Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, line 22, to delete “70 per cent” and substitute “80 per cent”.

I note that the scheduling of the business, the times allocated, adjournments, continuations and so forth are all outside of my control, as a member of the Opposition, and are within the scope of the Houses of the Oireachtas as proposed by the Government.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, deal with a similar issue, which is the concern in regard to these strategic housing developments, SHDs, or strategic large-scale residential developments. There is a 30% ambiguity, and possibly more than 30%, in that the kind of fast-track process that has been talked about and the kinds of special concessions that are being made to this kind of development still only require that 70% of the floor space in a large-scale residential development, LRD, is, in fact, for housing or residential. There is a need for clarity on what happens with the other 30%. Local authorities have rightly had very serious concerns on the way these issues have been approached and, for example, the priorities and concerns that may be in a local area development plan and the things which require particular scrutiny in terms of their special or different environmental impact, if we are looking to certain kinds of commercial activity. What we do not want is that those measures and those proposals are not part of a proposal, and the fact of the 70% figure for residential housing means they are not getting the scrutiny they should.

I have three amendments. Amendment No. 1 suggests that if this is large-scale residential development, at least 80% of its floor space should be housing. Again, I would reserve the right to come back with further comments in terms of what kind of housing it should be, and that is something we may examine further on Report Stage. Currently, the Bill allows that another figure could be inserted instead of the 70%.

Amendment No. 2 stipulates that if another figure is inserted instead of 70% for housing, it must be a figure higher than 70%. We certainly should not see a situation where a large-scale residential development with, say, only 50% or 60% housing is getting the kind of process that is given in this legislation as that would not be in the spirit of the legislation, given the housing crisis we face. It would also create real concerns in terms of proper scrutiny, as well as proper consultation and public scrutiny.

Amendment No. 3 stipulates that if 30% of large-scale residential development floor space is not being used for the purposes of housing, it should be used for the listed amenities. I am open to the suggestions of the Minister and open to a possible revised version of the amendment on Report Stage to reflect the amenities that we know should be accompanying housing, for example, public open spaces, landscaping, play facilities, pedestrian permeability or other ancillary services where required, including childcare facilities, which, frankly, should be there as standard in any large-scale residential development at this point. In this amendment, I am seeking to specify the kinds of things I believe should be in that 30% if it is to be 70% residential. I would appreciate the Minister's thoughts on what should be happening with that 30% and, indeed, what role the local authority should have in prescribing how any space that is not housing should be used.

Amendment No. 4 is slightly different and the four amendments are probably not a natural grouping, but so be it. Amendment No. 4 is specific to the issue of student accommodation. Currently, the legislation provides that student accommodation cannot be used as a hotel, hostel, apartment or other type of accommodation other than for the purposes of residential accommodation for tourists or visitors outside of academic term times. My amendment would remove the phrase "academic term times" and replace it with "the academic year". That is very important because we currently have a situation where the Christmas break is not included in that restriction. We know there may be situations where, as soon as the term finishes, even though students may well be facing into a number of academic requirements over the Christmas period and may be facing exams, for example, in January, they are in a situation where they do not have that same protection. I do not think we should impose a situation on students whereby there is a risk they may have to vacate their accommodation during the Christmas period. I am particularly thinking of international students in the current context of Covid.

By accepting this amendment, which I hope the Minister will, he would give clarity that when students access student accommodation, they are able to have access to that student accommodation for the full period of the academic year without any risk that they may, in fact, find themselves replaced by tourist money or visitor money during a key period in their academic studies.