Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Seanad amendments Nos. 1 and 27 to 29, inclusive, are related and may be taken together.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Seanad amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and may be taken together.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Seanad amendments Nos. 4, 6 to 9, inclusive, and 14 are related and may be taken together.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Seanad amendments Nos. 10, 12, 13, 22, 23, 30 and 31 are related and may be taken together.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Seanad amendments Nos. 11 and 18 to 20, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Seanad amendments Nos. 15 to 17, inclusive, are related and may be taken together.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move-----

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister does not have to move anything. I will move today.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is more efficient.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Seanad amendments Nos. 21 and 24, amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 24, and Seanad amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are related and will be discussed together.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the amendment tabled by my colleague Deputy Ó Broin. When I read what the IPI said, I thought it was very stark. In its usual mild-mannered way the IPI set out clearly why as professional planners they believe these changes will not work. We will end up with monolithic blocks like we had in the past and that we said we would not build anymore. These are lower quality solutions. They are driven by this need for short-term expediency. It does not follow the work the Department has been doing for the past couple of years on trying to build sustainable, long-term communities and long-term apartment living. These apartments are not going to be long-term homes for people. It will make apartment living much more transient. It will push people further out of our urban core.

The unintended consequences of these amendments are concerning. With the proposed planning law changes whereby there will be a fast-track process, adding these new guidelines to already-approved units could end up in court. These amendments to allow developers who have already secured permission to build more and smaller apartments in the same space without submitting a fresh planning application means there will be more delays because developers will have to resubmit planning applications. There is also a challenge that this could all get challenged in the High Court. It could lead to JRs. I am also concerned that parts of this could be unconstitutional due to a lack of public consultation on what could be a significant change to a developer's building plan. Any permitted modification decision could then be challenged in the High Court by way of judicial review. The gains, if they could be described as that, are also modest at best. They do nothing to deal with the core issue, which is the cost of land and land speculation.

There might be some changes in headline viability but they will be undermined by an increased number of judicial reviews and will also be undermined by the fact that we are going to have more delays.

I am also concerned about the provision of community or cultural space, particularly in respect of the 5% provision that was brought in as part of Dublin City Council's 2022 to 2028 development plan. This was a hard-won provision to deliver more space for artists and community groups. It was also intended to help to build sustainable communities. I find it ironic that just as the local democracy task force is getting under way this week, the Minister is running roughshod over local authorities here. Disrespect was shown to Dublin City Council, as a local authority, in this regard. It had no warning of these new guidelines. It was not consulted and had no opportunity to give any input. I do not think that is acceptable.

It is clear from talking to colleagues on Dublin City Council that they feel the biggest objector to this community provision has all along been the Land Development Agency, LDA. It has had some success with to the community provision. Some developers have got on with it. They have factored community and cultural spaces into their developments. They have partnered with local arts organisations and community groups to make this work. It says a lot about the LDA, its role and the policy direction given to it if it is the main voice looking to remove this provision for community space. The LDA lobbied hard for these apartment design changes because allowing it to cram further small units into the existing building that will be built will enable it, at least on paper, to improve its performance.

The loss of size and mix is going to lead to mono-tenure towns and cities. We are going to have tiny apartments and people paying extremely high rents. It will not be sustainable or long term.

Going back to what I said at the beginning, the report presented to us at the briefing the other day was a summary of the LDA's research. We need to see the LDA's research because we need to be clear as to exactly what the cost savings are. I do not think the cost savings will be what were presented in the media and the press release from the Minister's Department last week. The savings will be nowhere near those figures. They will probably be one fifth of the headline figure that was quoted.

That these revised guidelines are being presented as a fait accompliis incredibly regrettable. My colleague Deputy Ó Broin spoke about the Aarhus Convention and our need to comply with our obligations under it. In the way the Minister is doing this, we are going to run into trouble on those grounds.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have been deeply shocked by these regulations and these new standards the Minister is introducing. As an academic, I did research for years. One of the starting points of research, of course, is gathering evidence. Policy is supposed to be evidence-based. The evidence that has been presented to justify these decisions does not stack up. The Government has claimed it will lead to savings of €50,000 to €100,000 per unit. We have not seen what the LDA has set out but in the estimates set out by the Department of housing, those claims that €100,000 will be saved do not stack up. We have heard clearly from other experts in the private sector who say that those savings will not be made.

