Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the issue. When it comes to housing, the various rules, regulations and proposals being debated by the Government and the main Opposition party are, as the saying goes, like “two bald men fighting over a comb”. I do not have a great deal of confidence that either side is identifying the root causes. The Bill deals with what I would describe as cosmetic issues given that the crucial issues are more structural and need to be the focus of our attention.

The housing situation has been allowed to deteriorate over the past 15 years or so owing to a series of poorly designed regulations and Government interventions, which in their totality seem to have made the overall problem even worse. The latest plan to award developers grants is yet another white-elephant solution. A developer with an apartment where demand is expected, such as Cork city, will receive a grant, yet a developer in Cork county will not. What is the aim of the policy? Is it to stop developers from going out of business? Is it to ensure the apartments get completed? Perhaps it is both. Why, then, should it matter where the apartment is located? That the Government has now deemed it necessary to provide such heavy subsidies for the construction of apartments in the areas with the greatest demand should be a major wake-up call when it comes to the types of dwellings that are being pushed by planning authorities and county councils via the local development plans. If they cannot be built and sold in the areas with the highest demand without the Government having to subsidise them, what hope is there for those forced to build high-density dwellings in areas of low or no demand?

The main cause of the problem is the planning regulations. If a developer wants to build in Wexford, it will be told by the planners that there must be 35 dwellings per hectare, as is soon to be enshrined in the county development plan. The demand for those types of units in Wexford town is very low and therefore a developer will not risk a major investment under such conditions. Apartments are very costly to build by comparison with houses. If there is no demand, why would they be built in towns like Wexford?

Back in June 2020, I had an exchange with the Minister of State, Deputy English, on the issue of density requirements. I will repeat what I stated:

The issue of minimum density at the edge of town and greenfield sites has caused significant problems outside of the M50 concerning the supply of housing. The imposition of such densities necessitates the construction of apartments at locations where they are just not viable. The application of these densities by An Bord Pleanála is unlawful and it undermines the statutory standing of every county development plan, as no specific minimums have been set out in the specific planning policy requirement, SPPR, or in the ministerial guidelines.

After a bit of tooth-pulling, I eventually managed to extract from the Minister of State confirmation that there are no minimum density requirements, despite An Bord Pleanála applying minimum density standards of its choosing. We now see the executives of county councils being contacted by the regulator. He is also imposing minimum densities, despite the Minister of State's confirmation that they do not exist. This regulator is a zealot and seems to be a law unto himself. The typology of houses built at higher densities is not what is required. There is not sufficient demand for such housing in rural constituencies. People want family homes with front and back gardens, not ghettos, as they will become.

Leaving aside the planning regulations, we need to look at other Government actions and how they worsen the problem of cost. Many Government regulations have resulted in dramatic increases in the cost of housing, increased transport and labour costs, increased carbon tax, the stagnation of our forestry industry for timber due to poor administration, extra regulations on material types, insurance increases, etc. All of this affects the cost at which a builder can construct a house. That extra cost naturally gets passed on to the buyer. The cause-and-effect relationship of Government decisions does not seem to be given near enough thought. There are a few Government supports for first-time buyers, such as the help-to-buy scheme with its €30,000 maximum grant. If a first-time buyer wants to ultimately live in a standard house with a bit of space like a garden, why would they waste all their first-time buyer's grant on a small apartment in an area in which they do not want to live? It is unattractive for a couple who want to start a family.

An article by Fiona Reddan in The Irish Timeson Saturday explains why very few people are buying apartments as their forever home and how they are built with the buy-to-rent sector in mind. It is worth a read because she spoke to real people. We need to build dwellings people want in the places they want to live. It should not be based on the Planning Regulator going on a personal crusade to enforce his version of planning laws and Joe Public or Cork County Council having to take judicial review proceedings to put him back in his box.

There are many advantages to living in rural areas but the Government places barrier after barrier in the way of many people. It wants to herd everyone into high-density apartment blocks with no transport infrastructure to support them. Many rural Government Deputies no doubt live in beautiful rural detached homes set on half an acre, where they raise their families with the support of close-knit communities, with family up the road and lifelong friends next door. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a great way to live. How many Deputies would happily swap that for a poky apartment with no garden on the outskirts of their local town? I would say few of them would be pleased about that prospect, yet many of them are happy to impose this Hobson's choice on our young people. When young people eventually gather up enough money and meet all the criteria to qualify for a mortgage, they might find themselves in competition with the local authority to buy an affordable house.

This Bill is another example of focus on the wrong problem. I do not see the practical problem this Bill would solve. In fact, it may serve to reduce the number of properties available for let in zones which are already under serious pressure. It might solve a technical administrative problem but it will not make things easier for people looking for somewhere to live on a short-term basis. This comes back to my point about the two bald men fighting over a comb. It is foolish to continue to regulate when each regulation is making the problem worse. An Bord Pleanála thinks it is above the law, the officials think they are working within the law and the Planning Regulator, Mr. Cussen, does not know the law.

The Government approach to housing regulations is like Father Ted trying to fix the dent in the car. With every attempt to solve the problem by tapping at the dent, he is inadvertently making it worse until the car is so broken that it is almost unrecognisable. That analogy perfectly illustrates the current mess the housing market is in. We need to stop tapping at the dents of our housing crisis and rethink our whole approach to the issue. Let us start from the bottom up - with planning. There is a major demand for housing and usually when there is a major demand for something, the free market will spur into action and meet it. However, the problem with housing is that the market is not being allowed to operate and is being restrained by the Government's ambiguous legislation, county councils' maladministration and the regulator's legal interpretations. Start here and stop blaming those who are trying to right the wrongs.

See this speech in context