I support this amendment. Given the nature of the way these changes have being put forward, it is important that there be a process and a clear setting out of an assessment as to the impact the changes will have, particularly in view of the need to have accountability in respect of decisions. That is very important. I support the amendment on that basis.
Sentiment score: 0.46
I support this amendment and I add that there is a real issue in terms of us understanding what is getting planning permission, what is the nature of the tenure, and who is developing it. Particularly in the area of apartments, there is concern in my own constituency and in Dublin generally regarding the proliferation of the build-to-rent model, how many apartments are being developed and who is developing them. I have asked the Department through parliamentary questions a number of times whether we gather data on how many build-to-rent developments are being planned or developed and there is no information. That is really important. For good planning we need to understand what is being developed in different areas and whether there is an excessive number of build-to-rent complexes versus, for example, what is for sale. This is a real gap we have in understanding, developing and planning communities.
Sentiment score: 0.16
I will not comment on my own age.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I am ageing very quickly in here tonight, but-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
It is. There is a key concern that I outlined last week and we have outlined a number of times before. I wish to make a number of points on it. The first point is that this change is a result of intense lobbying by institutional investors and developers about this whole idea of viability. Viability is about profitability. Were the guidelines that existed prior to this good planning or bad planning? Were they guidelines that were about ensuring that people had liveable spaces and apartments were of decent design standard and liveable? Clearly, they were. The reason that the Government is making these changes is not to improve liveability of apartments. As the Minister of State said very clearly, it is actually about viability. What does viability mean? It means reducing cost, increasing the number of units that we can get on a site and reducing the quality of what has been delivered in terms of space, balconies, windows, etc. Of course, the biggest critique of apartments that were built during the Celtic tiger - and people spoke about them - was that they were shoeboxes. After the Celtic tiger crash, we had the introduction of better guidelines that were about creating improved apartments that people would want to live in. However, what the Government is now doing is going back on that. We will back in the same situation, creating shoebox apartments that people do not want to live in long term and cannot live in long term. We are trying to support people to have families and go through different life stages. What these guidelines are going to do is make that more even difficult. As the Minister of State said, if this builds one more apartment, that is great and he will be happy about that. That is what this is about. However, it is not an apartment that it is building, it is a unit. It is not a home. Regarding who is going to be living in these, they will not be able to afford them. I have also heard that it is about trying to get more social housing units in. It is creating lower quality and standards of social housing. Again, this is adding to stigma. It is not actually building. We can say that we built a unit, but we need to be building affordable homes for people. This will not achieve that. It will build units. It will add to the numbers that are being built. It will give a roof over someone's head but is it building an actual home on a permanent basis? It is not going to be achieving that. It is essentially about incentivising and enabling institutional investors to get more profit. It will also add to land speculation and land prices. It will push that up and lead to further speculation and the use of planning to do that. It is not a measure that will provide decent homes for people. On that basis, I oppose it.
Sentiment score: 0.10
I will return to the Minister of State's comment on Vienna. There is a very different mix of floor sizes available in Vienna. There are larger units available for families, in particular. This legislation is reducing the number of units within developments that will be available for families of a size. Fundamentally, they will not even be affordable to families. What is happening as a result of this is a reduction in the availability of two-bedroom and three-bedroom apartments. It is shifting, not creating, sustainable communities within the developments and creating soulless places where people cannot live and cannot have families. That is a fundamental issue. The Government is being driven by the investors. They have the Government over a barrel in terms of being completely dependent on them. The Government is just doing what they are asking for and it is deeply disappointing. One of the examples, which the Minister of State did not come back on, is the issue of windows. It is reducing the number of windows people can have. Is the Minister of State seriously standing over that? There will be fewer windows available to people as a result of these measures. Windows are fundamental in Ireland for two reasons. One, we have major problems with mould and damp. It happens even in new developments because of the wet climate we have. Two, with climate change, as Lorcan Sirr pointed out in The Irish Times and as we see today, we will have a problem with heat because our buildings are not designed to deal with it. I guarantee these buildings are not designed to deal with the major issues of heat that are ahead of us. The Minister of State has not addressed that issue.
Sentiment score: -0.07
We need to build affordable homes and not just roofs, because it is not just about shelter. I want to come back to the issue of profitability. There is an issue in relation to the profits being made. In some ways, the Government is being taken for a fool. I have great respect for Deputy Carrigy as Chair of the housing committee but, seriously, what else are they going to say? They are private developers. They are investor funds. Of course they are going to say that. Michael Stanley who appeared the committee had €8.5 million in remuneration last year, and we are pumping public money into these guys and just taking everything they say as fact. They absolutely have us over a barrel. We are completely and utterly dependent on them and there is no transparency around how much they are making. Of course they are saying it is great and it is working because they are getting all they want and what they are asking for. The Government is giving them everything. There is a real issue here, for me anyway. Housing is about delivering decent homes that people can live in that are affordable. These guys are not interested in that. What they want to deliver is what they can make the most money from. Unfortunately, the Minister of State is reducing the standards that people in my constituency are going to live in, because that is where apartments are being built. They are more expensive and with lower standards. That is what people will have to live in. It is not right.
Sentiment score: 0.03