Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 24 May 2022

Construction Costs in Housing: Discussion

The witnesses are all welcome. This afternoon we will be discussing the costs of construction and we are joined by a number of representatives from the construction industry. From the Construction Industry Federation, CIF, we have Mr. James Benson, director of housing, planning and development services; and Mr. Conor O'Connell, director of the southern region. From the County and City Management Association, CCMA, we have Mr. Eddie Taaffe, the programme co-ordinator of the housing delivery co-ordination office; and Ms Margaret Geraghty, the assistant programme co-ordinator. From the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland we are joined by Mr. Kevin James, president; and Ms Lisa Rocca, incoming chair of the planning and development professional group committee. I thank the witnesses for attending. Members have been circulated with the opening statements and the briefing documents.

Before I invite our witnesses to make their opening statements, I will read a note on privilege. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the place where Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, to participate in public meetings. Those attending in the committee room are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their contributions to today's meeting. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action arising from their remarks at the meeting. Members and witnesses are expected not to abuse the privilege they enjoy. It is my duty as Chairman to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with such direction. Members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. Benson to make the opening statement on behalf of CIF.

Mr. James Benson

The Irish Home Builders Association, IHBA, is a constituent association of CIF representing hundreds of home builders of all sizes across Ireland. We support home builders to deliver quality affordable homes to home buyers. The past number of years have been particularly difficult as home buyers have struggled against the lack of supply and affordability. In 2020, the IHBA launched a comprehensive report, commissioned from EY, which offered a thorough and detailed analysis of housing affordability in Ireland. The report, the most wide-ranging and rigorous examination of the residential sector in Ireland for some years, provided a full analysis of affordability and supply of homes in Ireland and highlighted how difficult things were then.

The current situation is that things are worse now. Affordability remains challenging and recent extraordinary increases in the costs and availability of materials do not help. Supply of housing is not meeting demand. With mounting construction costs, home builders are challenged to bring new homes to the market at a level that average income earners can afford. The IHBA fully supports the goals of the national planning framework and the assurances provided that it would not lead to large-scale dezoning.

We support the concept of evidence-based policymaking. In recent years the sector has witnessed a vastly changed policy environment. Therefore the requirement for robust evidence-based assessments informing preparation of city and county development plans is critical. Prematurely, some planning authorities dezoned residential development lands in their current review cycle.

To inform the distribution of population and housing targets, the national planning framework, NPF, requires planning authorities to prepare and publish an infrastructural assessment of settlements distinguishing between lands that are serviced and serviceable. To date, these assessments have either not been carried out or the approach has been inconsistent due to a lack of resources and detailed guidance available to the authorities at the time of preparation. Constraining supply of zoned residential lands to a six-year development plan cycle compromises the forward acquisition and investment programme required by house builders to ensure continuity of development over the medium to longer term. We welcome the promised review of the NPF and the opportunity to use up-to-date information from our recent census to fully inform housing needs and demands.

We are currently experiencing a shortage of labour, in part due to a prolonged period of uncertainty in the past. We do, however, have a national development plan and Housing for All, both of which set out what developments will happen over the next decade. Both plans bring committed funding from the Government, giving certainty that developments will happen and confidence for people coming into the industry that they can make a living. The recent future skills report estimates that 27,000 additional workers will be required in the residential sector when delivery will be at its highest under the current plan. While we are already witnessing greater numbers enter the sector across the various professions and trades, we must continue to make the sector attractive to new entrants and remove current blockages. Work permits for those coming from outside the EU are currently taking 16 weeks to process. This is too long to expect someone to wait when we badly need workers. We welcome the additional resources in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. This timeframe must reduce dramatically. The apprenticeship model could also be enhanced by providing some trades through a traineeship model ranging from six to 18 months depending on the type of work.

The rising cost of building homes is a real challenge for builders and consumers. Residential material costs are going up daily and putting homes further out of the reach of those who so desperately need them. The sector continues to raise specific concerns and examples regarding how inflation is impacting the industry. However, the situation is worsening weekly. If an increased cost of delivery of €15,000 to €20,000 is not added to the purchase price of a home, taking a purchase price of approximately €350,000, pre-tax profit margins drop from 10% to 5%. As a result, the builder will not meet the primary criteria for financing and, therefore, will not be able to secure funding and cannot commence development. If the increased cost of delivery because of product inflation is added to the purchase price of a home, the consumer's ability to secure a mortgage is further diminished and those currently locked out of the market are further restricted.

It is not widely appreciated that over half the cost of bringing a home to market is made up of soft costs – VAT, levies, taxes, contributions, land, professional fees and margin. These costs are often incurred many years in advance of commencement. There is potential to streamline those costs, deliver homes sooner, reduce costs and make homes more affordable. There is a difference between construction costs and development costs and asking the new home purchaser to pay for all these soft costs is inequitable when compared to the second-hand home market.

While we support the advances in standards in recent years, these come at a cost. A regulatory impact assessment of recent changes to building regulations alone in the past five years would demonstrate the challenge to home building. There must be an urgent review of our compact growth design standards. By applying a qualitative assessment rather than a quantitative approach, we can increase affordability and optimise greater land efficiency. Through standardising open spaces, private open space and separation distances, we can increase affordability and viability and improve community spaces. Additionally, we recommend it be made possible to conduct early discussions with approved housing bodies, AHBs, before planning permissions are granted. By doing this, it is more likely that the design ultimately granted would be more suitable for their needs and more cost-effective for all.

Our members continue to work hard to supply much-needed homes. However, it is important that critical issues such as material costs and availability, zoning, infrastructure, planning, affordability and viability, which are impeding delivery, are tackled with urgency. I am happy to take any questions.

Deputy Emer Higgins took the Chair.

A vote has been called in the Seanad so the Senators have had to step out. The next speaker is Mr. Eddie Taaffe of the County and City Management Association.

Mr. Eddie Taaffe

I am the programme co-ordinator with the housing delivery co-ordination office, HDCO, in the Local Government Management Agency, LGMA. I am also the CCMA nominee to the Government construction contracts committee, or GCCC, hosted by the Office of Government Procurement, OGP. I am accompanied by Ms Margaret Geraghty of the LGMA's housing delivery co-ordination office, which co-ordinates the delivery of social and affordable housing by local authorities. On behalf of the CCMA, I thank the committee for its invitation to the meeting today and I look forward to assisting the committee in its discussion of construction costs in housing.

All local authorities, along with AHBs, perform an extensive range of housing services, including a multi-billion euro programme of new social housing construction across all parts of the country. A variety of procurement methods is used to deliver social and affordable housing, ranging from traditional employer-designed projects, using public works contracts to design and build, to public private partnerships, joint ventures, competitive dialogue and turnkeys. Since the end of the last Covid-19 related suspension in construction work in early 2021, building contractors involved in housing construction for local authorities and AHBs have experienced delays, disruption and uncertainty with material supplies and material costs. While towards the end of 2021 delays and uncertainty in material supply chains had appeared to ease somewhat, the uncertainty and volatility in construction materials have, if anything, significantly increased since the start of the year.

Until the end of 2021, the public works form of contract was essentially a fixed-price form of contract. However, given the level of material price increases seen in 2021, the OGP modified the standard forms of contract in January 2022 to allow tenderers to recover material price increases in excess of 15%. The construction sector has reported that the rate of material price increase accelerated in the first quarter of 2022 and was also seriously impacted by energy price increases from March. Local authorities' experience since the start of the year is that a significant number of contractors involved in social housing construction were experiencing negative financial impacts from increased material costs and in several instances had indicated that, reluctantly, they would not be in a position to continue to deliver housing on a fixed-price basis. This situation was particularly prevalent in small to medium sized builders who, local authorities believe, have less scope to absorb costs. This experience was also prevalent in turnkey type projects which, heretofore, have also been fixed-price in nature. Furthermore, local authorities were also seeing a marked decline in the number of tenders being received for house construction projects. There is a sense that some building contractors were opting not to tender for projects until there was greater certainty both in terms of increasing material costs and also in anticipation of a change to the fixed-price tendering system. This has the potential to reduce delivery in 2023 and 2024.

The HDCO, on behalf of local authorities, submitted examples of those issues to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to assist Departments in their deliberations. Local authority housing capital teams welcome the measures announced by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Michael McGrath, on 10 May this year to address the impact of construction material price inflation on public works projects. The ability of contractors to recover 70% of material cost increases on contracts dated prior to 7 January and fuel-related cost increases on all projects brings a greater level of certainty to both contracting authorities and contractors operating public works contracts. Detailed guidance and templates have been published by the Office of Government Procurement, which will assist with clarity and consistency in the application of these new measures across the local authority sector.

To conclude, the delivery by local authorities of social and affordable housing under Housing for All, in co-operation with the construction sector, continues to experience issues relating to material price increases, supply chain delays and disruption, along with an increasing demand for skilled workers. However, it is hoped that the recent changes to the public works contracts will reduce the level of uncertainty and risk associated with material cost increases. These issues require close co-operation by all stakeholders for the foreseeable future.

Thank you. The next speaker is Mr. Kevin James of the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland.

Mr. Kevin James

The Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland, SCSI, welcomes the opportunity to share its insights on construction costs with the committee. We thank the Chairman and the committee for the invitation to the meeting.

As the leading professional body for chartered surveyors working in the property, construction and land sectors across Ireland, we undertake research on a wide range of economic, industry and practice-related issues in the public interest. Chartered surveyor members of the SCSI work across the built environment in both the public and private sectors, providing advice to clients across the entire life cycle of a build from greenfield site through to design, mapping, budgets, project management, sales, lettings and property management.

As such, surveyors are well placed to provide real-time independent evidence of increasing construction costs and their impact on the sector, including the consequences for housing delivery.

The current housing crisis, with demand outstripping supply, is well documented. It is forecast that the population of Ireland will grow by up to 600,000 in the next ten years, which will place additional pressures on the market to produce a greater selection of housing units of various sizes, not just for growing families but also for those who wish to downsize to two- and one-bedroom apartments. A proportionate number of private and publicly developed units is therefore required to ensure our urban and regional centres are developed in a way that caters for all demographics and family sizes, of varying levels, in a co-ordinated and inclusive manner.

For our economy to remain in a healthy position and to ensure that there is sufficient accommodation for future needs, the housing delivery market should be in a sustainable and well-functioning state. The delivery of new housing units to the market has been playing catch-up since as far back as 2014, when the SCSI flagged to policymakers that the supply of housing to cater for demand was well below what was needed. This has been exacerbated by the lower-than-anticipated new housing output, compounded by the impact of Brexit and Covid over the past couple of years. The tragic conflict in Ukraine and its impact on energy costs are contributing to rises in material prices, all of which are pushing many planned developments out of viability.

The SCSI supports the ambitions of the Housing for All strategy and the many initiatives of the Government aimed at increasing housing supply, including the recent measures to mitigate the high levels of inflation absorbed by the construction sector for public works, including the inflation co-operation agreement. However, our research has identified significant cost inflation across the sector that, if not tackled with a sense of urgency, will result in the ambitious housing delivery targets of Housing for All not being met. The increased construction costs are not limited to urban centres but are evident across the country in every region. It is the long-standing view of the SCSI that if we are to tackle rising costs of construction, including the most recent material and labour hyperinflation, every facet of the input costs of residential development needs to be reduced. While several initiatives already under way to address some of the blockages to housing delivery, such as planning reform, are to be commended, these are longer term. What is required now is urgent action to address construction cost inflation.

Mitigating measures to tackle the high costs of housing delivery will require a proactive and cohesive response from government. Many interventions may be outside the control of government; however, there are many construction input costs that are under the direct remit of local and national government. There is no single solution to driving down costs but the cumulative impact of reducing costs across multiple headings will make a positive overall difference in the delivery costs of housing.

Our submission and its recommendations, which focus on short-, medium- and long-term solutions, build on evidence-based SCSI reports highlighting the critical construction cost areas that we hope will provide some helpful up-to-date insights on how construction inflation can be tackled to ensure the sector meets the Government's housing targets.

To turn now to the specifics of construction, I will draw on some recent SCSI construction cost reports. The detail is in our main submission but I will focus on some key statistics. The SCSI report, The Real Cost of New House Delivery, dated 2020, reported an average increase in inflation of 12% between 2016 and 2020, which does not take account of more recent pressures from increased inflation. Our research found that the cost of delivering a new estate home, namely a three-bedroom semi-detached home, was €330,000 in 2016 and rose to €371,000 in 2020. The SCSI report The Real Costs of New Apartment Delivery, published in 2021, shows that lower-rise suburban apartment delivery costs rose from €155,000 to €177,000 in the four-year period between 2017 and 2021. The SCSI monitors commercial construction inflation through our tender price index, TPI, first established in 1998. The TPI tracks commercial projects over €500,000 and reports that national annual inflation is at 13%. This figure pertains to the year to December 2021. The report concluded that the main reasons for current price inflation are high price volatility across a range of building materials – particularly insulation, cement, plasterboard, metals and fuel – along with labour shortages and the extremely high demand for projects across all tiers as the industry continues to readjust in the wake of the Covid crisis. In respect of the first half of 2022, it is clear that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is having an impact on the prices of materials previously sourced in the region, especially steel and base metals, while it has also led to a dramatic increase in fuel and energy costs.

