend that the need is not there because it is. One might say that people should not clutter so much, but everybody has things and needs storage space for them.

The sizes I have specified in the amendment are not unreasonable. I am perfectly comfortable to live with the idea of one-bedroom and studio apartments being small. However, will an apartment be inhabitable if we adhere to these guidelines? It will be if we build it properly. Will it be built properly? I have always insisted that the building regulations in Ireland are A1; there is absolutely nothing wrong with our building regulations. We have powerful building regulations in Ireland and we do not need to adjust them. However we need to apply them. If we want to be sure they are being applied, we need supervision. That is why, as the Minister of State will know, I argued very strongly here for the return of independent inspections by the local authorities. It would play a huge part in ensuring things were done right.

In every profession on the planet there are people who are really keen to do things right and those who are not so keen to do things right and want to cut corners. It is not just builders; it is everybody across the board. In every profession some people take a more positive approach to how they do their work than others. Building is no different. Architects and engineers are no different. We need inspection. It is not unrelated to us allowing military planes go through Shannon without inspecting to see what is inside them. We will never know what is inside them unless we look. I can understand the Government's reason for not looking because I do not think it would like to see what is in them.

If we look at construction, the return of the tariff of works would be very positive. I think the Minister of State agrees with me. Anyone who has worked in the profession knows it makes sense to check what is done; that is not rocket science. There is another aspect. Obviously, we are moving into a different era with regard to housing in Ireland. Not long ago 85% of Irish people owned the place in which they were living. I do not believe that day will return. I do not see a problem with that. Home ownership is just over 70% at the moment. In our lifetime it could reach 50:50 between home ownership and otherwise, including social and rented housing.

Obviously, not much will happen between now and the general election, but the next Government, whatever its make-up, will need to take a serious look at how we do housing. For example, in talking about social housing in Ireland at the moment, we think of these large ghettos that have not really worked well. They were built badly. The raw material used and the workmanship were of the cheapest kind. We built loads of them together and there was no mixture. As they were not mixed very much with private housing, they became problematic and there are major social problems attached to many of the social housing developments in Ireland. However, it does not have to be that way and it could be done differently. I believe we will have to do it differently.

For example, when Part V was in operation, even as poor as it was and it did not serve us well, when people were building 20% social or affordable units, builders and developers were getting away with using cheaper material in the social units. It was not legal but they were not being pulled up on it. I would challenge the State to tell me where the builder or developer was pulled up on that. I knew of it happening on a wholesale basis. It was mad.

Even in the same development, the social and affordable units were not being built properly. White deal was being used for skirting, doorframes and doors in the social and affordable units, whereas solid wood was being used in the ones to be sold privately. It should not have been allowed, but why did it happen? Nobody was watching; nobody was inspecting. Nobody knew what was happening in the apartments. We had an inspection rate of less than 15%. Even then, the inspectors were so under-resourced and they had so much to inspect, they were not even going that far; that was way past what they were looking at. They had bigger issues to look at as far as they were concerned. There was no inspection of the material being used.

The level of workmanship being applied was a different area again. That also was not being inspected. If one is concerned about the level of workmanship that goes into the building of an apartment or a house, it requires constant monitoring because otherwise one does not know what is happening. Homebond used to inspect the foundations, wall plate and roof. Did Homebond know about what happened in between? It did not. Its inspectors very rarely made it out for the three inspections. So they knew bugger all about what was in the building.

There are so many things that can be done cheaply in between. The construction industry is a problematic industry. The capacity for cheating is massive. There is huge potential for saving money in many areas along the way. Some people do it in order to save loads of money and there is nobody there to inspect them. I would be a huge advocate of consistent on-site inspection. Someone must be on-site all the time to ensure things are done right. Even if we are going to adhere to minimum sizes here and there, we will still have the problem of doing things right. We will still have the challenge of whether we are going to start doing local authority social housing well.

I could bring people here to look at social housing in Turin and they would not believe what they would see. It is better than how we do private housing here and it works very well. I could bring them to some fantastic developments that work so well and are so good to rear families in. It is magic. We can learn from other people. The Italians had toilets 2,000 years ago and we were swinging out of the trees 200 years ago.

We should not be afraid to learn from them.

I am convinced that housing will remain a huge challenge for the next Government. I do not see a serious appetite to deal with it. We keep introducing measures do deal with various aspects of the problem but it is all sticking plaster stuff. We must rethink the entire approach to housing. I fully agree with the Central Bank's requirements on mortgages in terms of the 20% and 80% ratio. That makes sense. It will stop people buying property on which they might not be able to afford the repayments at a later stage. However, it will mean that only 50% of people in this country will be able to afford to own their home. The State must take up the slack and take responsibility for the sector. We must provide housing. The rental market is not the answer. I am sorry but the rental market will not provide the solution to the vacuum. I understand the Government’s argument on rent supplement and the reason it is way below the rents being charged. Of course it is. If the rent supplement was dramatically increased there is a good chance rents would also increase. The chances of the State being able to control the rental market is slim. If the chances were slim a couple of years ago they will be slimmer in the future.

We have seen a major shift in property ownership in this country. When the developers ran into trouble a lot of property was put into NAMA. A total of €74.8 billion worth of par value assets went into NAMA, which became the biggest real estate body on the planet. There was also a lot of property in other banks. Most of it was sold in fire sales. Ulster Bank sold property with a par value of more than €5 billion to Cerberus for less than €1 billion. NAMA has sold more than 90% of the rental properties in this country to US investment funds. That is a major change in the rental market. All of a sudden Irish people do not own those rental properties. I have heard people giving out and saying the problem is that Fine Gael backbenchers own properties and that is the cause of the problem with the market. They are not the problem. Someone owning a couple of properties and renting them out is not the problem. There was nothing wrong with that. Anyone that makes such an argument is living in cloud cuckoo land. I am worried about the fact that the Minister for Finance is comfortable with having professional landlords in this country, be it Hines, Kennedy Wilson or whoever else. They now have a cartel in our capital city and that is having a dramatic effect.

I built apartments in Dominic Street. The rent cost €900 a month three years ago and now they are €1,500. This is a street in the city centre where people are afraid to walk when it is dark. The reason for the high rent is that US vulture funds now control the bulk of the rental market in Dublin city and they are getting a hold on it in other cities. Things will not change dramatically in the future because these buggers have bought up most of the good development sites that were among the stressed properties that were in trouble with the banks or ended up in NAMA. The vulture funds have bought them up and are getting planning permission to build on the sites. However, they will not sell the properties, they will rent them because this is a great city for rental income. It costs a maximum of €400 a month to rent an apartment in Turin and most Italian cities yet one can get €1,500 a month in Dominic Street, a working class area where the lighting is not good enough at midnight.

We have a serious problem. The Minister for Finance might like professional landlords but I am not so keen on them. Neither am I keen on the fact that we have outsourced our rental market to US vulture funds who have only one ambition, namely, to make the maximum money every year for their shareholders.

See this speech in context