Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I again thank the Deputies for this debate which is interesting, relevant and important. I acknowledge that the amendments are made with good intentions. I have no issue with that but Government considers it is important that we get the balance right. We consider that minimum standards must be generous and they do compare quite well with other areas, as I have already stated. We must also ensure that they are energy-efficient. I remind Members that the Bill refers to minimum standards in guidelines. There is nothing stopping any developer or local authority building an apartment that is far bigger and more complex in any way they wish. What we are essentially setting here is a minimum standard that is affordable and efficient and can meet demand.

The fundamental reason for the Bill is to ensure we have a mechanism whereby we can deliver more houses and apartments that are economically viable to meet the needs the same Deputies rightly identified. I reiterate that I hold no candle for the construction industry. It will now have to step up to the mark and prove that it can deliver the apartments and houses it says it can deliver.

Deputy Clare Daly mentioned the issue of Dublin docklands earlier. The planning provisions relating to Dublin docklands are being transferred back to Dublin City Council, which will have the same oversight in terms of planning. That is the way it should be. The Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Dissolution) Bill 2015 is taking care of that. It is only fair to note that 15,000 jobs are located in the docklands where previously there was nothing. This is making a huge contribution not only to the national economy but to Dublin city as our capital.

Deputy Wallace raised the issue of ceiling heights. I know where he is coming from. The guidelines we are proposing call for a minimum ceiling height of 2.7 m on the ground floor and a minimum ceiling height of 2.7 m in north-facing apartments because we want flexibility rather than the imposition of dual aspect. Where an apartment is north facing, we will have the higher ceiling height so that there is more light and all other floors would have a ceiling height of 2.4 m.

Deputy Wallace and other Deputies raise pertinent points about the height of buildings. My understanding is that greater flexibility is being introduced in the Dublin city development plan that is currently being drafted and considered. I feel there is scope for increased height in appropriate places. My understanding is that apartments and offices will now have similar heights. Where a footprint is available and where it is serviced in an urban area by public transport and all of the other utilities and services available, we should utilise that and utilise height as far as possible. I have a proviso relating to that.

I believe everybody would agree there are sensitive areas in our capital, in particular the Georgian areas. People spoke about how we need to protect them and we do need to do so. Imposing large-scale building developments on top of those areas needs to be sensitively treated. Ultimately, that is a matter for the planning authority but I understand that greater flexibility is being introduced in terms of allowing the building of taller buildings so that we can have more buildings on the footprint in urban areas.

I welcome this debate. It is important to continually review and evaluate our buildings and the standards we want to adopt. There is nothing new in Ministers issuing guidelines. It happens all the time but to prescribe them in primary legislation is not acceptable because it is too restrictive. If guidelines have to be introduced to change those in any way in the future, we have to introduce new legislation. We want minimum, good, efficient standards that meet the needs of our citizens and that deliver economically viable units which is what everybody wants to see.

See this speech in context