The data from our report also highlight the other factors present on foot of inflation, such as labour cost increases, following the implementation of the sectoral employment order, which came into effect on 1 February. It is expected that our next report, which is due in June or July 2022, will show the TPI will be somewhat impacted by this.

Management of risk has now become a primary focus for companies to ensure that construction competitions awarded are structured to protect against inflation pressures within the market. Some contracting firms are no longer accepting previous contract risks due to material inflation and are either delaying jobs or selecting jobs where the client is taking on the risk. This is apparent in the private sector.

Our submission addresses each of the input costs of construction, including hard and soft costs, planning and zoning, enabling works and other statutory costs, utility connections and charges, building regulation, labour costs, public procurement and modern methods of construction. It provides specific detail on building materials price inflation. Drawing from the expertise of our surveyor members working across the construction, land and property sectors, we have found the impact of increasing construction costs is clear. The sector is functioning with considerable uncertainty about the pipeline of construction projects as viability remains so challenged across the country. The SCSI has numerous anecdotal examples of housing projects being paused and, in worst-case scenarios, cancelled outright. If this persists, housing completions will not be near the numbers required to meet the Government's targets and to house our growing population. We are now at a pivotal point where considered decisions must be made to take action in the short term in addition to those medium- to long-term initiatives that are already under way and are addressed in our submission, including in respect of land, taxation and vacant properties.

Priority must be given immediately to addressing those construction cost inputs that are within the direct control of the Government. Utilities and local authorities have a significant impact on the speed and cost of housing delivery. As such, they should be appropriately resourced in terms of staffing and funding to assist them to meet targets and improve efficiency. The following key construction cost inputs should be considered: resourcing local authorities and utilities to facilitate faster processing times; the pausing of increases to local authority contributions; the early engagement of Irish Water to avoid costly delays and provide the cost certainty required regarding connection fees; reducing ESB connection and associated site-works charges and engaging earlier with developments to improve visibility of costs and connection timelines; allowing local authorities to approve alterations to specification of buildings that do not materially alter the planning permission but allow for the use of more cost-effective building materials that may be available at the time given the material price volatility; requiring standard compliance with the fire regulations minimum and removing more onerous costly measures not prescribed by regulation; improving public procurement processes to ensure barriers do not exist for smaller operators who will be needed in order to have sufficient capacity in the sector; and reviewing charges and fees associated with other site-enabling works, such as temporary road closure fees and licensing fees.

The impact of these measures would be significant and, coupled with the other initiatives, could be the difference in ensuring the viability of projects and delivering vital housing in the public interest. I am happy to take any questions and provide further detail on these recommendations.

I thank Mr. James. We will now move on to questions from members. I remind members and witnesses that each member has seven minutes in which to ask questions and receive replies.

Deputy Steven Matthews took the Chair.

I apologise for not hearing all the opening statements and if I cover something we have already covered.

Ensuring affordable supply is one of the key goals of the Government. Many of the provisions in Housing for All are tools to deliver affordability. In many cases, we are using State lands. We are using a State agency to master-plan or design. When projects go to tender, we use direct subsidy by the Department, in some cases amounting to up to €100,000 off the cost price. We are also providing funding to service sites. Even with all this support, which can be almost €150,000 per unit, we sometimes do not get a price that my colleagues here might regard as affordable. Is the cost of construction the key barrier? What can we do to tackle the issue of the cost of construction and the inflationary impacts? I welcome the announcement of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Michael McGrath, on covering the inflationary impacts, but all that is being achieved is an increase in the cost, which, despite all the other interventions, is deemed by many to be unaffordable.

Perhaps Ms Geraghty will address that question.

There is also an issue for the industry and I would very much appreciate the input of our guests with regard to specifications and standards. While that is not to suggest that we would lower them in any way, there is an issue with costs. When Dublin City Council is getting quoted prices that the industry says it cannot deliver below, that is a real barrier to delivering affordability for any State agency.

Ms Margaret Geraghty

Regarding the provision of affordable housing by local authorities, we are at the very early stages. We have a few examples from around the country, including Dublin city, of projects that we are trying to get under way. One of the key issues is the procurement model and local authorities are looking at that in terms of a design, build, fund and direct sale. That would be the tender process. At the moment the margins are tight. The Deputy is right that with an affordable housing fund and the provision of land at a reduced cost or a nil cost, we are trying to deliver an affordable product but the type of product is important. In some places if it is an apartment development, the costs are greater and we can be challenged to get to an affordable sale price, taking account of that.

In terms of current projects the tender processes for projects in both Cork and Fingal are managing to deliver what would be considered affordable units but most of those are houses at this point in time. There is definitely pressure from an apartment development perspective where we have to meet the density guidelines.

That is the knowledge we have at this point in time-----

Obviously the cost of construction is an issue but the procurement processes can often lead to higher tender outcomes as well.

Ms Margaret Geraghty

Yes, but what we would be concerned about regarding the tender processes for affordable housing is that we get a level of interest from developers who would be interested in operating in that market. It will be important to see that. To have a real competition, we want to have six or seven companies that are interested and that are tendering for affordable housing. Anecdotally, that is under pressure at the moment. Points have been well made here regarding the pressures on construction but one of the other key issues that we have to take account of is funding, that is, how developers will fund projects and the rates at which they can get funding, through partnerships with Home Building Finance Ireland, HBFI, or otherwise. We need to determine what we can do to ensure that developers and contractors have access to competitive funding and borrowing facilities that can enable them to give the best price for the affordable product at the end of the day. That is an important consideration.

I would be grateful for an industry perspective on the cost of tendering, the cost of construction and the other points I raised.

Mr. James Benson

The Deputy raises two very interesting points. I will try to set out the context behind hard and soft costs. As we have heard from the industry and from SCSI, the hard costs, at 48% are very much compressed into a 20- to 26-week delivery timeframe from the time we pull foundations to the time we turn a key in a door. We are looking at 48% within 26 weeks and that has increased, on average, from last year, when we would have expected to see the delivery of homes in 16 to 20 weeks. That is a very compact timeframe. However, in advance of that, going through zoning, the placement of critical infrastructure, planning and procurement is taking years and, in some cases, decades. There is an opportunity to streamline some of those timeframes and as a result, the costs will come down and greater affordability will ensue-----

Mr. Benson is speaking about supply in general terms but I am focused on public housing supply, where developers are tendering for the construction of public housing. From my perspective, that is where the high unit costs are coming back.

Mr. James Benson

There is no doubt that we need to see a quicker turnaround of those tenders. It is difficult for everyone involved but even if one takes a six-month turnaround period, what was marginally viable six months ago is no longer viable because of the abnormal levels of materials price increases.

The Deputy also made an interesting point about the design element. We need to look at our compact growth design standards, which set out what can be built and where it can be built and even the communities around those units. We can bring efficiencies there and enhance those developments without compromising standards or regulations in respect of the units themselves. If we look at things like open spaces, and separation distances of 22 m back to back garden sizes, these are based on a premise from the 1900s when people had growing allotments and outhouses, as well as for environmental reasons. We can reduce that and improve community spaces with a qualitative approach as opposed to a quantitative one. Rather than just having the 20% of open space in one corner of a development, we could have pockets of space within the development and amenities within that that can lead to a greater sense of community. We can have better own-door access, more units and more affordability-----

I take Mr. Benson's point. I ask the industry representatives to address the point made by Ms Geraghty regarding the affordability of apartments. There is a real challenge there.

Mr. Conor O'Connell

We have been involved in several different reports on apartment construction. Brown field development by its very nature is far more expensive than green field development and includes things such as the cost of demolition, waste disposal, material storage, getting labour into city centre sites and so on.

Apartment design standards are also an issue. There is no doubt that over the past ten to 15 years, the regulatory environment relating to the built environment has utterly changed, which has added to the costs. We have some of the best regulations in Europe in respect of apartment design standards, for instance, but that comes with a cost.

I thank our guests for their presentations. It is important to say that we organised this hearing, which is one of two we have planned, because almost everybody on the committee shares the concern that all of our guests have raised today. We are all out and about and are talking to SME builders, buyers, materials suppliers and to our local authorities and in the past year in particular, they are all sounding the alarm about increasing construction sector costs. What we are trying to achieve today and in our next hearing is a full understanding of the problem to see what recommendations, if any, the committee can make to the Government to try to address this specific issue. There is always a danger when we have these conversations that we end up talking about everything. The difficulty is that if we talk about everything and have a long list of recommendations, we will not get to fix the core problem. I will try to stick specifically to construction sector inflation, not because I think the other issues that have been raised are unimportant but because that is what we are here to discuss today.

My first question is for all three groups. The more accurate information we have about where construction costs are going, the better able we are to try to design the best interventions. We hear lots of different figures but there is no comprehensive data available. In as much as they can estimate for the past 12 months, what are we looking at in terms of construction sector inflation? I ask Mr. Benson to answer on behalf of his members. I ask Mr. Taaffe to respond in terms of the local government sector and what the contractors are coming back with in regard to their difficulties. Mr. James said 13% to the end of last year. Most people were expecting things to level off in the first quarter of this year but now the expectation is the very opposite, with inflation continuing to go upwards. Where is that at?

The second question is whether there are any opportunities to reduce costs by focusing on construction sector materials or whether the only mitigation is on the soft costs or the timelines. All the solutions that people have proposed are more to do with the timelines and the soft costs than anything else. Are we just price takers when it comes to construction sector materials?

My third question is about priorities and I will limit our guests to one priority. Regarding the shopping lists on which they have come here to advise us, what is the most important element? What does the priority need to be? The witnesses have all made clear their concern about meeting targets. In terms of meeting those targets, we are not even really talking about affordability at this point but about viability. I ask our guests to give us their best stab at the single most important intervention they think the Government could make, with each of their sectors in mind, that is, the builders, the local authority sector and the surveyors.

Mr. James Benson

We have just finished travelling around the country delivering a series of workshops for home builders in respect of Housing for All and some of the supports and issues contained therein. Without doubt, materials inflation is probably at the top of the list of concerns in the challenges being faced by builders. In May 2021, we completed a survey of all of our members, which looked at materials inflation for each cost component within a typical three-bedroom semi-detached house. At that time, it added somewhere in the region of €17,000 per unit. The impact of that was that the pre-tax profit margin dropped by almost half from 10% to 5%. If builders did not add on the cost, they would not meet the funding criteria, would not get the finance and could not commence the projects.

Where they did add it onto the price of a house, the affordability gap was made even worse and people could not access mortgages.

From that information, what was the percentage increase not just in the hard costs but in all in-development costs?

Mr. James Benson

It was just over 10%. We were looking at approximately €170,000 in hard costs at the time.

That would be a 10% increase in construction costs but a 5% increase on the all-in costs because of the harder half of the all-in costs.

Mr. James Benson

Yes, and that comes to the one ask we would have, which would be that we have a full review once and for all and a good conversation and study on development costs - not just input costs and construction costs but all development costs. Regardless of the delivery model or who builds the houses, whether State, private or social, there are costs, including development costs, to every development. Unfortunately, I cannot give the Deputy a figure for the past 12 months because every time we go to conduct that same survey our members are informed weekly by the suppliers that costs are going up. Not only can they not guarantee that the cost will be held; they cannot guarantee availability of the materials. Unfortunately, it is putting the industry in a very difficult position, and that disadvantages the consumer because he or she does not know what the house price will be coming to the market.

Mr. Eddie Taaffe

In response to Deputy Ó Broin's first question about the level of inflation we are seeing, it depends on the schemes. I have seen inflation of anything from 5% to 15%, depending on the type of development and when the dwellings in it were completed. It is in or around the range of 5% to 15%.

Obviously, that will bring to bear a huge pressure because, compared with the private sector, a 10% or 15% increase in construction costs will have a much bigger impact on public spending, which in turn will have a huge impact on meeting social and affordable targets if that filters in by the end of the year.

Mr. Eddie Taaffe

It is early days yet. We are only starting to see it come through and verified costs come in, if the Deputy knows what I mean, and what those agreements are likely to pan out at. It is early days in that regard. As for the opportunities to reduce costs, we need to use modern methods of construction more and greater off-site fabrication because of the productivity and the certainty around that. That is in Housing for All, and we in the HDCO and the Department are working on it.