One piece is completely missing. Where is the evidence that these regulations will lead to savings for those who are going to rent the homes or, although it is highly unlikely, buy such an apartment? No mechanism is set out by which this decision, which will allow developers or investor funds to add more units to a development, will present any reduction in rents or house prices, which is what we are trying to do.

I will set out in detail what has been presented by those experts - not by me but by others who work directly in the field. Something that disappoints me deeply about these regulations is that there was no consultation with key stakeholders. Perhaps the Minister could correct the record if that is not the case. Those stakeholders include, in particular, architects and planners. I am deeply frustrated and annoyed by these regulations. They are a capitulation to the developer and investor lobby. I do not know whether the Minister believes in them, but they are shocking. It feels as if the young people who will have to live in these homes are not being considered or thought of. It is, in my estimation, purely about two things. Those are increasing the profitability for investors and developers and pushing up the Government's figures for the housing statistics. That is deeply cynical and disappointing. I contend that the Minister is playing politics with the homes that people will have to live in. I do not say that lightly Ramming through this legislation will mean that generations of Irish people will be paying high rents to live in dark shoeboxes. It is a failure of vision and ambition when we see what is happening here. Every act of this Government so far has, it states, been intended to try to increase supply. Where is the supply of affordable housing?

Let us look at what is actually being proposed here. The size of units is being reduced. Windows, balconies and community facilities are being removed. I want to read into the record the assessment of the changes by the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland. That organisation, as I am sure the Minister is aware, is the body that registers architects and represents their views. As the organisation describes, it works across the full breadth of construction, playing a vital role in the public and private sectors. It is at the forefront of designing and delivering the homes, schools, workplaces and civic spaces that shape our communities and projects that prioritise sustainability, safety and quality of life. These architects, it could be argued, might benefit from the redesign of these guidelines because it will mean more work for them. Yet the institute came out with a damning statement, which I will read into the record. It stated: "The recent statements [in regard to the apartment guidelines] appear to suggest a shift in direction to lower-quality solutions driven by short term expediency [and what it means there is political expediency] rather than long term vision and sustainable solutions that [create and] deliver real value for money."

It went on to state:

It is critical that we get this right. We are deeply concerned that moves to relax key design safeguards risk undermining the creation of sustainable, high-quality living environments and will create future long-term challenges for apartment owners and tenants.

I will come back to this in the context of the Department's policy and guidelines on creating sustainable communities. The institute goes on to state:

The new guidance will allow for development of apartment blocks with single typologies which is completely at odds with the previous work of the Department of Housing to strengthen the sustainable communities approach to delivering homes.

On that, I quote the Government's own policy, Housing for All, which I looked up earlier today. Section 5.2 relates to the aim to support sustainable communities. What does this mean? The policy sets it out as:

The creation of sustainable communities has been an enduring goal of housing policy in recent decades. Sustainable communities are places where people want to live and work.

The second sentence bears repeating. These will not be places where people will want to live and work. The Government's policy further states: "They meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents, are sensitive to their environment and contribute to high quality of life." Architects and planners all make it very clear that these new guidelines will be detrimental to the quality of life provided in these new apartment blocks.

The Government's own Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlements: Guidelines for Planning Authorities has among its key indicators quality design and placemaking. The document sets out "indicators of quality urban design and placemaking, which should inform the development strategy for settlements, neighbourhoods or an individual site". Within that, it points to what should be done in planning and design:

The creation of sustainable communities ... requires a diverse mix of housing and variety in residential densities across settlements. This will require a focus on the delivery of innovative housing types that can facilitate compact growth and provide greater housing choice that responds to the needs of single people, families, older people and people with disabilities ...

These groups will not be catered for in these mono-tenure micro-units that nobody will be able to afford.

