Eoin Ó Broin
Dublin Mid-West · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“It is disappointing that, when several journalists have contacted the Government and the Department looking to confirm on the record that HAP and RAS tenants are not included - we know that they are not - and set out why and if that will be reconsidered, instead of giving a straight answer that, yes, they have been excluded, and explainin…”
“Will it try to remove survivors when they chain themselves to the gates in protest, as they have said they will, or will it finally listen to them and hear their calls for respect, justice and truth? Will it buy the Bessborough site and stop this outrage from happening?”
“According to the latest summary of social housing needs assessments, 61,000 households are on council waiting lists, although we know a large number of them are single people. About 49,000 households at the end of last year were on HAP, while there were about 7,500 private sector RAS recipients of the 14,000.”
“We are setting out five specific sets of circumstances where that would be permissible. Under our scheme, the person moving from Youghal to Clonakilty would have to have a specific reason like taking up a job or education in Clonakilty or accessing long-term medical treatment, etc.”
“First, importantly it would be for both people on the list and people in receipt of social housing support, such as HAP and RAS. It is not just the 61,000 households on our council lists but also the 55,000 or so households in HAP or private sector RAS.”
“Sure. I thank the Minister of State for his reply. My natural disposition as a person is to treat people at face value, but ten years in this House has made a bit of a cynic of me.”
The complete record
Every one of 837 lines we hold for Eoin Ó Broin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 17.
“The potential saving for a cost-rental tenant paying an average rent of €1,500 per month would be €225. That is €2,700 a year. I hope that he would insist rather than expect that the LDA provides that. Equally, the VAT reductions on apartments could also be a helpful way for reducing the rent if the VAT reduction is passed on to the AHB or LDA through Project Tosaigh or forward purchase. Is the Minister going to insist that the €20,000 or so reduction in costs to a developer will be passed on to any AHB or the LDA entering into a forward purchase agreement? Will he clarify how the VAT reduction is going to work for AHBs and the LDA when, for example, they are forward funding as opposed to forward purchasing?”
“Will he also set out what measures, if any, he is going to take to ensure the very significant savings that will accrue for new cost rental tenancies by the corporation tax waiver will be passed on to tenants, whether LDA or private sector cost rental providers?”
“Average rents for new tenants increased by over €1,000 last year and for existing renters by almost €800. Despite the Government's renter's tax credit, the majority of renters will either be worse off or marginally better off. When we change the legislation, however, those rent increases are going to be even more dramatic for people who move tenancy or enter into a new tenancy. One thing the Minister could do is to retrospectively apply his decision to exempt corporation tax on cost rentals to the 1,200 existing LDA tenants. The LDA and private providers - if that is the Minister's intention - should be forced to pass on those savings to their tenants. Will the Minister confirm whether the corporation tax exemption on cost rentals will be applied to existing LDA tenancies?”
“The programme for Government had a clear commitment to progressively increase the renters' tax credit. Obviously, that promise was broken in yesterday's budget and as a consequence the vast majority if not all of the renters' tax credit will be swallowed up by rental increases based on the most recent data from Daft. Likewise, an increasing number of people who apply for cost rental projects are refused access because they do not meet the affordability test. They earn too much to be eligible for social housing but enough to be eligible for the unaffordable cost rental rents. Will the Minister tell us what is in budget 2026? What actions is he going to take to tackle the rip-off rents not only in the private sector but increasingly in the cost rental sector?”
“On the basis of what I am seeing and what the homeless sector is saying, there is nothing new or additional to prevent or end homelessness more rapidly in yesterday’s budget.”
“The Simon Communities of Ireland went on to say yesterday, “The measures announced today will do nothing to reduce the numbers of people being forced to experience the trauma of homelessness.” What it is saying and what I want the Minister to respond to is, of the €235 million of additional funding for homeless services on the allocation to date of this year, how much will be spent on new homeless prevention or homeless exits or is that money simply a reflection of what the Government is actually going to spend this year? Is the Minister going to bring a further Supplementary Estimate, for example, on homelessness that will show spend this year closer to the allocation for next? What is new in yesterday’s budget? How much money and on what programmes will the Minister use that money to reduce homelessness in the time ahead?”