On that point, one of the problems with apartments is our 10 m restriction in respect of cross-laminated timber etc. Is it time we started having a conversation about changing those regulations? We see in other jurisdictions that where they can embrace the full range of new building technologies, they can get cost savings, but we are limited by that regulation, surely.

Mr. Eddie Taaffe

Absolutely. We have to look at what is happening on the Continent to see the standards countries there have adopted because they are a few years ahead of us in modern methods of construction. To my mind, however, the construction sector cannot do that on its own. We are a small island with a relatively small construction sector. It takes investment to do this, and there needs to be recognition of that and assistance given to the sector to grow that element.

Another issue is price variation. Anything above 15% in new contracts signed since 7 January is recoverable. It may well be that that would need to be reviewed because 15% on price variation is still quite a chunk of money on a contract.

Finally, perhaps consideration could be given to an increased level of flexibility on some procurement elements in respect of the way in which we, as a Government sector, have to procure. What I am talking about is, once we have prices in, the areas of value engineering, best and final offer and so on. Generally, we have to accept the prices we get, but perhaps we could have more flexibility post-tender to negotiate and to discuss prices and, perhaps, to ask contractors if there is any way jointly we can save money on these projects through little tweaks that do not affect the standard and give us the same result but might have a big impact on construction costs and construction time. That is the positive. The downside, going back to an earlier point, is that that requires time when it comes to appointing a contractor. There are therefore pros and cons to this, but perhaps some more flexibility in the public procurement process once tenders are received is something to be considered.

I am afraid we are out of time on this slot, but we will come back to Mr. James to answer those two questions from Deputy Ó Broin when we get an opportunity. We move now to the Fine Gael slot and Deputy Higgins.

I thank all our guests for being here with us. I was particularly struck by something Mr. Benson said about traineeships and how some potential apprenticeships could be looked at in that way. Last week was Construction Work and Skills Week, and I attended the Intreo trade fair in Tallaght Stadium, which was a recruitment event aimed at young people. There was a massive queue of young people outside the stadium when I got there. I was struck by it. All those young people could apply to get their safe passes there and then. It showed the significant interest in that area from a careers perspective. I would be interested to hear a little more about what apprenticeships the Construction Industry Federation thinks would be suitable for traineeships. If it is a safe and quicker way of getting people out on sites, we should consider it.

Another thing Mr. Benson touched on, and on which I would value Mr. Taaffe's perspective too, is the six-year county development plan cycle and how sometimes it can be problematic when it comes to future-proofing and planning. Does Mr. Taaffe think a move to a ten-year cycle would be effective? Would there be new hurdles arising from that or does he think the amendments and material alterations that could still be brought forward by the chief executive might suffice?

Mr. Taaffe spoke about construction companies that just do not want or are not willing to tender because of the shifting sands we are in. I am aware of that because in my constituency a construction company pulled out of developing a community centre in Saggart. That was presumably due to the fact that the environment is changing. That set that project back substantially. There are also two sites for social housing in South Dublin County Council where contractors pulled out mid-construction. Obviously, we want to avoid that wherever possible. I am worried about the impact that will have on the Housing for All social housing targets. I am looking for the witnesses' perspective as to what interventions the Minister could make to try to reduce that risk.

I support what Mr. James said about early engagement with the ESB and, in particular, Irish Water. That is practical and makes a lot of sense. Is there resistance to that? I am interested to learn about the idea Mr. James has put forward, which I think Mr. Taaffe spoke about as well, of alterations to planning permissions and whether they could be approved by local authorities if the standards and the overall plan are the same and it is just a matter of lower cost materials. Can the witnesses give me some examples of what that would mean in real life?

I wish to flag that I was a little concerned to hear Mr. James talk about fire regulation standards. Fine Gael has had discussions with the Construction Defects Alliance, and I am in favour of maintaining as strong as possible fire regulations.

To summarise, my questions relate to traineeships, county development plans, the tendering process and, in particular, the alterations to planning applications.

Mr. James Benson

I will be as brief as possible to give Mr. James a chance to contribute.

As for the six-year cycle, we need to investigate the potential of having a ten-year or 12-year cycle, similar to what they have in the UK. That recognises that six years is not enough to get through zoning, infrastructure, planning, procurement, commencement and build. It is simply not happening. It is taking decades. The complication with that is whether it aligns with the regional spatial and economic strategies. Those councillors who are involved in the drafting of county development plans have only five-year terms. There is a lot to work out there, but I think we all recognise that six years is not enough, particularly when we do not have tiering of lands for the forward acquisition of those lands and the putting in place of critical infrastructure.

As for the traineeship model, it has taken four years plus but we are seeing apprenticeship numbers go up, thankfully, because there is now certainty and committed funding there. It is not happening quickly enough, however. We are still not seeing great numbers come into a number of trades - for example, the ill-termed wet trades, that is, blocklaying, bricklaying and tiling. We should pay extra attention to those areas. Is there the potential to complete such apprenticeships within 18 or 24 months where there is a combination of classroom and on-site learning? The apprenticeship model requires the individual to be employed. Are apprentices guaranteed five years of work to bring them through that apprenticeship full-scale? If it is a traineeship model, do they go through a scheme, go out to an employer on almost a work placement and demonstrate their competency and are they then taken on by the employer? There are a lot of benefits, but I would focus on the wet trades at the moment, given that the numbers in them are low.

Mr. Kevin James

I will respond to the ESB query. It is about taking the sentiment from our members. We have gone across the entire society. We look at projects and the roadblocks there are. We see projects that have reached completion and do not have power switched on, and the ESB is clearly under a lot of pressure. We do not want to make a scapegoat out of the ESB but we are trying to create improved dialogue so that we have greater visibility. Due to the interface with the ESB, you have to pay your fee and you have to make sure there is a commitment before there is engagement. We want to bring that forward so we understand where the bottlenecks can be. The priority is to get housing out to the market - the last thing we want to see is completed housing developments that we cannot switch on and allow people to occupy. With the ESB being a semi-State body, perhaps there are frameworks that can be introduced within it to help with the supply chain in capacity and to help the operatives with the connections. If they are under-resourced, perhaps that could be subcontracted out to the market and support could be made readily available for those particular sites to support the ESB. That is what we are trying to advocate for because there is a logjam and a bottleneck with the ESB.

I refer to the question on fire regulation standards and I completely agree. This is not about diluting any of the health and safety standards. We have found that there is a disparity in the interpretation of the regulations between different fire officers across the country. I have been working on sites in Dublin and Cork and the interpretation of the regulations can differ. We are advocating for more accountability for someone to make decisions because there is a lot of risk that anyone embarking on a construction project has to understand the rules of engagement with regard to fire compliance and safety and they employ their own fire safety consultants. When there are differences of opinion, they need to be ironed out but there is an interpretation of the regulations in one part of the country that differs from an interpretation in another part of the country. We understand the issues from Grenfell and what that has done to the market and we understand that the sprinkler installations that may be imposed on developers are an additional cost. What we are trying to do is bring forward visibility again so that we understand the cost. This is about risk mitigation and managing costs and for us, as consultants in the industry that are advising on what the budgets will be, our interpretations of the regulations have to be quantified and they have to be valued to go into a budget for a development appraisal to move forward. If that changes, we have to reverse engineer that and say that the fire officer wants us to do X plus Y. The cost of Y was not initially budgeted for so we have to go back and either take it out of contingency or find another way to make up for the overspend.

Mr. Eddie Taaffe

My view on the county development plan cycle is that ten years is a long time for it. We should zone sufficient lands for ten years but the plan should stick at six years and be reviewed after that length of time. That happens to a certain extent because when local authorities are zoning land they zone for the protected development of them within six years plus a bit of headroom. There are enough mechanisms in the existing legislation through variations and material contraventions of plans to allow that little bit of flexibility. The six-year timeframe is appropriate provided there is zoning that looks beyond those six years.

On the interventions in tendering and what interventions the Minister can make, the recent changes through price variation should go a long way towards improving that situation and a balance has been struck. The detail was only published a few days ago but the intention of the changes should go a long way towards bringing a little bit more certainty and less risk into those tenders. Those interventions have been made.

I will take the next slot, which is a Green Party slot. I will start with the SCSI. In its submission, it talks about planning reform. CIF mentions planning and zoning as contributing to costs as well. Can our guests from the SCSI explain to me why planning is contributing to costs or what planning reform needs to be done?

Mr. Kevin James

I will defer to my colleague, Ms Rocca.

Ms Lisa Rocca

I have been working in the planning process for many years. You have to go through the process, engage with the county council and do your best and you might get additional information. Ultimately you get there but the appeal process can involve a third party appeal from people who have vested interests or from people from outside the area so it is very open.

I am sorry to interrupt. There are set statutory timeframes.

Ms Lisa Rocca

There are.

If you are planning a process, you know there is a five-week period and you know there is an appeals process.

Ms Lisa Rocca

We do.

We know there are delays with An Bord Pleanála that are hard to factor in. Is it just that delay with An Bord Pleanála because you know these-----

Ms Lisa Rocca

It is the delay with An Bord Pleanála and then there is a judicial review delay with SHDs.

A small proportion of housing is subject to judicial review. We know why SHDs have been subject to a large number of judicial reviews but a very small amount of housing overall is subject to judicial review.

Ms Lisa Rocca

Yes and they are dealing with that with the new process that is coming in. In general, if something goes to An Bord Pleanála, which it often will, the timelines are long and we have applications with An Bord Pleanála for up to 18 months, for example. The planning reform Bill should have prescriptive timelines and perhaps more resources should be provided to An Bord Pleanála. It is an excellent institution and it is doing a great job but it definitely needs more resources.

Does Ms Rocca think the fact that we have brought large-scale residential developments back to local authorities will assist with that?

Ms Lisa Rocca

I do because third parties want a forum to air their grievances. The way they can do that is by putting in their submissions at that stage as opposed to the current situation where the only forum for that is through judicial review.

We often hear about planning being the scapegoat and it gets blamed for everything, including the delays and expenses, and we are told it is the reason we do not have houses. I do not believe that because we have a good planning system. If we could get the timeframes right and if we did not have those excessive delays, surely the planning process could be factored into development proposals and the lifetime of same. Then a developer could envisage what possible and probable steps there would be in a development.

Ms Lisa Rocca

It is not just the planning period of five weeks and eight weeks; it is all the work that has to go in before submitting a planning application. A lot of new issues come into play such as ecology.

Quite rightly though.

Ms Lisa Rocca

Yes. It is all valid and everyone has to work together to get the right development and solution but it is a much longer process. You want to have the best result and you get the result and get the council on board but then it goes to appeal and it is open-ended. There are delays and there need to be more set timelines.

I will move on to the zoning question, which Mr. Benson referred to. How does zoning impact on costs? I do not mind who wants to take that question.

Mr. Conor O'Connell

I will give the Chairman a straightforward example. All the local authority development plans are under review, and the population of Ireland and the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, projections that are being used to zone the quantum of land that is needed for that population growth are inaccurate. We are not zoning enough land for the population growth that we have experienced and will be experiencing. After census 2022, the Minister is committed to reviewing the NPF and the population growth targets. We are not zoning enough land in these development plans and that constrains the supply of land. We know there is a serious problem with the servicing of zoned land as it is in this country. We are constraining the supply of a raw material into the house building sector, which increases the price point of that raw material.

If there is a delay in supplying infrastructure to zoned land and Mr. O'Connell says the CIF wants to zone more land, how will that speed up the delivery of utilities and services to that development?

Mr. Conor O'Connell

There are many examples from all over Ireland of constraints on zoned land, such as the farmer who wants to keep on farming, biodiversity constraints and water constraints. What it means is there is less-----

They are valid constraints.

Mr. Conor O'Connell

They are but-----

Ecology, biodiversity, carbon and water quality-----

Mr. Conor O'Connell

-----it means that more and more people are chasing less and less of a resource, which increases its price point.

It is my experience from my time as a county councillor that we would have zoned land that would remain zoned through two plans and nobody goes near it to develop it so I do not believe that zoning more land is the solution. We have 80,000 extended planning permissions out there as well.

Mr. Conor O'Connell

We are calling for the zoning of sufficient land. The local authority development plan process has gone from nine years to six years and the headroom allowance has gone from 50% to 25%. We have had instances right around the country where the Office of the Planning Regulator has written to local authorities saying that they have zoned too much land. For instance, one local authority area has put in a tier 3 approach, which is that if the land in tier 1 and tier 2 does not come to the market or if it is not developed as per the Chairman's example, then it can look at tier 3 lands nearby.