I will go back to the Royal Institute of Architects. I am reading this in detail into the record because it was utterly mistaken not to meet the institute's representatives - again, the Minister can correct me if he did meet them - to discuss these guidelines and take its points of view on board. I am also quoting it for the benefit of him and his advisers because I imagine they actually have not read this. Maybe they have, but they certainly did not consider what is in here, so we will continue. The RIAI states: "There is evidence that, over time, the cumulative effects of poorly sized and designed homes can contribute to social inequality and reduce overall productivity." The Department's new guidelines, "may also diminish Ireland's international competitiveness, particularly in retaining talent who value quality of life". This idea that the Government will build apartments that are micro-units and that are really expensive and that the international mobile professionals will just pay the rents is actually wrong. Everyone values and needs a quality of life. The RIAI also states: "The new proposals ... risk causing further delays to delivery of new housing projects as options are reassessed and new designs commissioned, which will take time to work through."

Other Deputies on this side made that point as well. Again, we ask: where was the analysis done to actually assess what delays will result as these changes are made and the modifications are required? Architects will have two years to work up new designs that might have been started. I was talking to an architect yesterday who said, in terms of social housing and private housing, they expect to go back to the drawing board. Literally, the architects expect to go back to the drawing board to redesign the units. That will all take time, and it means that developments that were due to start will not now start. The Minister does not mind, however, because he has set out that the Department will not reach its targets this year and will not reach them next year and he knows that these units will come onstream probably in three to four years, just in time for the election, when he will be able to say, "Look, we have increased the units." Again, he is playing politics with people's homes.

In a very significant paragraph the RIAI further stated:

The RIAI agrees that action is urgently needed to accelerate housing delivery; however, there are other ways of addressing this. In Dublin, land prices are one of the single biggest contributors to the high cost of building homes, partly driven by speculation on land assets as a commodity. While not the only factor, they significantly affect affordability, feasibility, and development timelines. The RIAI believes a better, and more sustainable approach, is for the government to seek greater control of land values in the first instance.

We see no emergency measures on land values. Where are they? Intervention on providing affordable land would reduce the cost and then, if affordable housing were to be built on it, could deliver genuinely affordable homes.

The RIAI also states:

Making better use of existing infrastructure that already benefits from essential services ... presents a real opportunity to speed up supply. In this regard, we need to continue incentivising the adaptation and reuse of existing vacant and derelict buildings ..., including vacant office spaces. (*The vacancy rate for Dublin office spaces is now at 17.5% .... The RIAI is advocating for increased resources to be deployed within our local ... authorities to kick start immediate progress in this ... area.

The RIAI has more but I will not take up the Minister's time on it.

I will go on to the Irish Planning Institute, the representatives of which I do not believe the Minister met or consulted either as regards these guidelines, but he can correct the record if that is not the case. I would be very interested to hear the institute's feedback on this. As regards the guidelines, Gavin Lawlor, president of the institute, said: "Professional planners not only recognise the gravity of the housing crisis - we are actively working to be part of the solution."

The Minister can smirk and smile. I am not sure-----

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not smirking or smiling.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Grand. That is all right.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy has enough to say without making stuff up.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mr. Lawlor continued: "We welcome meaningful, evidence-based reforms that support the accelerated, coordinated, and sustainable delivery of apartments and homes in communities across the country."

The institute goes on to say:

In particular, 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.

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

This point is also made by Niamh Towey in her excellent article in The Irish Times, which quotes lawyers and legal experts. One states: "the legislation is flawed and potentially unconstitutional due to the lack of public consultation on what could be a significant change to a developer's ... plan". The source further states: "any 'permitted modification' decision could be challenged in the High Court by way of judicial review". Again, we asked at the briefing for any analysis of risk assessment that the Minister undertook regarding potential legal challenges and none has been provided. I can only assume that he did no assessment in that regard, but it is a very real possibility that there will be delays as a result of legal challenges because of, again, his disconnect from people, to think that the Department can ram through a development that might have had 100 homes and will now have 400 homes, with no public consultation whatsoever. It beggars belief. My mind boggles at this because these developments will be flooded with judicial reviews and challenges.