“The budget increase for this year is not really an increase at all but simply reflects the high level of expenditure on emergency accommodation. That means as a consequence of the decisions the Government took in the budget announced yesterday, homelessness is going to increase and notices of termination continue to be issued at an accelerating rate. I want to know not what the Minister has done to date because that is failing but what is he going to do differently? What new initiative to prevent people from becoming homeless or get people out of emergency accommodation more quickly was announced in the budget yesterday?”
“Yesterday, in response to the budget, Focus Ireland said: "Budget 2026 has failed to deliver for the record number of over 16,350 people now homeless as the Government did not take any decisive action on housing to help the most vulnerable in society." The Simon Communities of Ireland in a similar vein said: "It is deeply disappointing that yet again there was no mention of homeless prevention and homelessness remains invisible within the budget and also in the ever-present conversation around housing". We know last year fewer social homes were delivered than the year before. We know the budget allocation for local authorities for social housing for this year is over €200 million less than what was spent last year. We are not going to see an increase in supply to get people out of emergency accommodation.”
“As the Minister knows, homelessness is at the highest level since modern records began. Over 16,000 people, including 5,000 children are officially categorised as homeless and in emergency accommodation funded by the Department. Astonishingly, neither the Minister for Finance nor the Minister for public expenditure and reform even referenced homelessness yesterday. The budget book simply references an increase for emergency accommodation, hardly a sign of success. Will the Minister outline the actions he intends to take in the coming weeks and months to start to get a grip on this crisis so that we see the numbers of adults and in particular children in emergency accommodation fall?”
“Every other county in the State will get nothing. The Government did not increase the social housing targets beyond previous commitments. It did not increase the affordable cost rental or purchase targets in order to fix those schemes and make them genuinely affordable. It is doing nothing to ensure an adequate supply of good-quality, private homes in every county in the State for working people to purchase by supporting and activating the small and medium-size builder-developer sector. Michael O'Flynn, one of the most respected builder-developers in the State, has stated over and over that he does not want tax breaks. He wants a viable business model to build homes for working people to buy. That is not in this budget. This will not work. The only beneficiaries are very large developers.”
“If anybody tells me that is a credible solution to the housing crisis, they clearly do not understand what is happening. The worst thing of all - I say this with the greatest of respect for the Minister opposite and the people in her constituency who cannot get affordable homes - is that the only apartments which may arise from this cocktail of measures will be very expensive ones in limited areas of Dublin, namely the Docklands and Sandyford, for example, in which very high rents of €3,000-plus obtain. Nobody will be building anything in the Minister's constituency on the basis of these measures because that is not what those in the institutional investment and apartment developer community are interested in. They want a small amount of expensive, high-end and high-density apartments in Dublin, and maybe the Docklands area of Cork.”
“The Government is allowing apartment developers to dramatically reduce the size of and the light and storage options in apartments and to dramatically reduce the quality of the lives of those who occupy them. It is also about to introduce legislation that will allow not only for those apartments that come on stream to come in at the top of the market but also to reset to full market value every six years. Hines has told us its turnover of tenants is 25% every year. This means that means in exchange for an extra €25,000 going into a developer's pocket, that developer will build a volume - we do not know how many, but I agree with colleagues that it will not be a large volume - of smaller, darker, far more expensive homes.”
“I do not necessarily accept their veracity but he claims that suburban apartments have a viability gap of €114,000 per unit and that inner-urban apartments have a viability gap of €156,000. That is the gap that has to be closed. How in God's name will a VAT reduction of €20,000 close either of those? The maths do not add up. I do not know which Deputy before me made this point, but it was a point well worth making. This was not a commitment in the programme for Government, unlike, for example, the promise to progressively increase the renter's tax credit, a promise that was broken today. It is a specific demand of a specific lobbyist who came into Government Buildings and requested it. The Minister is right this is one of three measures. That is the one point on which I will agree with her.”