This flexibility within the system allows for all the various different constraints that often are not seen in the development plan process, such as the knowledge of where the wastewater treatment plant is or the capacity of the pipe network.

Mr. James Benson

It is important that it needs to be serviced zoned land. We need that alignment and collaboration between prescribed bodies, such as utility providers, recognising that having zoned land that will never be developed is a waste of that limited resource. We need to be tying in with all those prescribed bodies relating to roads and power leading into that process. If we can get that efficiency, we will have greater connectivity.

Often land that we know will not be serviced gets zoned as a result of a county development plan. Often the advice is not to zone that land but it still ends up getting zoned. We have difficulty with accountability in the planning system.

I wish to ask about master planning. We need to encourage people to engage in the development plan process. Instead of just having vague colours on maps, communities should have a much better indication of what to expect with the zoning of land. The conflict in planning tends to come when the planning application drops and not four or five years earlier when we are considering the rezoning of the land. I have run out of time, but we should explore in more detail the development plan process.

Mr. James Benson

We need to consider standardisation of some of the plans. Plans can be very complicated for anyone - even those within the industry, let alone the general public. We need to bring to the fore the zoning of lands, the economic factors and the environmental factors. For example, in Offaly, Wicklow and Meath there are different approaches to county development plans. If we had a standard plan focusing on the key interest areas of the public, it would probably promote greater public participation at an early stage. One of the challenges in the past is that we have not seen that.

I agree with that.

I thank the witnesses and apologise for missing their introduction because I was on the road on my way up. I am delighted to be here.

What difference can we make to help the construction sector? We have talked about the cost of building houses. I will use one simple example. In 2020, a 2,000 sq. ft house cost €240,000 plus VAT which came to €272,400, and the Government had €32,400 in VAT on that outside income tax or any other tax on it. To build the same 2,000 sq. ft house today costs €480,600 and the Government gets €48,000 VAT at 13.5%, which gives the Government an increase of €16,000 in VAT on the labour alone.

The transport costs relating to house construction were only 1.5% to 2% and are now between 6% and 7% and the Government takes €57 on every €100 in tax. We are talking about the increase in costs. Builders then need to get materials from the ports to the construction sites and get the tradespeople from their homes to a site. They cannot travel on a bus because they are tradespeople with tools. We have been talking around the shop about construction costs when our own Government is taking the most money in carbon taxes, VAT and income tax.

Let us be real here. If we factored all that into it, by how much would the cost of a house reduce? There are people in this room who voted for the carbon tax at a time when we could have delayed it in order to help our housing industry to build houses. Instead, we have come up with a proposal to give developers €144,000 per apartment to build apartments when people who want to spend their own money building on their own land cannot build because of Government decisions. This is why I call certain things hypocritical. We can have all the meetings we like. I have been in construction all my life and I understand it. Every week I get letters from suppliers informing me that costs are rising.

The witnesses are right about the planning process. If there is an objection, it is slowed down on the An Bord Pleanála side. If someone wants to build a one-off house in a rural area to take people off the housing waiting list, they are being charged €6,000 or €7,000 to be allowed to open the ditch on their site. On top of all the excessive taxes, they have to pay all the material costs that are being front-loaded by carbon and other taxes. At a time of need, we are increasing taxes. Our Government is tax-rich and everyone else is made to pay. For eight years, six years as a councillor and two years as a Deputy, I have been asking for the introduction of the apprenticeship model for early school leavers. I saw it eight years ago because I am involved in construction on the ground and can see it.

I am sympathetic to everything the witnesses are trying to do but unless we get a target on all the carbon and other taxes we are paying on building houses at the moment, the only people who will end up paying for this are the people who can afford it. We will have many more people on the housing lists who cannot afford it because of the rising costs of everyday living. That is where we have a problem. We can talk about this all day long and we can come back to it. It comes back to the fact that our own Government is standing in the way of people building houses. If we want to help, we should look at this sector which can help all other sectors across the board to build houses - get them to work make them affordable.

When it comes to a vote in the Dáil Chamber, people do not look at this. Are they in business? I could afford to take on ten more people tomorrow morning to do work but I am not doing it. I have not priced a house in two years because it is not viable. It is not viable for me to pay the people who are depending on me. I depend on them for my livelihood. That is what it comes down to.

Limerick City and County Council is only considering zoning lands within 15 minutes of Limerick city, which takes out over two thirds of my county. There is no infrastructure so people cannot build houses in the towns and villages because sewers are at capacity. There is inadequate water supply. The biggest polluter in County Limerick is the local authority. We serve notices on people every day fining them because of infrastructure. We need to start here.

I accept that we all have our own climate agendas. We all want a better world but we have a responsibility to house people affordably and put in something in the short term to help us. We account for 0.1% of global emissions problems. What are we doing? We have the highest taxation in Europe and our Government is the richest in Europe with the amount of taxes it is taking in. The people who suffer most are the people without adequate transport. They would use it if it were there. There is a failure of infrastructure throughout the country. The only answer to this is the Government. Its only way out of it is to increase taxes. In the existence of the country, it has never been richer than it is today. Let us all come together and put roofs over people's heads. We need to start with the Government.

There is about one minute in the slot if there is a question in there that someone wishes to address.

Mr. Kevin James

I completely understand where the Deputy is coming from. There is a 22-year window from 2000 to where we are now. Every economy has an inflationary increase. The escalation of prices in Ireland is no different from other European countries. We are here today to try to find a solution for the affordability bracket and break the deadlock between viability and lack of viability.

Mr. Kevin James

It is for residential construction-----

County, rural and-----

Mr. Kevin James

-----across Ireland. I cannot comment on the Government position on VAT.

What we deal with is risk. When one procures projects on behalf of the public sector, one understands what the supply chain will and will not accept. Our job is to try to mitigate that risk because risk comes at a premium. We can isolate costs and materials. We can understand the supply chain right across the globe and be able to isolate the prices at which we buy those materials. The sectoral employment order sets the bracket for pricing of labour. What we need to be thinking about is the Central Statistics Office, how we index those materials and rely on that information to be able to advise the Government and mitigate the risk in order to get the contractors to come back to the table and tender for public sector projects.

I thank our guests for their contributions. The opening statement of the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland cites numerous anecdotal examples of housing projects being paused due to the increased costs. I have certainly heard many of those stories as well. What is the Irish Home Builders Association's assessment of that? Have its members heard anecdotally of projects being paused? Given the potentially huge implications of this in the context of meeting our housing targets, if no action is taken on this, if we do nothing, what would the effect be?

Mr. Eddie Taaffe

We completed a round of workshops for which we travelled throughout the country, involving 300-odd companies of different sizes from small, medium and large. The issue of material cost inflation was at the fore during them. Members have not directly come forwarding saying that they will not continue with projects, however, we have been in discussions with a number of suppliers who have indicated that their order books for the third and fourth quarter of this year are not what they would be normally. The targets for this year are probably not in jeopardy, however, the concern is that if the order books are not there for the end of this year, we do not know what will be the level of commencements and completions next year. My colleague, Mr. O'Connell, had direct conversations with some of the suppliers, which probably marries with that.

Mr. Conor O'Connell

Yes, it does. It is very anecdotal at the moment. We are aware of contractors pulling back from public works, in particular for social housing projects. Hopefully the changes Mr. Taaffe outlined in relation to the public works clause, which would allow for price adjustment clauses, will steady the market and draw in more contractors to tender for public works. Public works can be very risky because of the nature of the public works contract. Hopefully that will bring stability to the market place. That was a price adjustment clause for public works. We are concerned about Part V. Turnkey developments need to be addressed as well to ensure that there is a stable market going forward.

I have heard of builders finishing what they are working on now and saying that they will not start the next part because of the pressures they are under due to price inflation.

On labour shortages and the training model mentioned, while there has been an increase in the number of apprenticeships in recent years, we are way off 2006 levels especially in wet trades, such as bricklaying, plastering and tiling. Has the Construction Industry Federation had much engagement with the Department or other partners, such as construction unions, on the training model and at what stage are its proposals at now?

Mr. James Benson

The education and training department in CIF had numerous engagements with all the relevant bodies and they are making progress on that. That is one of a number of actions that need to be taken on labour. This is also potential with the live register. Are there people on the live register who could complete works within the industry? Can we attract some of those who left the industry back? This time last year, we were held back for three months of the year from some residential construction activities. People left at that time. They took up contracts of employment elsewhere, in the UK and other parts of Europe, some of which were 12-month and 24-month contracts. Will they be attracted enough to come back to the country when those contracts are complete? We need to ensure that they are.

We need to continue to do more with regard to second level education. There has been a push towards third level and there is a stigma around apprenticeships. The new generation apprenticeship campaign, endorsed and promoted by Ministers, Deputies Harris and Humphreys, looks at acceptance and inclusion around that apprenticeship model. That is what we need to see happen. It is just a different way of learning and there is a good living to be made in construction. Minimum wage rates in the sector are far in excess of minimum and living wage rates. It is a very attractive proposition.

One of the issues I have heard about from people who moved abroad is job security, there is insecurity in the sector here compared with other countries. That is a huge concern for them and is an area that needs to be addressed.

The Irish Home Builders Association in its report highlighted the issues around service tier 1 and service tier 2 lands and the lack of assessments being done on that consistently around the country. We have had assessments in Dublin in recent years with the housing supply co-ordination task force for Dublin. Many of the projects it listed in 2015 that were in need of infrastructure, such as water and others, have been completed. Yet the figures at the beginning of 2017 indicate that, for example, quarter one returns on tier 2b, the number of units dependent on Irish Water investment, were 4,400 in Dún Laoghaire and 19,980 in Fingal. They are the exact same figures published for quarter four of 2021. I am trying to understand, when there has been some progress in infrastructural projects listed, why those figures are exactly the same. What does the CMA believe are the issues and will it comment on that?

Mr. Eddie Taaffe

I am not directly familiar with the numbers in Fingal. I am aware of the Dublin housing supply task force and the work it does in assessing the yields on lands and where residentially zoned lands may be own-service. My understanding of issues in Fingal is that some of them relate to network capacity issues. Solutions are in train regarding planning etc. but may not be delivered yet. I do not think it refers to wastewater treatment capacity, for example. It may be localised infrastructural network issues that are required to service those lands. Normally, the provision of services such as trunk sewers would not be within the remit of the landowner or the developer. Those reports state that a piece of infrastructure has to be put in before those lands are made available for development and that is the issue. As to why the figures have not moved or what investment has been undertaken, I am not directly familiar with that.

There is a list of projects in 2015, many of which from what I can see are completed yet the number has not changed. Does the IHBA have any comment on that?

Mr. James Benson

Again, it comes back to point made earlier; we need to see greater alignment between zoned lands that are serviced. Having the land zoned with the capability of it being developed is fine but we must have the roads, water and power - the three critical elements. While water always gets the headlines, water, roads and power all need to be included. Unless there is electricity in and water supplied to the home and a road to be able to get into the home, they will lie idle.

As a committee, we should look at how there has been a certain amount of investment but we are not seeing movement in those critical areas in terms of infrastructure and supply. It would be useful if we could get to the bottom of that.

There is a little bit of déjà vu with this. In 2016, when the housing crisis was becoming very apparent, industry representatives lobbied and said they would not be able to deliver housing until, for example, minimum standards were revised and guidelines came from the Department which provided for co-living, build to rent, and student accommodation. Yet we are still sitting here six years later and - this may be the first year - we are seeing an increase in planning permission applications. There have been an awful lot of applications but no commencements or completions. I always take it with a pinch of salt when I hear "unviability" being thrown around by industry representatives.

I want to get a sense of the difference in construction costs for apartments and suburban houses, because many of the figures quoted today relate to suburban houses. The national planning framework has a target of 14% compact growth where there is access to services, transport and water, which are already there on serviced sites. It was interesting to hear that we may need more zoned land made available. One of the mistakes we made was that we zoned land in areas that were not connected to services.

When I was a member of Dublin City Council, we were told in 2016 that, in order to be able to deliver affordable housing on the Chivers industrial site, we would have to rezone the land. At that stage, it was worth €2.55 million. We never saw the affordable housing on which basis we zoned that land. Instead, we saw the site being sold for €25 million in 2021.

There is a big problem in construction with what are referred to as soft costs, which are what remain after the hard costs are stripped out. In a very good report produced by the Society of Chartered Surveyors, soft costs are put at approximately €30,000 per unit. The society might not have the information with it now, but I would like to see a comparison between the soft costs for apartments and houses in urban areas. I understand that the witnesses might nor have this separated information. By “soft costs”, I am referring to VAT, other taxes, levies, professional fees, margins and so on. Stripping out taxes, given that development levies exist in order to provide infrastructural projects that eventually benefit developers and homeowners, which soft costs could national action be taken on now to reduce costs? I would like an overview of land costs and the witnesses’ views on why those are so high.

