Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)

I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach and the Minister. The Minister has now been in office for over six months and in my opinion, he has made some spectacularly bad policy decisions. The first, of course, was slashing funding for vital homeless prevention schemes like the tenant in situ scheme, Housing First and CAS acquisitions. The second was emasculating a very good suggestion from the Housing Commission to set up a housing activation delivery office with emergency powers legislation. The third was the Minister's gutting of the rent pressure zones legislation. I know the Minister takes the opinions of Threshold very seriously; he raised this with me when we debated this previously. In front of the Oireachtas committee, Threshold gave its view that if the Minister proceeds with the proposals around rent pressure zones from the autumn and into March of next year, within four to five years the vast majority of renters will be paying full market rent and it will undermine the positive security of tenure elements the Minister has set out.

Threshold also mentioned the apartment standards published last week, to which this amendment relates, as a particularly bad decision. It spoke of the impact of smaller, darker, less well-served and less well-planned apartments. In fact, Mr. John-Mark McCafferty from Threshold talked about his own experience as a renter in poorly designed public housing with inadequate light and space, and the fact that, in addition to all the negative impacts on tenants, those blocks ultimately have to be demolished and rebuilt.

Not only is the Minister introducing a set of highly questionable design standards for apartments but in Seanad amendment No. 24 before us today, he is seeking permission to introduce legislation to allow developers with grants of permission, or who get a grant of permission at any stage over the next two years, to retrospectively apply to a local authority for what are called permitted alterations. The guidelines, as the Minister knows, were done using the section 28 mandatory ministerial guideline procedure. While there is no legislative requirement for the Minister to consult public and private sector developers, professional bodies or the Oireachtas, the common practice has been to do this. In fact when the Minister's predecessor, Eoghan Murphy, last tried to introduce very similar guidelines, he undertook a significant public consultation.

In the absence of that consultation, the Minister has not had the benefit of the expertise of those who design homes, those who apply for permission to build homes, those who build such homes and, ultimately, those who reside in them. Thankfully, some of those organisations the Minister refuses to consult have spoken publicly over the weekend. What they have had to say is not only very significant but materially relevant to Seanad amendment No. 24 and my amendment No. 1 to that amendment. I want to read some of their comments into the record.

The Irish Planning Institute represents public and private sector planners and semi-State planners. It is a broad church. It said it is not convinced that the announced changes in the Minister's guidelines will achieve what is intended - increased supply and reduced viability changes. "In particular," it said:

... the erosion of unit mix requirements represents a market-led approach to housing that is fundamentally at odds with the significant work undertaken by the Department of Housing to date to create a plan-led system with high quality, long term sustainable outcomes flowing from transparently and democratically adopted local development plans.

It went on:

This, and allowing changes to already permitted developments, also risks introducing more legal unpredictability.

For an organisation that is very loath to criticise the Government, it concluded:

Simply presenting these revised guidelines and the legislation as a fait d’accompli is regrettable, and it has caused significant disquiet among members of the Irish Planning Institute.

Yesterday, the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland - again, a very significant body representing a broad church - released a statement on the same issue. The headline of the statement on its website read: "High-quality design is essential to viable, sustainable housing and must not be sacrificed for short-term cost savings." It said in its professional opinion that there is "a shift in direction to lower-quality solutions driven by short term expediency, rather than long term vision and sustainable solutions that deliver real value for money". It said that this risks "undermining the creation of sustainable, high-quality living environments and will create future long-term challenges for apartment owners and tenants", which are the kinds of things that Mr. John-Mark McCafferty from Threshold spoke about in the committee yesterday. It also said there is "evidence that, over time, the cumulative effects of poorly sized and designed homes can contribute to social inequality and reduce overall productivity". Both organisations, of course, are questioning the argument that this will reduce the cost per apartment and increase viability.

We have also heard from individuals, architects and developers in the private sector. In The Irish Times, reporter Niamh Towey quoted a leading architect, Mr. Gerry Cahill, who is working in social and affordable housing for over 40 years, who said: "This is a dumbing-down of standards that should be about making homes, not units. I fear what kind of world we’re making." Specifically on the viability issue, we have heard from Mr. Paul Mitchell, who the Minister knows is a very renowned quantity surveyor for Mitchell McDermott. He is somebody who often comments on matters of planning, viability and development, and is certainly not a cheerleader for those of us in the Opposition. He said that he does not believe the figures the Minister quoted for a reduction in average unit costs are anywhere close, and that the real savings, according to The Irish Times, would be closer to €28,000 to €39,000 per unit - a very significant commentary. Dr. Orla Hegarty, who is an assistant professor of architecture at UCD, has done very significant research on the impact of poor-quality design during Covid on public health. She has made the point that the Minister's proposals will increase land values, could result in developers revaluing those lands and will delay much-needed developments.

We have also heard from the builders who are actually going to build these homes. Over the weekend, Killian Woods in the Business Post again made very clear from a variety of private sector sources that having read the Minister's proposals, they do not accept or believe the kinds of savings he is suggesting are available. In fact, in quite a concerning article, after the Minister's failure to share the Land Development Agency's analysis with the Oireachtas housing committee, something the Minister last week gave a commitment to do, we understand from the Business Post that the analysis provided to the Minister by the LDA before he announced the apartment standard cautioned him that the new measures only result in marginal cost savings for most apartments. I wonder if that is the real reason that information has not been shared with the committee or those of us trying to make sense of this legislation today.