“If there was a commencement date of tomorrow, anything commenced before that would not have its sale delayed and the State would not be blowing hundreds of millions of euro that could be spent on the delivery of genuinely affordable homes for working people. I take it from her remarks that the Minister, Deputy McEntee, is confirming that, next year and the year after, the apartments bought by AHBs and local authorities under turnkey agreements for social or cost rental will effectively be captured by this. That means the State will pay an additional €20,000 to €25,000 per unit next year and the year after on top of the price already committed to through the forward purchase agreements. That is utterly bizarre. Let us deal with viability. The Minister, Deputy Browne, gave some figures on viability at his press conference.”
“The Government will then spend €350 million on it next year, and a large proportion of that money will also go on apartments that are currently under construction. Those apartments are being built. If the Government did not introduce this measure, those apartments would be built and bought by funds or AHBs. It is simply not the case that next year's expenditure or the bulk of that for the year after is about activation. At a press conference earlier, the Minister, Deputy Browne, was asked why that is the case. Why, for example, did he not link this measure to a commencement date like tomorrow? I still think it would be a bad policy but it would mean the Government would not be wasting €250 million next year. What did the Minister say? He said he could not do that because it would delay the sale. What utter nonsense.”
“The Minister is absolutely correct. There are planning permissions for 40,000 apartments that have not yet been commenced. The Minister claimed that this measure is to activate those permissions. Why then provide a VAT reduction in respect of apartments under construction? All the expenditure being provided for this measure next year is for apartments that are currently being built. It takes approximately two years to build out an apartment development. That means €250 million of this money for next year will go on apartments which are under constructions and for which there already are buyers. In many cases, because they have forward purchase agreements, the prices have been fixed.”
“These are apartments that are being built now, the overwhelming majority of them have purchasers now and the Government is going to blow €250 million on a so-called activation measure for apartments that are already under activation. It makes no sense whatsoever. The bulk of the people buying those apartments are approved housing bodies and local authorities. Will the Minister confirm that they will not be protected from this measure? That means the State is essentially going to be paying €20,000 to €25,000 extra for those turnkeys, which makes no sense whatsoever. Will the Minister confirm what we already know, namely, that there will be no mechanism put in place to ensure that the developers of these apartments are forced by the Government to reduce the sale price by the VAT reduction to whoever the purchasers are?”
“What is really unbelievable about this measure is not just the blatant way in which the Government has decided to increase the profits of large apartment developers by an average of €25,000 per apartment, but in addition to that, it will do nothing to increase supply or viability. On that basis, Sinn Féin is opposed to it. If the Minister is able to come back in at the end of this session, I would like her to respond to four very specific questions about this resolution. Will she confirm, as it appears from the Minister's statement today, that this VAT reduction is at the point of sale and purchase of apartments? Why is the Government allowing it to be applied to buildings currently under construction? The Government will spend €250 million next year on this measure.”
“When the outgoing Government was exposed for misleading the public during the election campaign on new home completions, the Government went into a tail spin and in walked Pat Farrell from Irish Institutional Property. The lobbying register confirms the volume of times he was in Government Buildings earlier this year. He looked for three things. He wanted a dramatic reduction in the quality of apartment standards - smaller and darker apartments - and he got that. He wanted to be able to reset private rents in between tenancies to the top of the market rents. He got that. And he wanted this. He wanted a VAT reduction, which will do nothing at all to increase the output of apartments or reduce their cost to purchasers or renters, but it will do everything to put more money into the pockets of his clients, and he got that.”
“I want to address Financial Resolution No. 4. I have to say I am not surprised that none of the Ministers from the relevant Department are here to defend it because it is quite clear they were not in favour of the introduction of this particular policy measure. There is no doubt there is a challenge in terms of affordability and viability but the suggestion that a reduction in VAT on new apartment purchases, from 13.5% to 9%, would do anything to address either of those issues is absolutely absurd. In fact, it shows that this Government, more than any of its predecessors, has been completely captured by one particular lobby group, namely, Irish Institutional Property.”