Mr. James Benson

I will take some of those questions and ask my colleague to take some others before passing over to the other bodies. I thank the Senator for her questions.

Everyone will agree that there is something wrong if we have a high level of planning permissions but it is not translating into commencements. I note the Senator’s scepticism about viability, but one recommendation we should consider has to do with the inclusion of an economic viability assessment within planning applications. I would not necessarily argue that such an assessment should be the ultimate reason for granting or refusing a project permission, but it is a waste of everyone’s time, resources and capacity if people go through the planning process for projects that will never happen because of viability issues. Many of our European counterparts examine outline planning at the initial stages and take into account policy and local authority requirements, which gives a greater sense of what a project will cost and whether it is viable. If economic viability was assessed at an early stage in planning applications, it need not be the ultimate reason for granting or refusing, but it would help with the resources of, and existing constraints on, local authorities and An Bord Pleanála, which are all starved of time and resources.

Regarding viability comparisons, my colleague from Cork has undertaken a number of reports on apartment viability in Cork, so I might let him take that question.

Mr. Conor O'Connell

I thank the Senator for her question. Apartment viability is a conundrum that we have been facing for a long time in terms of construction costs. The Society of Chartered Surveyors has undertaken a construction report of its own on apartments. Every single report that we have done, including in conjunction with Cork Chamber, illustrates how constructing apartments is significantly dearer. There is a long list of reasons for this, including design standards and the elements that go into constructing apartments, for example, the amount of steel, concrete and glazing, managing construction and demolition waste – it is a city centre site and materials cannot be stored there – and getting to and from the site. While some of the problems in the Dublin metropolitan area and other parts of Dublin are due to land costs, I am aware of apartment projects outside of Dublin that have full planning permission and no land costs but are not proceeding because of the viability challenge. Private rented sector, PRS, funders will not forward fund apartments because they are not viable, given the rents achievable and the yields they are seeking. The extraordinary period of material cost inflation has not helped either.

Regarding land costs in the Dublin region, an exceptional market and an exceptional economy have developed in Dublin over the past ten to 15 years. It also has significant geographical constraints. The city centre is right next to the sea, so we cannot develop to the north east, east or south east like we can in other cities. It has the Wicklow Mountains to the south, Dublin Port to the east and Dublin Airport to the north. All of these constraints have made the Dublin land market exceptional.

Not to be long-winded about it, but I would gladly share copies of our many reports on apartments. They would give the committee the details of the elements that go into construction and why it is so expensive.

Forward funding for apartments is much riskier than it is for traditional houses, which can be built in stages. For a modest apartment construction scheme of 50 units at €400,000 or €500,000 per unit, we would be talking about forward funding of €20 million to €25 million because apartment developments cannot be built in stages. It is a risky business.

There was a question on soft costs.

Mr. Kevin James

It was a good question. Comparing the soft costs between houses and apartments is like comparing apples and oranges. They cannot be compared. We must bear in mind that the published data are aggregated results and every project has unique characteristics in terms of how we deal with risk. That is what we do as surveyors – understand the brief, translate it, and procure and manage the design team in order to put together a budget for a particular project.

Regarding apartments, the funders’ requirements in terms of margins are dictated to the developer borrowing the cash. As such, the developer is limited and there is nowhere to go. Investors need a return on the money they lend developers to build residential developments.

On breaking down the costs, we cannot go near VAT. Certain recommendations have been made on VAT, levies and fees. We have noted these in our report. When a project is examined in isolation, there is a pro rata calculation of what the constraints, characteristics of a site and the density of what a developer is trying to build contribute to soft costs. Sometimes, people get locked into translating numbers into the cost per unit, but the variance can be significant. If someone has to put millions of euro into remediating a zoned site and putting in significant foundations because the land is in a flood zone, it is a problem, which translates into the hard costs and vice versa, including higher professional fees.

I thank Mr. James, but we have gone well over time. We will revert to this matter.

I thank the witnesses for attending. I acknowledge the work that everyone in the construction sector is doing to ramp up the supply of homes, be they social, affordable, cost rental or private, for families. All stakeholders are committed to meeting the targets contained in Housing For All, as we saw in how quickly the sector was able to rebound after Covid, notwithstanding the challenge of labour shortages in the market.

I will take Senator Moynihan’s questions further. Mr. Benson’s comments on having an economic viability assessment as part of the planning process were interesting, but how would that be squared with the drive for density, given what Mr. James said about apartments compared with houses? If we are saying that the economic analysis would be done at the planning stage, then many developments would be deemed unviable by virtue of the fact that high-rise accommodation and other apartments are costlier than houses. While this might not be a bad thing, it does not square with the drive for density.

Mr. James Benson

The Senator is correct. We would like an economic viability assessment to tell whether a project is viable so as to avoid the inefficient use of resources and time by all parties concerned, although this does not square the conundrum about density and viability. The compact growth design standards that we mentioned might be worth further investigation. Is there the potential to examine open, private-use and community spaces? Within that, there is the potential to increase the number of owned or access units through the greater use of traditional units and duplexes.

There is still a requirement for apartments within that, but the number is smaller. We still get the 35 units per hectare or the higher figure if near critical infrastructure. Those higher-density and more own-door access units can be achieved by just looking at separation distances, open spaces and private-use spaces. That is without any derogation to standards or changing the size of homes. The traditional home could still be the same size but it is about qualitative rather than quantitative assessment of open spaces. The days of having 20% open space in one corner of a field for someone to play football as opposed to having more potentially quality pockets around the development may be gone. There could be amenities and little play hubs for people to use. It is what people want. When we speak to our members who have dealt with the public, they tell us people want community spaces and a greater sense of community. They want to go back to what we had before. That could be achieved. The review of the compact growth design standards is critical and if it could be done in conjunction with the economic viability assessment, we would see greater delivery of affordable homes.

I see and understand the viability question. Many of the reasons outlined by Mr. O'Connell a short time ago are absolutely valid. If I am a developer in Waterford and the cost of developing an apartment is €360,000 or €370,000 but my market is at €250,000, there is a viability gap. Why would I go into the ground on something to develop it? Once I go in on an apartment development, I am in. It is not like a housing development, which can be done on a phased basis and whereby when I sell ten units, I can move to the next ten. That cannot be done with apartment developments.

The Croí Cónaithe cities fund has got much negative press lately, and I can understand that on one side. On the other side, however, we have 5,000 apartments that could potentially be unlocked on sites on which weeds are growing at this point. Will the witnesses comment on that in the context of what has already been stated in respect of the viability gap with apartment development, particularly in regional cities and outside Dublin? I am from Waterford but this applies to Cork, Limerick and Galway, where the viability gap is even greater than it is in Dublin.

Mr. James Benson

The support that has been put in place is trying to bridge the gap between the market and cost of delivery. Unfortunately, that does not get over the hurdle of the finances, Apartment delivery is based on that.

Yes, that was my next question.

Mr. James Benson

The subsidy offered to a developer for the home purchaser would ultimately only be given at point of sale. The builder would still have to bring a project from conception right through to point of sale. That builder will still struggle to get the necessary finance to bring forward the development. The support is very welcome and we hope it will unlock some of the process, it does not do anything to get over the finance hurdle. That is where some of the difficulty is with apartments.

We are seeing a movement in interest rates. Mr. Taaffe might comment on that in the context of the cost-rental model we are trying to roll out. I have heard some anecdotal evidence that with cost rental we can spread the cost of finance over a 40-year period but there may be a shift in interest rates. We have the cost-rental equity loan, CREL, scheme that is at a very low cost but the other 50% has to be financed through the Housing Finance Agency. There is some movement in rates in that respect. Is there an issue with apartment viability in particular with cost rental and will we perhaps have to look at something in order to ensure the costs to the end consumer in terms of rent are acceptable? It may be something along the lines of the Croí Cónaithe cities fund but it would address the ultimate rental price that the consumer would pay. If we cannot get below the 25% discount on market rents, the process fails in terms of scoring criteria. The drive is there for what we are trying to achieve in terms of density and the high volume of cost-rental units.

Mr. Eddie Taaffe

We in the local authority sector view cost rental as a game changer in such development. We can apply for affordable housing funding to subsidise the upfront provisional cost of apartments or houses for cost rental. Looking at brownfield development in regional cities, for example, local authorities are looking at such sites and obtaining them through compulsory purchase order, CPO, if necessary. Some of them are problematic and need a CPO to clean up title, way leaves, etc. Thankfully, the borrowing costs for that are through the Housing Finance Agency. While there will be an increase, it still quite a low rate compared with others. The Housing Finance Agency in lending to a local authority is effectively lending to the State and it is recognised as such.

Cost rental is definitely something we are pursuing in the local authority sector and we should be using CPOs more to clean up those difficult sites where there may well be a need to do so. People may want to build in those places but there may be difficulties that the CPO process could tidy up. The approved housing body sector has a very strong pipeline of cost-rental equity loan-funded schemes and some of those have been occupied. There is a very strong delivery pipeline there between now and the end of the year and for 2023 as well. Interest rates are going up but they are still low enough to make cost rental work. A number of local authorities are pursuing it actively.

I will finish by saying that there may be an issue with more of those complex brownfield sites. I am thinking of the north quays in Waterford, where there are significant costs with a podium and piling.

I live in Gurranabraher in Cork, a housing estate built 80 years ago by the Cork City Council. Local authorities are telling us they are not into large-scale direct builds any more. What do the witnesses think of that? We have seen in the past such delivery and in my city there are examples in Farranree, Churchfield, Gurranabraher, Knocknaheeny, Turner's Cross and Ballyphehane. There are all major direct builds by local authorities that delivered social housing on the scale needed.

Mr. Eddie Taaffe

Local authorities are delivering at scale. Currently, there are approximately 23,000 social houses in the pipeline at various stages of construction, design, planning, tendering, etc., across the State. Approximately half of those are on-site now.

Those are not direct builds but rather from contractors.

Mr. Eddie Taaffe

Yes. They are delivered either by building contractors operating directly for the local authority, turnkeys for the approved housing bodies, etc.

I suppose my question is why are local authorities not delivering direct-build social, affordable and cost-rental properties when we are in the middle of a housing crisis? We know it is a model that worked in the past.

Mr. Eddie Taaffe

There is a recognition that private sector contractors have much experience and benefit to bring in delivering houses in a cost-effective manner. It is important to remember that local authorities are still very much to the forefront of designing these housing schemes and placing them in areas where they are sustainable, either in terms of infill developments or extensions to developments, or where they are close to services. Local authorities are absolutely front and centre in ensuring social houses are built to meet need where it is greatest and in areas where services are already in place, for example. It is about building communities sustainably. The local authorities are very much front and centre on that and are contracting with the private sector to get these homes built.

I have no issue with the local authorities bringing in the private sector, but we should have both. We should have direct-build social, affordable and cost rental properties along with contractors. We are in the worst housing crisis in the history of the State and local authorities have a proven track record of delivering.

During the financial crisis, many apprentices were partly through their apprenticeships but had to go into different sectors because of a lack of work. Have we seen any of those returning to these trades? With current apprentice numbers, have we enough? We spoke about this earlier, but are there enough apprentices when we consider the amount of development and construction that are needed? Are we hitting the targets?

Mr. Conor O'Connell

Attracting people back is a key focus of ours. We visit schools all of the time. We visited 65 schools in Cork city and county, including in Deputy Gould's constituency, to illustrate that people have come back into the sector. We brought quantity surveyors, carpenters and others into schools such as the North Monastery Secondary School in Cork to illustrate the careers that are available. Do we have enough? No, we do not. Do we need more? Yes. We see in Housing for All the figures that show we need thousands of extra workers, including 2,500 extra carpenters and 2,000 extra electricians. We are doing our best to recruit people but we are in what people who work in human resources or HR call a war for talent and like every other sector we face manpower challenges.

In 2016, we completed nearly 10,000 units. In 2020, with not much of an increase in the labour force, we completed 20,000 units. The industry has the capacity. Sometimes I feel there is a misunderstanding of the link between manpower issues and capacity. We find that our biggest capacity constraints come from within the system.

I assure members that we able to deliver. We have stepped up and we are getting there. We have had three years of constrained supply due to Covid restrictions, yet we still managed between 2019 and 2021 to complete 20,000 units while the industry was shut down for a significant period.

My next question is for the SCSI and CIF. Until now, people building one-off housing may have wanted to build a carbon-neutral or zero-carbon home with inbuilt environmental aspects to make them as environmentally-friendly as possible. Given the increase in the cost of construction, have people changed the type of house they want to build? Have they stepped back and decided they cannot afford to build a home that is as environmentally-friendly as possible or carbon neutral?