I was contacted by another architect about the impact of these changes. They said: "The priority should be delivering a variety of housing types that satisfy different family structures, life stages and adaptability for accessibility, ageing and special needs." It is a real issue that this housing does not provide that.

The architect continued:

Long delays in changing existing approvals to a high percentage of smaller studios and one beds might provide higher numbers in the short term but the long-term issues will emerge from a limited scope of housing stock that does not satisfy a broad scope of needs. Housing must accommodate families, couples, older people and people with disabilities and these new standards will not assist with that.

That is truly damning because a question I have asked repeatedly is, in Dublin particularly, where are couples and families who want to have children going to be able to live and have children if all we have are micro-units – one beds and studios – where people cannot raise kids? “Would you live in these?” is the big question.

What is the reality of living in these units? We asked for time to debate this issue in the Dáil this week. We were not given it. It is disgraceful and anti-democratic that the Government is ramming through this legislation without consultation with key stakeholders, public consultation or proper time in the Dáil. It is very regrettable that the Minister has gone about it this way.

Another good article in The Irish Times spoke to couples who are living in small apartments. I will again read some of their quotes because this is the reality of what people will live in because of the Minister’s decision. A Galway couple said their hopes for having children are "indefinitely on pause until we move to a space larger" as new guidelines for smaller apartments are introduced. Mr. Ó Murchú and his fiancée, Laura, live in a mobile home in Galway that measures just under 37 sq. m, which is bigger than the Minister’s new studios. Mr. Ó Murchú says he cannot imagine making this space any smaller as it would be “mentally taxing”. He said, “We want to start our family, and have children. However, that is indefinitely on pause until we move to a space larger than here.” Where are the spaces where families, couples and people who want to have children be will be able to do so, particularly in Dublin?

The article also looked at the views of people with disabilities and access to housing and spoke to Pamela Kavanagh, head of communications at the Irish Wheelchair Association. She said wheelchair users will be further pushed out of the housing market if the minimum size of a studio apartment decreases and that there is “very minimal housing stock available for people with disabilities”, whether they are looking to privately rent or purchase a wheelchair-accessible home. The article quotes her as saying, "Housing is one of the biggest issues” for wheelchair users, acting as “the main barrier towards true independence”. Ms Kavanagh said the Irish Wheelchair Association had yet to be consulted on the guidelines. Were these new guidelines ever discussed with that association? If not, why not?

It is very clear these changes will have very long-term negative implications. Would the Minister pay €2,500 to live in these units? I doubt he would and I doubt that other Ministers in his Government or the Taoiseach would, yet he is telling the people of Ireland to do so. They are not homes. They will be cash cows for developers and other vested private interests that have been lobbying for this kind of barefaced deregulation for years. The Minister is taking away the space to start a family, have a pet, have space for a bookshelf, have sunlight and access to the outside, have space to entertain friends and family and have a full and dignified life. It has still not been clarified where the savings will come from in terms of €100,000 and whether those will be passed on in rents.

This Government, and the previous Government, which is the same Government, has long said it wants to help people move out of their parents' box rooms but much like its inflated housing figures, it misled the public during the last election by failing to mention that for the 500,000 people stuck in their childhood box room, their only option would be to move into another box room, this time owned by a corporate investor, and they would be charged €2,500 a month for the privilege. These poorly designed, poorly thought-through concessions to the developers and corporate landlords that see homes as nothing more than commodities and investment assets will lead to greater inequality. I am not sure if the Minister has looked at their actual size. Has he seen the graphic of the tennis court in The Irish Times?It is nicely done and well worth a look. It shows how eight of these units can fit on a tennis court. I am sure the Minister knows a tennis court is not that big. These are not homes; they are micro-units for investor funds. It is a disgraceful decision and the Minister will regret it, and the people who live in them certainly will.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When people look back at the decisions taken by the Minister and the Government on this legislation, academics and the people who end up living in these tiny apartments will ask what was going through their minds. Who made this decision?

