Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

To pick up where I finished last week, there is no doubt that the impact of the weakening of the planning laws dating back to 2015 has been very negative on local communities, including in my constituency and particularly in Santry and Finglas. The strategic housing development, SHD, process has squeezed local people out of the planning process, leaving them with little choice but to pursue judicial reviews. As I said last week, the majority of the judicial reviews that have been taken have been upheld, which is further proof that this is bad planning law. The changes represent a sustained attack on the planning process. They make a mockery of development plans and local area plans where the purpose of a development plan is to respond to local circumstances and need. The SHD process has also squeezed out locally elected councillors and very much sidelined the professional planners in the local authorities. All of that has been very bad, so I welcome the fact that the intention of the Bill is to eliminate the SHD process and return to the two-stage planning process.

My concern, however, is that the SHD process is only one element of the weakening of the planning laws that has taken place in recent years. Sometimes the SHDs are used as shorthand for all the other negative things that have happened over the last five or six years. In 2015, the then Minister, Deputy Kelly, introduced mandatory guidelines. Irrespective of what local authorities or even An Bord Pleanála think, the local authorities are obliged to adhere to the mandatory guidelines that were set down. For example, one of the things the then Minister, Deputy Kelly, did was reduce apartment standards. He introduced studios that could be 27% smaller than was the case previously. That was followed by a later Minister, Deputy Coveney, introducing the SHDs and the following Minister, former Deputy Eoghan Murphy, introducing new mandatory standards in 2017 and 2018. Those standards allowed up to 50% of any development to be one-bedroom or studio and there were no minimum requirements for three-bedroom or bigger sized apartments. The minimum area of studios was reduced to 37 sq. m. That is smaller than the smallest hotel room in the InterContinental Hotel, so they were tiny shoe-box apartments. Dual aspect was reduced to 33% near city or town centres and close to public transport or strategic development zones, SDZs. The standards also allowed car free developments, which can only result in car parking in surrounding areas.

In addition to that, there was the buy-to-rent phenomenon, which was facilitated by the then Minister, Mr. Eoghan Murphy. There was no restriction on the dwelling mix in buy-to-rent developments. It was outrageous stuff. That is why 70% of the units in the Clonliffe Road development are one-bedroom or studios. There was no maximum number of units on floors in respect of buy-to-rent units. There could be long corridors, like cheap hotels, with any number of apartments opening out on them. There was no requirement for a crèche, for example. Also, there was a reduced number of stairwells and lifts. There was a huge race to the bottom in the standards for apartments, with implications for fire safety. Our planning laws have taken a very negative direction over recent years.

I wish to make a point regarding the mandatory standards. I acknowledge the fact that the current Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, introduced a change to the guidelines which eliminated the co-living phenomenon. Again, that was a retrograde phenomenon. That has been a good change, but I hope the Minister will use his powers to get rid of all those other aspects which have led to very poor quality apartment developments, particularly in the buy-to-rent sector. There should be a drive for better, not weaker, standards with regard to what we expect people to do. If we are aiming to achieve a situation where apartment living is regarded as a standard and a good thing and where people would buy apartments, although one cannot buy any because of the buy-to-rent stuff at present, and put down roots and settle in them, there is no reason that families cannot do that if they are high-quality apartments. However, they currently are not and that is a major problem. If we are to move to that European model, and we should be encouraging that, there must be good quality apartments and there have to be reasonable heights. The idea now is that the sky is the limit. There is no height limit. People living in two-storey houses could have an 18-storey apartment block at the end of their gardens. That is simply not on.

The Minister has made a start with the SHDs. If housing developments are to be sustainable and of a quality people require, and the Minister should be ensuring that quality exists, then he has no choice but to ensure that the low standards are removed. The Minister has the power to do that. On Committee Stage later today, I and other Members have tabled a number of amendments seeking greater consultation with communities at the pre-planning stage and publicity for what is being proposed at an early stage. In addition, there are other amendments tabled by me and others to remove the mandatory nature of the national guidelines. I strongly urge the Minister to accept those amendments because that is the only way to achieve good-quality, sustainable apartment developments.

See this speech in context