Mr. Kevin James

On the Deputy's earlier question about social and affordable housing, we have acute shortages in terms of self-delivery. I will cite a recent personal experience of speaking to one of my company's directors. We are building a large social development, an apartment complex. As part of the quantity surveyor's remit and role, the brief came out and the design started to unfold. We had a social and affordable scheme that had the same cladding as originally specified, coming from wherever, whether it was the private or public sector. The role of driving viability is to test where the market sits in terms of what we can afford to build right across the country.

We do not have enough apprentices. We are working really hard on that at the moment. The concern for the construction sector is how to attract apprentices into an industry in the current climate. When we look ahead, what is on the horizon? We are at the tipping point of major schemes beginning to stop as a consequence of being unaffordable. For large apartment complexes, there are pressures from the funders and financial markets to start on-site, and we are working with developers who really want to get a project on site. They rely on our information, budgeting and forecasting to decide whether to go or stay. I am working on large private projects and very large public sector projects and the decision to be made at the moment is whether to hold off or move forward with confidence. Momentum in the industry is really important because the objective is to provide housing, not at any cost but to control the cost and mitigate the risk.

We need to provide the right type of housing - sustainable and carbon-neutral housing.

Mr. Kevin James

Yes.

Will the current increases in construction costs have a detrimental effect on the delivery of such housing?

Mr. Kevin James

Climate action is an opportunity for change and the industry must get on board and move quickly. If we consider the legacy of what has happened in the last few years in timber-frame construction, we do not have enough licences to plant trees to provide timber for timber-frame construction. The felling licences are not appropriate to deal with the future demand for timber-frame construction. Low-carbon initiatives and carbon-neutral developments are very much on the radar. We need to understand what is cost neutral and what we can implement in a house or an apartment complex in a cost-neutral way. I think that premiums will apply to designing and constructing apartment complexes or housing developments that will embrace new technologies and designs. If the materials are not available and the specification is not there, the likelihood is that they could come at a premium if we are not careful.

That means increased construction costs.

Mr. James Benson

On apprenticeships, the recent figures that have been outlined relate to the peak of our delivery. We talk about 40,000 units being delivered in a given year but we are a long way off that at the moment. Thankfully, there is a little time left before we need those big numbers. The danger is that we might focus on one particular building regulation. We have, thankfully, seen advances in the conservation of fuel and energy through Parts L and F. There have been a huge number of regulation changes in recent years. While these are all welcome because we now have some of the best home standards in Europe, the regulatory impact assessments of each of those new changes in standards need to be looked collectively. We need to take an holistic and collective look at changes to Parts B, F, L and M in recent years to see what their impact has been on viability, as opposed to saying that one change in standards has created an additional cost of perhaps €2,000 or €3,000 per unit. We need to view them collectively because there is a danger that they may not be viable as a result of these changes. We have always welcomed the standards, as I think everyone would, but they come at a cost.

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy took the Chair.

I call the second Fianna Fáil speaker who is Deputy Joe Flaherty.

I have a feeling of déjà vu because I am about to raise the issue of affordable housing in rural Ireland. I thank all of the witnesses for attending. They stated the obvious when they noted that the population will grow by up to 600,000 over the next ten years. I will set out a few facts. At best, the reversible elements of inflation in housebuilding and construction amount to between 10% and 15% of costs. That is the best-case reduction in costs. There is no overnight solution for the skilled labour shortage. Portable building is great but it is not the panacea as some people believe. It will build houses faster but will not reduce costs.

I am sure Mr. Taaffe will remember that the last time he was here we spoke about affordable housing for rural Ireland. I was delighted when he told me that his unit was working with all of the local authorities to help them to move towards an affordable housing plan. On hearing that news, I left the meeting 5 stone lighter and somewhat elated. However, when I spoke to representatives of the rural authorities I was told that they had been asked to provide totally affordable models in order to get the green light for affordable housing. The Department insists on looking at a criterion that is based on historically low house prices that still cannot be balanced against the total absence of a new house sales market in rural Ireland. We are not comparing like with like or, as Mr. James would say, apples and oranges. Rural Ireland is facing not only an affordability crisis but also an availability crisis. Therein lies the opportunity for the industry.

Last week, there were only nine houses to rent in Longford, with an average rent of €925 per month, which is an increase of 60% since 2012. If the current run rates in Longford continue, we will be 52% off the House for All targets for new starts. Only 11 counties have been approved for affordable housing schemes. The league table for new starts shows that County Sligo will be 60% off the target, so it is excluded, and County Leitrim will be off the target by 74%. If that county continues the way it is going, it may not build anything. If the bottom five counties in the league table built only 50 houses each per annum for the next five years, that would amount to the guts of 1,400 houses between them.

As everyone in this room knows, the cheapest place to build houses is in the provinces and in rural towns. It is cheaper to build a house in counties Waterford and Limerick than anywhere in Dublin. Covid gave us a huge opportunity in that people had the opportunity to work from home. The pandemic drove up houses prices in rural Ireland because people realised they could work from home and decided to get a house for quality-of-life reasons. The problem is that the Custom House has not opened up the opportunities to build affordable houses. Deputies O'Donoghue and Ó Broin blame the Government for every ill but some of the culpability for this lies with the Custom House. It must take the foot off the brake and give local authorities and bodies the opportunity to provide affordable housing schemes because there is an obvious pent-up demand for them. We will not solve the entire housing crisis but if we kick-start affordable housing schemes in every county, it would act as a pressure valve and reduce some of the pressure in the housing market. As I said, only 11 counties have been approved for affordable housing schemes.

It baffles me that the Department has not gone ahead and continues to create obstacles for local authorities that want to provide affordable housing. Mr. Taaffe might address that point.

Mr. Eddie Taaffe

To clarify, I work for the Local Government Management Agency. The main mechanism for affordable housing delivery is the affordable housing fund administered by the Department. The main criteria the Deputy is referring to are that for a local authority to be eligible to apply for approved housing funding to provide affordable housing, it has to cover more than 5% of its households, as defined by the housing needs demand assessment. That is based on Central Statistics Office data on incomes and house prices. Each local authority has data on that. Eighteen local authorities met those criteria and are therefore eligible to put forward schemes for approved housing funding. The other local authorities did not. The Department has stated clearly to local authorities that if there are local circumstances, such as in the county town, with house prices far above the average for the county and if they can make a case with data to support it, they would be eligible for approved housing funding. One local authority has made that case and is now eligible.

The reality as regards the affordable housing fund is that there is demand for affordable housing across the country and the funding has to be targeted where the need is greatest. I am sure the Department would make that argument. It is still free to local authorities where they have a specific issue and where they disagree.

With due respect, Mr. Taaffe gave me that answer the last time. I cannot understand why he is not moving on this. He said that his organisation bases the criteria on the CSO housing price figures. We know that the housing market collapsed and people could have bought a house in Longford for between €40,000 and €60,000. If only 100 houses were sold each year in Longford over the past ten years, there is no way we will get an average house price that will show an affordability crisis or challenge for the public in Longford. The reality is that if a young couple wants to buy a three-bedroom, semi-detached starter home, not one has been built in Longford for 12 years. There is no housing. The issue has to be looked at in the round. Clinging to CSO figures, while it is great and ticks a box for the County and City Management Association, is not the solution. It has to take its foot off the brake and let affordable housing be provided in rural Ireland. It is not the panacea and will not sort the problem, but it is one minor pressure valve.

Mr. Eddie Taaffe

One scheme that we are looking at with local authorities relates to affordable sites, so where local housing might not work for whatever reason, the local authority would become the enabler of acquiring and servicing land and then selling it at cost price so that people can get affordable sites on the edge of a town. Many people would like an affordable site on the edge of a town, but they are not available. The local authority would become the enabler of that by buying land, servicing it and making the sites available at cost price.

I am conscious that I am over time. Where are we with that? Can Mr. Taaffe give me a bit of light to bring back to the people of Longford?

Mr. Eddie Taaffe

There are a couple of examples of that in other local authorities and we will do something similar with local authorities in the autumn to show them how it will work. It is up to local authorities to run with that. I think they are pretty familiar with the model. It is about getting the right sites in the right towns and testing the market. We think that could be another solution for counties like Longford.

I thank the witnesses for their briefing. I am always impressed by how informative they are. It is a special resource. As Deputies and Senators, we have to be briefed by the witnesses who are pressing the buttons and pulling the levers. There is much that I could say. Brexit, Covid and the Ukraine war have increased costs. Inflation in product prices and the labour shortage in the construction sector are, as I understand from the witnesses' contributions, the main contributors to the rising cost of housing delivery, which we are all here to try to address. I am particularly concerned about small contractors and those involved in social housing and their experience of negative financial impacts. I am particularly interested in those which are less able to absorb the costs. I am interested in the witnesses' proposals to cushion the economic blow for contractors and housing providers.

I have three questions about inflation. There is a proposal to reduce the soft costs, such as VAT, which the witnesses may have covered already. Have there been talks between the witnesses and the Department about any of those measures? I come from the construction profession. Is there any indication that material costs will decrease? Are they here to stay? Do the witnesses see any solutions to that? The Government cannot keep reducing soft costs. Have the witnesses done any modelling on previous price cycles to see where, when or if we will come out of this? The same applies to apprentices. I know the witnesses mentioned capacity earlier. Are we at capacity yet? When will we be at capacity with apprenticeships? The witnesses mentioned going outside the country to bring people in. I hope I am being politically correct. We had many eastern Europeans working in the sector and many went home. Some 750 million people live in Europe and I am sure there are many tradespeople who would like to work here. I know accommodation is a problem. Will materials costs decrease or stay as they are? When will we reach capacity with apprenticeships?

Mr. Conor O'Connell

The Society of Chartered Surveyors might be able to analyse the cost cycle.

Mr. Kevin James

The Chair makes a good point about small contractors. We must protect the small supply chains, which we are fully dependent on, and ensure we do not create barriers to entry. In the pre-qualification process, whether for consultants or contractors, providing professional indemnity cover at a high level is an instant barrier due to their inability to provide cover that satisfies the requirements for public procurement. There are definitely barriers that prohibit small and medium enterprises and small contractors from being able to deliver certain projects.

The question about material prices is the crystal ball. We have done workshops about what the future looks like. While the war in Ukraine continues and it is difficult to anticipate its impact, there are some green shoots. We recently did some research on the European supply chain and delivering reinforcement. In the middle of last year, reinforcement cost perhaps €600 per tonne, which spiked to €900 per tonne by the end of the year. Speaking with contractors over the last weeks, they could quote €1,400 or €1,500 per tonne of steel. Apartment complexes have basements that need steel and developers are asking if they should pay a 100% or 120% premium to buy that product to start that first phase of a development and whether it makes sense. What message are we sending to the industry by indicating that accepting a 100% or 120% premium on a particular material is acceptable?

While there are embargoes on Russia and with the war in Ukraine, after speaking to suppliers of steel coming to the UK and Ireland, they were forecasting a 20% reduction because they are beginning to work out their logistics. The energy issue is significant, because suppliers making products in Europe do not yet know how much the product will supply. Significant amounts of fossil fuel are required to make glazing systems and steel. Suppliers are still calibrating their figures. The subcontractor supply chain cannot fix the price. Subcontractors pass that message to the main contractor, which then passes it on to us. It is about understanding the risk profile and what contractors are prepared to accept. It is difficult to anticipate the trajectory.

We saw 13% last year but there are no immediate signs in the short term of tenders coming back. At a personal level, we tendered a project last week for which the spread of tenders ranged up to 25%. That is significant in terms of the capacity of the industry and the appetite to take on certain work. We are seeing quite a lot of movement in the market but, again, it is down to how we anticipate what risk premiums contractors are applying to public sector projects versus private sector ones. There is a premium-----

There is nothing from the past to model it on. It appears from what Mr. James is saying that there is nothing to model where we are at and that this is a unique space-----

Mr. Kevin James

Yes, it is.

-----so we do not know where we are. Nevertheless, we might expect it to come back. Is that not the case?

Mr. Kevin James

Unfortunately, in light of the tender price index published by the society, the trajectory and the message we are sending to the industry, we are at the tipping point for affordability and viability. Something has to give, which is the collective view among all participants. As was stated earlier, there is no one solution we can tick to say that will solve the problem. Right now, there are projects that will not be viable unless we do something radical, and some dynamic thinking is needed by all members of the industry.

