Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Bhí orm bheith as láthair ar feadh tamaill ansin mar bhí me ag freastal ar chruinniú coiste. These amendments relate to the standards applicable to apartment complexes, in particular. An amendment was made to the Bill in the Seanad which allows the Minister to overrule the standards set by local authorities. While I agree in part with some of the amendments proposed by Deputy Wallace, I do not agree 100% with them.

Great care must be taken when setting standards or giving powers to a Minister to overrule a democratic institution. I refer by way of example to the decisions taken in the past by Dublin City Council, none of which I was party to, to set a standard for apartments in Dublin, which was above that set by the Department. I accept that some of the guidelines set by Dublin City Council were somewhat impractical. The process of discussion within Dublin City Council on its current development plan, in terms of the number of submissions received from councillors and members of the public, would indicate that people, having looked again at that plan, are of the view that because of the restrictive regime within Dublin City Council, it is difficult to build apartment complexes of the type envisaged by those trying to ensure that apartment build in this city is fit for residential living rather than to meet the needs of the transient population to which Deputy Wallace referred.

If this city is to develop without sprawling into several other counties, we will have to address the need for apartments and ensure that whatever apartments are built in the future, lend themselves to successful apartment living. A detailed document to which the city council was party, entitled Successful Apartment Living, set out a vision in this regard for Dublin. In the development plan thereafter, particular areas were designated as suitable for high rise development while build in other areas was to be of only seven or eight storeys. While not everybody in the city agreed with that vision, it set the standards for the apartments that would be built to facilitate modern expansion. The planners and developers thought there was no end in sight. It was possible to build in certain quarters apartment blocks, similar to those in other cities around the world, of up to 20 to 30 storeys. The only thing wrong with that was that in Dublin until then anything that was being built did not have the additional services required, such as playgrounds, communal spaces, sufficient space between apartment blocks, proper access for traffic and a mix of communities. They also did not include shops, restaurants and so on.

Some of the apartment complexes built in Dublin in the past 20 to 30 years have been successful. Somebody needs to examine why they were so successful and why they excelled when others did not. In this regard, I refer to some of the apartment complexes with wooden frontage. In most cases, these were disastrous because the wrong wood was used or because a management contract that would require the wood to be revarnished every year was not put in place. What looked very fancy in the brochures produced to sell these products does not look so great now, including the ones in my own area, the wood on which has turned black and the walls have not been painted since they were built. The council document, Successful Apartment Living, called for the setting of a standard that would meet the needs of single people, couples and retired people.

As I came into the Chamber, the issue of ceiling height was being discussed. As far as I am aware Irish people are, on average, taller now than people here were 30 years ago. The ceilings in many of what were previously known as corporation houses are only 8 ft. high and the doorways are only 6 ft. high. There are many young people in Ireland nowadays who are taller than 6 ft., such that they bang their heads of in these doorways as they are coming and going. This needs to be examined. The same can be said in regard to the population in Japan. The height of the Japanese has increased substantially over the past 50 years, as a result of which Japan had to review its height standards. If people are, on average, now 6 in. or 1 ft. taller, then accommodation proportions need to be different.

The house in which I lived up to six years ago was a corporation house. Like many other corporation houses and apartments in this city, it had major problems in terms of air circulation, which led to condensation. It was not built to the standards now in place. A ceiling that is 10 ft. high, which is the height of the ceiling in the house in which I now live, allows for greater circulation of air. That is why people set standards. They are not set to impose an additional burden on developers, although I would have no problem with that because developers will just add any additional cost to the selling price if needs be. Standards are set to ensure that people can live in a manner appropriate to modern society. In another era, we did not have many possessions. In the 1930s and 1940s, people were happier to move from the tenements in Dublin city to council houses in Crumlin, Drimnagh and elsewhere. They were a godsend to them in many ways. The standards in place then fitted with the needs of people at that time. We are now in a different era, so we have different needs. There are many houses in areas such as Crumlin and Drimnagh that have not been upgraded since they were built, many of which have only one socket per room. In terms of even minimum standards, a single socket per room or a wooden window frame with single glazing would not suffice in this day and age.

Dublin City Council sought to set standards that would stand the test of time for the next few years. We know that the Department is not happy with those standards, that it considers them too restrictive and that it is fearful that other local authorities will be encouraged to set similar standards.

In many ways, they were not restrictive because most developers, if they wanted to build a house or an apartment block, could make money on it, even at today's prices or those of a number of years ago. What happened, however, was that most developers wanted not only to make a profit on what they were currently building but also enough profit to make up the losses they had accumulated over the previous five to ten years.

When considering giving a power to a Minister to dictate to, or overrule, a local authority, one needs to be mindful of why we have local authorities at all. The local authority, through its development plan, already has to consider its standards every five years. Every standard that is set is reviewable by the authority's elected members. It is, therefore, reviewable by the public as they elect the councillors. The public includes those who work in the construction industry and those who run it and they can make submissions and ask for changes to be made. It is at that stage that Ministers should be involved rather than having the power to come in willy-nilly and impose their diktat on what they think is appropriate. What might be appropriate in Tipperary or Galway may not be appropriate in Dublin city where there is a different outlook. Dublin is a capital city with more than 1 million people concentrated in it, with the possibility that many more would be concentrated in it in the future. One needs to be cognisant of that fact. Standards have been set.

I find it strange that Dublin City Council encourages the possibility of high-rise development in certain areas but when developers submit plans for high-rise developments, they are shot down. Developers are not getting planning permission for proposed houses. It is for the planning authority in the city council to decide these applications but some of the decisions seem odd. Dublin City Council put a plan to the Minister in respect of a senior citizen complex in my area. The plan was for 75 apartments. The Minister said it would have to be reduced to 65 apartments. This is ridiculous in the middle of a housing crisis but councillors and the Minister who made the decision will have to live with the decision.

I have a major problem with a power being given to a Minister to set a standard, which may be irrational, in place of that which councillors have democratically debated and agreed. Rather than taking this undemocratic stance and ramming this provision through, the Minister should have regard to the process each council completes in preparing its development plan.

See this speech in context