The problem here, and the reason I have tabled an amendment to the Minister's Seanad amendment No. 24, is because this proposition is not only bad for renters, and will not only result in people paying the highest possible rents for the lowest design standard apartments and developments, but it also will not work. There will be modest viability gains for some at the start, but the problem here is that there will be increasing land values and overall development costs in the medium term, along with rising development costs and loss of viability. We know all of this because it has been tried before and it has failed. The Minister keeps telling us in the committee that he wants to be radical. Repeating something that was proposed and tried only a number of years ago and failed is not radical; it is just downright foolish, if not reckless in the extreme.

One of the very worrying things - the Minister confirmed this to us in committee yesterday - is despite the fact that special planning policy requirement No. 1 in the Minister's guidelines explicitly excludes social and affordable housing developments by local authorities and Part 5 units from these inferior design and apartment scheme standards, turnkey developments will not be excluded. Turnkey is the mechanism through which the overwhelming majority of social and affordable homes are currently delivered.

We are now going to have a two-tier sector in public housing with some people living in better quality, better designed, healthier and happier environments and apartments and others consigned to smaller, darker and less well-served apartments. That makes no sense. The Minister shakes his head. He really needs to listen to the architects, quantity surveyors and planners because that is their view. They have set it out. Again, I make the point that that may be why the Minister did not bother to consult them. Why he did not have the courtesy to ask professionals who have the job of implementing these flawed proposals what they actually think? He can dismiss us all he wants but he cannot dismiss the people who have commented and said what he is doing is wrong.

I understand the intention of Seanad amendment No. 24 is to avoid delay so that where a developer has a planning permission based on the existing city development plan rules, for example in Dublin, and wants to avail of these inferior design standards, in my opinion and the opinion of the IPI and the Royal Institute of Architects, instead of forcing that developer to go back to the start and put in a new planning application, the Minister is giving them a fast-track retrospective application. There are a couple of really significant problems with that. I will outline those in justification of my amendment. We are not talking about minor changes to a development. Let us talk about a real development because when we think of a real development it makes sense. Four years ago, Hines put in a planning application for a very high-density development on Clonliffe Road. It comprised 70% one-bedroom and studio apartments. It had no cultural amenity space. It had a limited amount of dual aspect. It was all to be built to rent. It was approved by the planning board. Judicial reviews followed and it was found to be in breach of the city development plan and was struck down. The irony of course is had Hines stuck to the original city development plan, it would have had the permission and would be on-site building good quality apartments today.

I was on site recently, at my request, to view Hines's new planning application. The developer made the point that they are sticking rigidly to the development plan with 50% one-bedroom and studio apartments, 56% dual aspect, 5% cultural and a few other changes to keep them in line with the development plan and the view of the judges. The big pitch was they want to get planning and get building. That is an eminently sensible thing. The problem is the Seanad amendment allows developers such as Hines, if granted permission through the council and through the board - and they have to get those too - to go back and without any public participation or any consultation with the elected members of Dublin City Council and revert to 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% or even possibly 100% one-bedroom and studio apartments. They could more than halve the volume of dual aspect, and could significantly undermine the quality of development.

The Minister, thankfully, clarified for us yesterday they would not be able retrospectively to remove the communal space. That is not allowed for in the retrospective application as per this amendment. However, they are dramatic changes. If the public is not given an opportunity to engage in that and if third parties are not given an opportunity to raise concerns, here is what will happen. Just as we warned Eoghan Murphy and Simon Coveney with strategic housing development, SHD, and the 2018 specific planning policy requirements, SPPRs, and design standards for apartments' building heights, it will lead to a dramatic increase in judicial reviews of residential developments, which is the very last thing any of us want.

The volume of JRs of residential developments ballooned after Eoghan Murphy introduced similar proposals. Thankfully, when Deputy Darragh O'Brien, under pressure, abandoned that approach and reintroduced two-stage large scale residential development, something for which many of us have argued for a long time, the number of JRs fell dramatically. The Minister's officials have confirmed that to us, as have developers. Yet, as rightly pointed out by the Irish Planning Institute, by not only introducing the guidelines but the retrospective application through the certification process, the Minister risks undoing several years of improvements in our planning system, and for what? For a claim, unverified and challenged by private sector developers, that he is going to challenge viability. Here is the issue. The cost of the apartment is not going to reduce. He said it himself. He is allowing a larger number of smaller apartments with fewer windows, less storage and less community amenity space in the same volume. That is not tackling viability. It is just producing more smaller, darker apartments that will sell and rent for less. That is reckless in the extreme.

I appeal to the Minister once again to listen to the experts, something his predecessor, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, refused to do with the 2024 Act, Eoghan Murphy refused to do with his SPPRs in 2018 and Simon Coveney refused to do with SHD. The criticisms from this side of the House in each of those instances, informed by professionals, public and private sector developers, architects, surveyors and planners, were proven correct and the law had to be changed after significant damage and delay.

My amendment to the amendment is simple. It sets out an ability for the Minister to introduce regulations to provide for some form of public participation at a very minimum that would make us compliant with the Aarhus Convention. This is absolutely not compliant and could become a significant problem for the Minister in terms of the Aarhus Convention compliance committee. It would do the right thing by way of proper principles of planning and development and it would shield against a rise in judicial reviews.

I appeal to the Minister not to proceed with what he has here. He is going to regret it. We are then going to say, "We told you so". Who will be the losers? The small number of renters who end up in high-cost, low-quality apartments and everybody else who is left behind because this did not tackle the viability challenge. This legislation, tax breaks and eviscerating rent pressure zones are not going to fix the supply problem. If I thought they could, I would support them, but they will not. On that basis I will press amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 24.

See this speech in context