Mr. James Benson

On apprenticeships, for those who might be trying to attract the young, there are many positives within construction that we have not covered. We have focused on where we can make improvements and rightly so, but the minimum wage rate and the living wage rate are about €10 and €12, respectively. A general operative coming into construction on the back of a sectoral employment order will be up at €14.70 an hour in his or her first year as an entrant, which will begin to increase from the second year. Similarly, craft workers will be on €21 or €23 an hour very quickly. Those who come into construction are moved very quickly through the system and there are many opportunities. We often see apprentices in trades come in and after a number of years, progress to being engineers or site foremen. There is a good deal of movement into senior management positions. There is good, enjoyable living to be had in most cases.

Eastern Europeans were mentioned. Half of our population are females but, at the moment, the industry comprises less than 10% females. We need to attract more. There are significant well-stated and documented benefits in having more females on our boards and in the industry. We are starting to see that come through but we need to continue that and do more. A number of campaigns have been completed within the industry and a number of the agents have been a part of them. We are seeing positive patterns in that regard and that will, we hope, continue over the coming years. We need to look at all avenues and all demographics.

Can our guests project forward? Will we be at capacity in five years? It was stated that whenever we are building 10,000 units, we would be doing 20,000 units with that level of staff.

Mr. Conor O'Connell

That is very hard because the industry is changing so rapidly at the moment. We talked earlier about modern methods of construction. Timber-frame housing has replaced traditional brick and block. Even since four years ago, that change has been very significant. There are now bathroom pods and kitchen pods. This is utterly changing the labour requirements and the industry becoming far more skilled. That is why we are calling for more traineeships in certain areas. It is very specialised now and much more so than even five years ago.

Mr. James Benson

I do not think the industry will be found wanting. If the same level of urgency and efficiency within the industry is replicated in all State and semi-State bodies and utility providers, we will not be found wanting on the output. It will require that collaborative approach from all bodies.

I emphasise that the purpose of these sessions is to find solutions. There will be an outcome to this, in case our guests are wondering why they are sitting here answering our questions for two or three hours. Part of this is about us as a committee writing to the Minister to try to convey some of the urgency that all three organisations are outlining.

I might make a couple of general observations before following them up with some questions. When we debated these issues previously, particularly over the course of the four SCSI reports and the EY Cork apartment reports, much of our debate was about how to narrow that gap between affordability and viability. The problem is the debate has changed. Whatever one's view of Croí Cónaithe - it is not the subject of this debate, so I will not open that argument - it has changed the parameters because we are no longer talking about closing a viability-affordability gap but rather a viability-market price gap. That is a big shift, and I am not sure whether everybody, aside from the specialists, appreciates the significance of that. If we were to take the various recommendations, good, bad and indifferent, from the SCSI reports and apply all of those savings, we will be no longer moving towards affordability but just towards the market price, which was a problem previously. I think that is important to emphasise in the context of this conversation.

Turning to the Construction Industry Federation, and this is a reflection and not in any way a criticism, given I agree in respect of the data underpinning the housing needs demands assessment, HNDA, Mr. Taaffe and I spent quite a long time in South Dublin County Council, which has an abundance of zoned land and a good deal of serviced lands, including two strategic development zones, SDZs. We have enough zoned land for ten years on the basis of the current Government projections, so we are okay in that sense. An SDZ was agreed for Clonburris in 2018 and, although Covid happened, we are only now getting the first two planning applications, one of which is public and the other private. I am open to an argument regarding the correct targets and level of zoning, but even in local authorities where there has not been a request to dezone land and where there is ample zoned land, that is not solving the particular problems we are discussing here. Sometimes we look at Cork, Meath or Kildare and their zoning pressures and forget there are also other local authorities that are different.

I was trying to get into Mr. Taaffe's mind as Mr. Benson was making his comments about compact growth given, of course, Mr. Taaffe is a former planner. There are risks in some of these issues. We can find a really good mechanism for reducing some costs, but there can be negatives elsewhere in terms of good place-making or good-quality urban environments, and in this conversation we have to be careful of that. That is not a recommendation for inertia or inaction but is about ensuring we will not create a problem somewhere else. Therefore, everything should be on the table to be considered, but we also need to ensure that as we move towards compact growth, we will get good-quality, high-density, mixed-use inner-city environments in which people will want to live and stay for long periods and that will involve some football pitches for kids, as well as pocket parks and the other shared spaces.

On labour - again, this is not in any way to question the point Mr. Benson was making - when I talk to SME builders, particularly outside of Dublin, they tell me that it is not necessarily about the hourly rate for the job but the long-term employment security and the inability to secure a mortgage, not least for those traditional crafts and trades. While all the work our guests' organisations are involved in along with the relevant Department is important, we also need to think about how we can ensure young men and women coming into the skills trades will have lifetime career progression and opportunities, such as those in Germany and other jurisdictions, to be able to aspire to the kinds of salaries that some of their counterparts on the professional side of the construction have. I add that only for the record in order that when we come to our report, it will be considered.

Some of my questions might reflect foolish ideas but we need to think about everything. Given the level of price uncertainty with some construction sector inputs and given earlier during Covid the State intervened to play a very significant role in procuring large volumes of materials to tackle the pandemic, are we at a stage whereby the Government needs to think about, for example, certain inputs rather than making each contractor have to bid on the open marketplace? Should the State step in and, whether through a vehicle such as the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF, or something else, use its bulk purchasing power to secure discounts on larger acquisitions and materials and to sell them on at cost over a longer period? That would have risks, given we might lock in higher prices and there would not be the advantage of a fall, but do we need to start thinking about something like that? I am thinking, in particular, of timber, steel and some of the other big price-takers at the moment that we do not control.

I was taken by Mr. O'Connell's point about finance for apartments. If there were ever a vehicle that could lend large volumes of money to build the kinds of apartment developments that find it really difficult to get sustainable finance, it is Home Building Finance Ireland, HBFI, but I am not seeing it do that. Do our guests have thoughts or considerations about how we can improve HBFI to be a more viable lender for some of those projects?

On site servicing, I am thinking of the City Edge project, where there are complex externalities. Is there a role for an expanded Housing Infrastructure Services Company, HISCo-type, vehicle to take off the pressure at the early stages? It is not money for free or the bureaucratic local infrastructure housing activation fund, LIHAF. The private sector, ultimately, would have to pay but it would not have to do so as an upfront cost and there would be some of that de-risking.

I am keen to go back to the matter of technology because, despite what other members have said, there are some savings to be made in building technologies. The question is how we get those in to bring about some of those cost reductions.

I agree with all three organisations about de-risking. If there is one thing the State can do, it is to improve, clarify and reduce the time involved, whether on planning or procurement or zoning, to reduce the risk. I am not in any way suggesting we should over-zone or reduce standards but do the witnesses have specific recommendations for changes there? We could produce a report that does not have 50 recommendations but has more than three. I am giving a little more latitude than in my first round of questions. Where are the salient points we could press in that regard? It would be good if we could give a report to the Minister with some specific recommendations on the issues outlined.

Mr. Kevin James

I completely agree with the Deputy's point regarding labour and long-term security. We need to adopt an approach that makes the industry attractive and sustainable to keep people and motivate them to join the industry for the longer term. The industry is under pressure right now in trying to develop. We have an acute housing crisis which has been compounded by the arrival of refugees. The seams are splitting with regard to accommodation requirements. It is about providing new and additional accommodation. There are constraints in the workforce on which we depend to deliver buildings in the residential market and other sectors of the industry. The committee must bear in mind that we also have the issue of mica. The SCSI spent three months working with the Government on how to support it with regard to how mica was going to unfold. That will put a burden on the workforce when that traction begins to kick in. There is also the retrofitting programme, which is running in parallel to that. There are a lot of competing forces that will draw across the industry, outside of residential buildings.

We have to look at apprentices. The apprentices coming into the industry must serve the entire industry across all sectors, not just residential. There has to be some sort of process to understand the numbers of apprentices coming in. How long does it take to train an apprentice? Is it three or four years or can we do it faster? Can we fast-track apprentices and can we make it more attractive? That is the future of our industry. We need to bring people in and motivate them to join contracting companies. We do not have a larger workforce compared to 2007 or 2008. We are depending on the contractors who are inside the tent at the moment and they are in a fragile state. They are looking at their order books and the economy and wondering whether the subcontractors are going to get paid. They are looking to the future and the economic outlook.

In some respects, we have to be very mindful of attracting contractors to price projects. Contractors want to deliver projects but if they are at a disadvantage because they cannot offer fixed-price contracts, we have to go back into public procurement. We have to understand the risk profile in public procurement. The co-operation inflation agreement is a great move but we also have to think about what are we doing with regard to being flexible. The Deputy mentioned flexibility in contracts to make them more attractive. Should we look at new engineering contracts, fitting contracts and shared mechanisms where there is a shared risk? We must allow the contractors and the industry to come together and find solutions because we are value engineering schemes at the moment and we are still proving they are not viable.

Bulk purchasing is a great initiative. I am not quite sure what the Government stepping into that arena would look like. Large-scale developers can bulk-buy. In public procurement, when we agree a contract with a contractor, we do not tell the contractor how and when he can place that order. It might be a two-year construction project so he might not want to buy the windows on day one and lock in that fee. He may decide to look at that. If he decides to buy the window package in a year's time and realises it is 20% more, is that value for money? Who carries that risk? We are trying to understand the contractual terms and negotiations when we have the contractors at the outset.

Regarding sustainable finance, green finance and how we can encourage lower rates of interest, we are on the way and are looking at motivating other sustainable initiatives. The environmental, social, and governance, ESG, area is just looking at green finance and motivating contractors to understand it. That comes down to educating the industry and promoting the fact that we can get cheaper finance if we instil this into future designs and into the contracting industry. It will also help train the industry over the next nine to 12 months.

Mr. Eddie Taaffe

Just to touch on-----

I hope Mr. Taaffe realises he might have a defamation case against the accusation that he is working in the Custom House.

Mr. Eddie Taaffe

I have a couple of points. First, what we need to do is give the construction certainty. At a high level, that is there in Housing for All, where the social and affordable housing targets for each local authority have been published. Beneath that level, each local authority is preparing a housing delivery action plan, which details how, where and when they are going to meet those projects. They will state what year the houses will come on stream, the settlements and locations. They are being worked on at the moment and the intention is to publish them in June. That will bring a greater level of analysis and transparency to exactly where and when houses will be delivered. That will be useful for the construction sector.

This probably applies more to the larger urban areas such as Dublin, Cork, Galway and so on but there are benefits to master plans. We need to utilise master plans for areas for redevelopment. We should get everybody who has a stake in delivery in that area around the table, led by the local authority, the landowners and the various State agencies, to decide what they want to deliver in the area, how it will work and how they will operationalise it. That was the way the SDZs worked. There have been positive and negative comments about SDZs but I think the model works. The timing was unfortunate in that they came with the 2008 crash and that inhibited development on a lot of them. The development plan states what we want to build, the type of development and where it will go. The next step in the process is the planning application. That comes in and it is a "Yes" or a "No", or it goes to the board and that says "Yes" or "No". There has to be a piece in the middle, called active land management, where everybody gets around the table. They will have zoned the land and they can discuss what they want to develop, how they will operationalise it, who is going to provide what infrastructure and what the costs are. That way, we can develop those master plans with a collaborative approach. There is a model there and we need to use that more, particularly on our large development sites. They are called urban development zones, UDZs, in the Housing for All plan. That is an area where we could bring people around the table with a collaborative approach.

I agree with Mr. Taaffe. He and I worked on an SDZ in south Dublin. I think it is a good one but it took two years. Is there a way of taking that principle and accelerating it, maybe by not doing them on such a grand scale or having options? Landowners are being told there is nothing they can do for two years while there is a public consultation process. They have to engage and design and only then can they go for planning permission. The one thing SDZs have not done is accelerate delivery. I completely accept the point about the crash. Can we make SDZs more nimble?

Mr. Eddie Taaffe

Yes, I think so. We see a form of that happening. I have seen developers with large tracts of land coming in with a master plan for their overall vision for the site and then with the first phase of it, which is the planning application. We do that but it is probably not quite as open or as available to the public as one would imagine. It is part of a pre-planning process and the planning application process. There is merit to an "SDZ light" or "UDZ light" that could be done much quicker than two years. With that, everybody could get around the table and the high-level issues and deliverables could be identified, so at least the local authority would have a list of elements that other State actors need to provide and things that need to be done for housing to be unlocked on these sites.

Ms Lisa Rocca

As a continuation of that point, I note the difference between local area plans and development plans. That causes a huge delay to the planning process when the county council differs in its views towards the development plans. They need to be informed as well and we need to bring that in.

Would any of the witnesses like to comment on the point I made at the start? We were talking about a gap between affordability and viability.