I will give an example of how governments get it wrong. I come from Knocknaheeny. When Knocknaheeny was built 50 years ago, perhaps because of the financial situation of the country, it was decided to build the houses 20% smaller with substandard building materials. That decision was taken. Now Knocknaheeny has been undergoing regeneration since 2000. The houses were 25 years old when they had to start that and now we are 25 years into it. All that is because bad decisions were taken at the time. The Minister has to step back from this, if he is really serious. I believe the other speakers are right that this will actually slow down delivery. Existing planning permissions will go back to redesign to see what the maximum number that developers can get in to maximise their profits. Remember, they will maximise their profits because they will be able to maximise the number of units, but they are not allowed to increase the shared space. People will be piled into developments with no ability to build communities.

Mixed tenure has been proven to be the best way forward - one, two and three bedrooms, and single people, people with disabilities, couples with no kids, couples with kids and single people with kids. We are trying to build a community that represents the society outside but this is jamming people into bedsits. That is what we are talking about. I looked at the new prison cells. They are 12 sq. m. The units the Minister is looking at are 32 sq. m. Someone will have to pay €2,500 and a fellow who is locked up, a violent criminal, is living somewhere less than 2.5 times the size. How can that be right? People are working every hour God sends. Imagine being one of these people spending every penny they have to live in one of these bedsits and they have nowhere to meet their neighbours or to share. Think of the mental damage to individuals who will be trapped, because that is what they will be. They will be trapped there. They will go from the box bedroom of their parents house into one of the Minister's “initiatives” to solve the housing crisis. I said to the Minister yesterday, and I said it to him last week, that I invite him to walk around Dublin with me and Opposition spokespersons on housing. The number of vacant, derelict properties with water, electricity, infrastructrure and public transport right outside is an absolute sin. I know the housing crisis cannot be solved overnight - no one is suggesting it can – but what the Minister can do is deliver housing where these services exist. We know Irish Water cannot deliver connections or on wastewater.

We know the ESB cannot get them connections as fast as possible but there are thousands of properties - an estimated 164,000 vacant properties not including derelict properties. This is where we could get an easy win and turn them around in a space of months, a year or a year and a half and put them back into use. There are thousands of boarded-up council houses. This is another easy fix. We could turn them around in months.

All I hear the Minister do is give out about local authorities. The buck stops with him. If he truly wants to solve the housing crisis, there are much better ways to do it than what he is doing here today. The dogs in the street know that he is doing this to placate and encourage investment in these properties. He is looking to get in outside money. We have some of the highest rents in the world. If they are not willing to come in and invest in our country now when they can get €2,500 or €3,000, when will they? He is trying to encourage maximum profit but what about the quality of life? What about the cities, towns and villages we are trying to build? What about our communities? A lot of people have spoken. We want to be constructive. If the Minister solves the housing crisis, we will be the first people to congratulate him but what he is doing tonight will make matters worse.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are making radical decisions to get people out of box rooms, to get viability and to get properties built across this country. We know we have a crisis. I am treating it as an emergency. If we do not take radical measures and do so quickly, we will not get the apartments in Dublin city and across this country. That is why we are bringing forward these measures to address the issue of viability in terms of these apartments. People will decide whether they want to buy them.

In terms of judicial reviews, we have a very open court system. Anyone can take pretty much any action he or she wants. How far he or she gets is a different matter. These amendments were considered by the Attorney General and we have the Attorney General's advice. I would not be doing it otherwise. We are satisfied that these are constitutionally robust amendments.

Cultural spaces in the Dublin City Council development plan were mentioned. This Government and the previous one significantly funded community, cultural and sports places. There has been record funding for all those areas and we will continue to do that but the way to provide cultural spaces is not by way of a levy on developers building apartments who end up pushing that on to the purchasers and driving up the price of apartments. That is not the way to deliver cultural spaces. When I am doing this, I am thinking of those people who need homes to live in. Nobody can live in high-spec, high-design apartments that never leave the blueprints or drawings and that is what I am addressing here. I am very ambitious to address it. There is significant mixed tenure in these guidelines for apartments but we will not get any two-beds, three-beds and four-beds unless we make an adjustment so we can amend the viability of the apartment blocks to get them built so people can have those homes to live in.