“The Housing Commission report, which the Government continues to ignore, sets out the scale of ambition required to end homelessness and meet social housing needs. The homeless policy group, our homeless NGOs, have set out the solutions in a ten-point plan, again ignored by the Government. The problem is the Minister, Deputy Browne, and the Government are simply not listening. Until this changes, more and more children will be forced into homelessness. It does not have to be this way. The Minister can make the difference. Let us see the colour of his money when the new housing plan is published, and if he is serious about tackling this problem, which he himself is making worse.”
“I think this is blaming the victim of Government policy because child homelessness is not complex. It is a direct result of bad Government housing policy. There is a refusal to provide an adequate supply of social homes, particularly for those in or at risk of homelessness, and an overreliance on a private rental sector that is expensive, insecure and shrinking. The consequence of these two things is ever rising homelessness. I have not heard anything from the Minister who is present that the new housing plan will address these fundamental problems. Thankfully, there are alternatives. Sinn Féin's alternative housing plan sets out emergency and medium-to-long-term actions needed to tackle this crisis.”
“What does this Government have against children? Despite the enormous resources at its disposal, thousands upon thousands of children are being left behind every year. When Fine Gael took office in 2011, there were just over 600 children officially classified as homeless. Now, it is a staggering 5,000 and continuing to rise. This means that, in the 14 years that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in one shape or another have been in charge of housing policy, tens of thousands of children have been forced into homelessness. The impact on these children is enormous. It has impacts on their physical, emotional and intellectual development, particularly when they are forced to spend two or three years in inadequate and insecure emergency accommodation. The Taoiseach tells us that, apparently, child homelessness is a complex problem.”
“The thing she said to me that really struck home was the lack of any support or adequate information and communication as she battled for a very basic need for her child. The issue is very simple: the 1916 Proclamation promised to cherish the children of the nation equally, yet every single year the Government is failing children. It is time to stop. That is why we have tabled this motion. I commend the motion to the House.”
“The delays in building new schools, units or extensions are extraordinary. It is six, seven or eight years in some cases. Lucan Special School and Saint Mary's Boys School in Lucan are just two of the schools where there are ongoing delays. When parents and their children finally secure places, there are real question marks about the adequacy of those places. That is no criticism of the teachers, principals or SNAs. In many cases, the schools are too far from where the parents are; school transport is not provided or is then withdrawn; or the conditions in which the teachers, SNAs and the young children get their education are wholly inappropriate. In the most recent case I had, the mother battled for over a year. It was only last week, some weeks after the school term started, that she finally secured a place.”
“In the 11 years I have been an elected representative in Dublin Mid-West, every single year as the school term approaches, my office receives calls from desperate parents who do not believe their child will have a school place come September. This year has been no different. The parents do not come to us at the start of that battle, but near the end. They have spent months or, in some cases, years battling for those places. The key problems remain the same today as when I started in this job. We simply do not have enough places in our schools and where there are places, there is a lack of follow-on places. Despite the fact that we know the number of children with additional needs in junior schools, there is not adequate planning to ensure they have appropriate places moving through senior school or into secondary school.”
“He has never done anything dishonest. He said, "Now, when I needed the Government more than ever, I feel abandoned". Will the Government provide additional funding to local authorities for tenant in situ purchases where the local authorities have requested it?”
“Evan and Nadia Kavanagh and their three children are renters in Clondalkin. They are now at imminent risk of homelessness due to overholding on their notice of termination since 6 September. The landlord wants to sell to the local authority and applied through the tenant in situ scheme. The application was being processed and the landlord was then informed in July that because the funding had been exhausted, the purchase could not continue. The family do not have enough time on the list to be eligible for a council allocation. They have a child with severe special needs, which means that emergency accommodation is not appropriate. They simply have nowhere to go. So frustrated are they that went public over the summer and spoke to the Irish Independent . Evan made it clear that he is a working family man. He has always played by the rules.”
“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."”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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".”
“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.”
“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.”