I will address amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 24, which concern the modification of a permission for residential development. Seanad mendment No. 24 proposes to introduce a new section 44B into the Act of 2000 providing a certification procedure for modifications to planning permissions for residential development which are in line with certain specific planning policy requirements contained in the recently published Planning Design Standards for Apartments, Guidelines for Planning Authorities 2025.

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 24 seeks to include a requirement that applications for certificates under section 44B be notified to the public by way of a site notice. The proposed section 44B(13) would enable the Minister to make regulations for the purposes of this section. Where it is determined that a site notice is required, such a requirement will be introduced by regulations made under subsection (13) as is the case under the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. The amendment further proposes that the relevant authority must provide for public participation in the certification process by inviting written submissions from interested persons or organisations and the relevant authority must also have regard to those submissions when issuing a certificate under the proposed section 44B.

The Aarhus Convention relates to access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. Following discussions with the Office of the Attorney General, the Department remains satisfied that the Bill is in compliance with all international obligations, including the Aarhus Convention. It is important to note that section 44B(5)(b) provides that a relevant authority cannot issue a certificate under section 44B if an appropriate assessment, AA, or environmental impact assessment, EIA, in relation to the proposed modification of the permission is required. Where an EIA or AA is required, such proposed modifications may only be sought by way of a planning application, a process that provides for public participation and notification. In this context, regulations made under section 44B will provide the screening procedures for EIA and AA to facilitate this provision. Given the urgent need to increase housing supply, section 44B enables a limited number of modifications to existing planning permissions to facilitate the building of much-needed apartment developments while ensuring environmental screening is carried out in respect of those modifications. Therefore, I oppose the Deputies' amendment.

Seanad amendment No. 24 will introduce a new section 44B into the Act of 2000 providing a certification procedure for modifications to planning permissions for residential development that are in line with certain specific planning policy requirements contained in the recently published Planning Design Standards for Apartments, Guidelines for Planning Authorities 2025. Viability presents an ongoing challenge to housing delivery and this is particularly relevant for the delivery of apartments, where a considerable gap has emerged between the cost of delivering apartment development and comparable general housing market prices. The new guidelines provide guidance, standards and policy requirements in relation to the design of apartment developments to take account of current Government policy and economic, social and environmental considerations. Given the urgent need to increase housing supply, the proposed section 44B will enable the holders of existing permissions for apartment developments that have not yet commenced to modify their permissions in line with the new guidelines.

As the provision explicitly sets out, its purpose is to facilitate the construction of a greater numbers of dwellings in apartment complexes than permitted under permissions already granted taking account of the acute shortage of residential accommodation, the rise in homelessness, the rise in the cost of residential rental accommodation and house and apartment purchase prices. Section 44B enables the holder a permission for residential development to apply to the relevant authority that granted that permission, either a planning authority or An Coimisiún Pleanála, to certify that a proposed modification of a permission is a permitted modification. The relevant authority must be satisfied that the proposed modification, if made, is a permitted modification in order for a certificate to issue.

Applications for certificates will need to be accompanied by revised plans and drawings and other documentation and information related to the proposed modification, including for the purpose of carrying out environmental screening. Certificates will not be issued for proposed modifications in the following scenarios: the development has already commenced; an AA or EIA in relation to the proposed modification is required; or the applicant for the certificate fails to comply with any documentation or further information requirements. In addition, if the development is located in a strategic development zone, a certificate cannot be issued if the proposed modification would cause the number of dwellings in that strategic development zone to exceed the number permitted by its planning scheme.

Where a certificate is issued, the permission will stand so modified and any development carried out in accordance with a modified permission will not be unauthorised development. Public notification requirements are set out requiring the relevant authority to issue a public notice in a newspaper and on its website as well as making the relevant documentation available for inspection, including on its website.

Section 44B is a temporary provision and certificate applications for proposed modifications must be made within two years from this Bill coming into operation. Amendments Nos. 21, 25 and 26 are consequential to the introduction of this new certification procedure for modifications to existing apartment permissions. Amendment No. 21 amends section 7 of the Act of 2000 to provide that particulars of any permission modified in accordance with section 44B must be entered into a planning authorities register.

Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 concern fee setting for the certification applications to amend section 246 of the Act of 2000 whereby the Minister may prescribe in regulation a fee in respect of applications under section 44B and amending section 144 of that Act to facilitate the commission to set a fee in respect of such applications where they are the relevant authority.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is going to go down in history for having introduced a new principle of economics. It is called shrinkflation. It is the idea you can reduce the price of something by reducing the size of something. We are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. The price of milk has gone up almost 14% in the last year. Imagine a milk producer said people should not worry because producers are going to cut the price of milk by 50% and do it by cutting the size of a pint in half. People would laugh at any proposer of that, but it is what the Minister is suggesting.

It is interesting that his response did not deal with any of the substantive criticisms of his proposals from industry professionals and that failure to respond speaks volumes. It is all very well for the Minister to say he has the Attorney General's advice, because Simon Coveney had the Attorney General's advice with strategic housing developments and Eoghan Murphy had the Attorney General's advice on the use of the section 28 guidelines on apartment standards and building heights in 2018 but the combination of those led to a dramatic surge in judicial reviews and delays to much-needed homes. I am flabbergasted the Minister has not taken that into account.

The Minister has to publish the LDA’s advice. We are very persistent over here. We will get it. We will get it by freedom of information, by parliamentary question or some other way, so the Minister should save his officials spending time having to respond to me every second day and publish it. If he is so confident that data proves his case he should publish it. What has happened is this Government’s housing policy has been in a tailspin since it was caught out on its housing delivery last year. The single largest lobby group for institutional investors, namely, Irish Institutional Property, has been in and out of Government Buildings like a yo-yo in the last few months, according to the lobbying register. Who is the head of Irish Institutional Property? Who is on the lobbying register, a public document? It is the former general secretary of the Minister’s party, Pat Farrell. Who is lobbying Pat Farrell to lobby the Minister for tax breaks, higher rents and reduction of standards? It is the large institutional investors. This is not going to work. It is not going to increase supply. It is not going to tackle viability. All it is going to do is punish renters and lead to poor-quality urban developments into the future and that will be on the Minister. Shrinkflation does not exist. It is a mirage. I will be pressing the amendment to the amendment.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate the Minster's detailed response. He did not answer my questions on the consultation with the institute of planners, the architects or the Irish Wheelchair Association. It is deeply regrettable that they clearly were not consulted and there was not proper engagement with them. If there had been there would be a different outcome to this, so it is deeply regrettable.

The Minister referenced people buying these apartments. How many people does he think bought a newly-built apartment in Dublin in the last couple of years? It is a handful. None of these apartments being built are going to be bought by anybody. They are all going to be build-to-rent or they will be social housing, and there is a massive question about micro-social housing units where people will be forced into overcrowding. Again, is this about jacking up numbers without concern for quality and liveability? I cannot remember whether it was the Tánaiste or someone else who was talking about how this is a measure that will help people buy their own home. They will get one of these apartments and they will go on the property ladder. Nobody is going to be buying these apartments. They are not for sale. They are all build-to-rent. It is delusional, and actually downright misleading, to say anybody is going to be buying these apartments. The Government is not building apartments for sale. Nobody can buy a home.

No young person can buy any of the new homes that are being built in Dublin. In my constituency it is apartments to rent at rents no-one can afford. That is the fundamental problem and there was and is an alternative. We have set it out. With the homes for Ireland savings scheme we could be leveraging the billions that are in savings accounts – which is private finance – into affordable housing. The Taoiseach and the Minister have said we are putting forward no solutions and the State needs private finance, so there is a source of private finance. It is done in France through the Livret A scheme, through the accounts, and it funds billions in affordable and social housing delivery. Michelle Norris of the Housing Commission said very clearly this could be a solution and my question is why is the Minister not putting into that the effort he is putting into ramming through this legislation.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his reply. A number of Ministers over a number of Governments, including from my party, have tried to do this or have done this with apartment standards. It did not work in 2015, 2016 or 2018 and it is definitely not going to work now. We need to see the LDA's evidence for how this will cut the cost of developing an apartment. Some of these apartments are going to be as small as 32 sq. m and no putative buyer on the private market is going to buy an apartment that small. There just is not a market for it. We are talking about a portion of a tennis court or the size of a very large car. These apartments are going to be build-to-rent, they are going to be built in Dublin and Cork only and they are not going to be affordable or they are going to be used for social housing. We are going to have monolithic, one box, very small, single aspect, quite depressing and dark yellow pack apartments that either social housing tenants or transient renters will be forced to live in.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister made a comment earlier that this is the size of the apartments in Austria. Will people pay the same rents? The Minister might check that out for us because I can tell him they will not. If he is making a comparison he should make the whole comparison. My big worry is there is a major development going in Cork's docklands. We are looking at maybe 10,000 units. The Minister was there, as was I, and the Taoiseach was there talking about this vision for the Cork docklands. My serious concern is when what the Minister is proposing today comes in, we may be looking at redesigns of the type of apartment and tenure mix that will be going in there. This could be an iconic situation in Cork, but it could also turn into social housing mini-apartments and down the road we will have antisocial behaviour, deprivation and lack of investment.

The Minister made a point earlier about all the money the Government has invested in parks, playgrounds and public spaces. I live on the northside of Cork city and there has been virtually nothing. There are no regional parks in the north west or the north east. They have far below the level of parks and playgrounds there are in other parts of the country. If we are going to be delivering the Cork docklands and the Minister is saying the developers and builders are not going to be putting in the shared spaces, then those spaces have to go in first because they never go in afterwards. We saw that during the Celtic tiger. Houses were built all over the place with no services, no shared spaces, no schools, no crèches and then everyone wanted to know why we had major problems in some of these communities. The buck stopped with those Governments in the same way it will stop with this Government.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputies. Does the Minister wish to respond?

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I have listened to about 40 minutes of hyperbole and lots of one-liners for social media-----

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ah, come on.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----being put forward and no solutions, with the exception, in fairness, of Deputy Hearne. As I have stated before, the Department of housing has asked the Department of Finance to look at a Livret A-type scheme and I have read the Deputy's proposals.

There are challenges in this regard. It is not something that can be stepped up immediately but it is something we are looking at seriously.

We must get houses and apartments built, whether to rent or for sale. We need that mix. We have a viability issue in this country. We are taking rapid measures to get the viability going. On the other side of that, the most important thing is affordability. The only way we will address homelessness and high rents and ensure people have homes to live in is by taking the necessary measures to ensure we get those homes built. That will enable people to move out of box rooms and into their own homes.

All the theories written down will not provide a single home in which people can live. The only thing that will do so is action. That is what I am doing as Minister, with the backing of the Government. We have introduced a series of measures I believe will address the housing crisis we are facing in this country. They are measures that are absolutely essential to be made. All the hyperbole across the floor will not build a single house.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 24:

After subsection (1), to insert the following: "(1A) The holder of a permission shall notify the public of the application by way of a site notice.

(1B) In order to ensure adherence with the State’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention and the principles of good planning and development the relevant authority shall provide for public participation in the certification process by way of inviting written submissions on the application from interested persons or organisations, the relevant authority shall provide no less than 4 weeks from the date of the application for written submissions to be made as advertised in a relevant newspaper and on the authorities website, the relevant authority shall have regard to any submissions made when making a final decision on the request."

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The question is now that Seanad amendment No. 24 be agreed to. Is that agreed?

Deputies:

Not agreed.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The agreement to the Seanad amendments is reported to the House and a message will be sent to Seanad Éireann acquainting it accordingly.