We are now talking about a different gap, and we have to be honest that it is between the market price and a higher all-in development cost. If one looks at the document that has been circulated to industry by the Housing Agency, it states what the market price in the area is and that the all-in development cost is now above that. Even if one thought the subsidy was a good idea, and the witnesses know that I oppose the proposition, it is no longer generating affordability but just delivering things at what was the market price at a certain point. I have looked at the SCSI reports. The first one on apartments refers to an affordability challenge for anything above €350,000. Even with a large subsidy, and it could be LIHAF, and Croí Cónaithe cities fund and possibly the help-to-buy scheme, in real terms one is still looking at a €400,000 starting point for a two-bedroom apartment. Is it a problem that the debate has shifted and it is almost as if nobody has put up a hand and said the debate has shifted and it is no longer about affordability but about a different gap? Have I got that wrong?

Mr. James Benson

I would not disagree with the Deputy. We saw in the report last week from the CSO the drop in transactions in a 12-month period when pent-up demand was as high as ever, which shows that there is a lack of availability. One the challenges, as the Deputy correctly identified, is that it noted a 6% or 7% increase for the new, but with the existing home market at approximately 18%, which gave an average of 15%. That is where some of the complications arise. We are competing not only with a replacement costs and affordability challenge, but also with the existing home market.

What I would like to see, and it is not there yet despite a number of reports, is a current costs analysis across all the different delivery models, regardless of who would deliver those homes, that takes into account both recent and future policy and regulation changes. Everyone would agree that what was required five years ago and what we have coming down the line in the next 12 to 24 months are polar opposites. It is welcome and there are better units, but there are significant cost differences in both policy and regulatory influenced costs that are going into the cost of delivery. To get over this debate about who would be best placed to deliver units, it is not just private industry, the State, approved housing bodies or the Land Development Agency, it is a combination of all those across all the different tenure models. We need to have that detailed costs analysis because unless we know exactly what is going into the delivery of all different units across all those delivery models, we will not be able to see where there is potential to streamline some of those costs.

Undoubtedly, there are probably elements of hard costs that can be increased as well. There is a certain amount that is within the builder's control and a certain amount that is outside the builder's control. It is likewise in the soft costs. It is not going to be the case that one element can be reduced and that will be the panacea for housing affordability. It is going to take a combination of fractions of percentages across all those. If we could make some inroads into that, we would have a greater chance of delivering on the targets and on affordable homes as a result of that.

I have a few comments and questions. First, with regard to apprenticeships, I welcome what was said about broadening the demographics. What I have heard from many people is that it is the same families and the same regions in Ireland, and, indeed, the same regions around Europe, that are feeding into the same skills sets, and that it is not broadening out enough. In the UK over a short number of years, there was a quadrupling of the number of women in some of the key construction trades. It was starting from a very low base but it went up significantly. One can see in some other countries that there is a lot more female participation in particular trades where perhaps traditionally people thought there was a justifiable or some type of reason for a gender difference. That is not the case in those countries.

The issue of job security is a major challenge, given all the uncertainties in it. Do the witnesses have views on anything that could be done to improve that? There is no question that it is well-rewarded and well-paid work compared with some other areas, but what are the witnesses' thoughts about what can be done to improve job security?

Mr. James Benson

One of the positives now, which we did not have a number of years ago, is that we have the national development plan, the national planning framework and Housing for All, so there is a level of committed funding that will give certainty to those who come into the industry that they are not necessarily looking at a five-year cycle of boom and bust but that there is a guarantee of developments and delivery over the next decade. That is a positive.

Construction might be attractive to many other sectors of the economy as a result of Covid-19. In the past, if one was a pilot, for example, one was almost guaranteed a mortgage. During Covid-19, due to the lapse in that industry, it is no longer a guarantee. The construction sector was one of the most positive industries being looked at for the potential there because of the security, the need and the contribution it makes to the economy. We are probably in a better position with regard to security. There is never a guarantee in any sector, but we are probably in a better position now than we were previously because of that committed funding. I hope that would bring some confidence to those who might come into the industry in the future.

Mr. Conor O'Connell

I will expand on that a little. We came through an extraordinarily turbulent time in the construction sector from 2008 and 2009 up to 2017, 2018 and even 2019 in certain regions where the market had not recovered. Now, with all these plans, it is hoped there will be a greater degree of stability. It is not to make an excuse but just to explain that ordinary medium or small sized building contractors do not have continuity of work for a carpenter, bricklayer or a plasterer working for them because certain elements of it are built out in a certain timeframe. Even when there was greater direct employment back in the 1950s and 1960s there were people being employed and made redundant a lot. It is all about the continuity of work into the future. That will give greater stability to the specialist contractors.

Ms Lisa Rocca

As a side issue, I have a view on this in the context of professionals who work with me. For example, a quantity surveyor who works with us now came from an electrical background. People are better placed if they have the industry experience. Development construction is a volatile market. Perhaps we could introduce into the education programme a year to get on-site training, even for architects who come out with their professional qualification and then go into the industry. It could be a more fused education to remove that stigma of going into the profession and being a professional or one is going to work on-site. It is a real opportunity. Most people who get into development or construction usually come from that background. My father was in the tile business, and then I got into development just from exposure. I spent my weekends doing a lot of hands-on work as well. It is to bring that in further and that is it not just either one is a professional or one is on-site. It is not glamorous but more neutral to whatever way one wishes to go.

Mr. Kevin James

From the society's perspective, we have seen a huge initiative across the industry to attract women into construction. There have been many positive steps and we are looking at the results and why. From the ground up one looks at trying to attract them. It starts at a very early age in school. Sometimes we wait until after university or until they are at an age where their mindset is somewhere else, so there have to be plans. We are in that space at present. We are trying to get into schools early. It is to educate parents as well because parents give guidance to their children about where there is a viable career, whether that is in the construction sector in terms of being on the tools or on the consultancy side. We have to change the perception in the market by making the industry more attractive. We have made massive strides in the last few years with innovation, technology and modern methods of construction. From coming out of the recession we have been working with the construction sector group. Look at what we are trying to with the centre for excellence. All those are moving in the right direction. It is just that we are trying to bring forward some of the answers quicker and it is going to take time. We just need to keep our eye on what are the medium-term and long-term objectives and how we are going to get there.

Deputy Steven Matthews resumed the Chair.

We have to look at what recommendations the committee can make. Among the ones that were made there was a suggestion of the planning process having the economic viability assessment as part of an outline planning permission. I am concerned that this would just become another exercise in paperwork. In other words, another report and an additional cost, and that once people got that report produced, it is likely that it would be hard for them not to get their planning permission granted. From the experience in other countries, how rigorous is that process? Take the example of apartment financing.

At the start of a process, people can certainly produce plans as to how they would like to have it financed down the road. From the experience in other countries, if it is acceptable for a developer to just project that they will be able to get the finance later on, how will a planning authority be able to reject the developer's plans and tell them the projections will not stand up?

Mr. James Benson

Again, we need to try to mitigate against the extensive resources and time that are required for something that will never come to fruition. Unfortunately, we are seeing a large number of uncommenced planning permissions. There are around 80,000 at the moment. There has to be a reason why they are uncommenced. I am sure it is due to a combination of factors, including viability, infrastructure deficits, trying to get fire certificates or meet compliance obligations, and getting responses back. There are a number of such uncommenced permissions. The economic viability assessment is just one of the potential measures that could be included to try to mitigate against that waste of time and resources. It will not, by any means, be the ultimate reason for the granting or rejection of planning applications, but it will help to further educate those within the system. One of the benefits that we did see within the strategic housing development applications was section 247 meetings, where a greater number of parties were coming into the conversation earlier. I think we need to have a greater number of parties involved, including the planning authority, the applicant and prescribed bodies, such as Irish Water, energy providers, Transport Infrastructure Ireland, parks organisations, local authorities and others. The more people we can have involved in the earlier conversations, the more likely we are to deliver and bring forward developments that are required for the locality and are more affordable.

My concern is that if it simply becomes another report and is not done properly, then it does not necessarily help the process and is just an additional cost. Of course, the point that it could be done properly is a valid one. On the suggestions about the compact open space guidelines and particular changes there, my understanding is that what CIF is suggesting is that there will be even less open space. Looking at it quantitatively rather than qualitatively, we will be looking at less space. The guidelines focus on the quality of the open space rather than the quantity. It could mean that there will be even less open space.

Mr. James Benson

I think what is required there is a review of what is best in a particular area. Again, the planning authority and local authority should be involved, because they are best placed to know what is required for their own community set-ups. It does not necessarily mean a reduction in open space. However, quantity does not exactly give us quality either. I think a combination of both approaches is required. We are not advocating for less open space, but more quality open space. That will come down to individual assessment by the local authorities and planning authority. The benefit of that approach is that we could have greater own-door access. It also allows for a greater mix of tenure within that, and the extension of units for reasons of age and demographics, whatever the case may be. It opens up the mix and provides for a greater community mix and requirements. It is not the only solution, but it is something that should be reviewed. There is potential to enhance without any derogation in standards. That is where we need to get to. We do not need to deregulate or have a derogation in standards. It is worth investigating if we can make changes to enhance communities and developments for the better for those within them without a derogation in standards or reduced affordability..

Mr. Conor O'Connell

One of the key points in that regard is that we would like to be able to provide high-density, own-door residential neighbourhoods in our city centres or near city centres. At the moment, because of the design standards, we cannot.

I think many people would welcome the mix to which Mr. Benson referred. Originally, a lot of compact growth was sold on the basis that while there would be less open space, it would be higher quality space. Several years on, there is a level of disappointment that some of the high-quality open space has not been delivered on. There are also issues around who manages the space and who pays for the management of it. If responsibility for that open space is transferred to the council, there are questions over whether the quality of the space will be lost. There are all of those challenges.

Finally, some very good points were made about land on the issues around viability. I agree with the point made by the Chair that there are very good reasons why land is constrained through zoning. When it is done properly it has an effect in terms of increasing land prices and costs and constraining supply. My view is that the two have not been properly balanced. I do not think the answer to that is more zoning more land. As the Chair said earlier, that does not help in terms of trying to match up infrastructure with land. It actually makes that challenge more difficult. Initiatives, such as those taken in Vienna, where there are affordable housing zonings and in some zones, limits are placed on the rents or prices that can be paid per square metre for purchased homes, have an effect. When land is zoned, it does not increase in value to the same extent as when there is simply open market zoning. It ties into the issues around viability. We must be aware that while some measures that are advocated to address viability are well intentioned, they can lead to increases in land and site prices. We must be able to distinguish been initiatives that address viability and those that, while they may provide an immediate reduction in costs, effectively end up transferring that cost onto the value of the sites. I think there is a huge opportunity around active land management. It is an opportunity that has been somewhat missed in terms of what the Land Development Agency is doing at the moment. I think it could be playing a much bigger role in active land management overall and in master-planning. There is an issue around master plans and local area plans in respect of them being properly resourced and prioritised, and the delays that causes. Everyone agrees that it is a good idea, but actually trying to get the resources in place and the prioritisation required to deliver it is a big challenge. On apartment lending, the whole financial viability and the constraints around it, people are not able to build and sell town houses. Large forward funding is required and people cannot get it from the banks. My view is that a public lending model, whereby funds are provided, for example, through Home Building Finance Ireland, is a mechanism for doing that. Do the witnesses agree that this is the way it needs to be done? Is there any other way of doing it, given the constraints in place in terms of financing for apartment viability?

Mr. James Benson

I will make two points, then defer to the other witnesses, who can answer the real questions. One thing we must recognise is that not all counties require local area plans. Often, the limited time does not allow the local area plans to be brought forward, because the six-year period quickly runs out. Our main message is that it is not possible to get through the zoning process, put in the critical infrastructure and get through planning and commencement, all of which are taking longer, in six years. Looking at a ten-year or longer plan would potentially have a significant impact. It seems to work in the UK and other places, where there is a ten- or 12-year life cycle. I do not know if that is the definite solution. However, what we know at the moment is that the six-year cycle is not working. We are not getting through it within that limited time period, due to a combination of planning, finance and other reasons. There are issues there.

Mr. Conor O'Connell

On the area of solutions, the Deputy mentioned de-risking. We need to have mandatory timeframes in relation to decision-making right across the whole of the public sector when it comes to planning and the provision of water and wastewater infrastructure. Mandatory timeframes would help de-risk the whole process for us.

On the viability challenge, we cannot repeat enough that we are in extraordinary times at the moment. I know what the Deputy is saying when he states that sometimes immediate solutions cause long-term problems in respect of land costs or whatever it may be. However, currently, we are in extraordinary times. We have never faced the amount of challenges that we have faced over the past three years, including the extraordinary increases in material cost inflation. We need to make more sense of it, without being too alarmist about it. We will monitor the commencements and completions over the number of weeks and months but we need immediate solutions in relation to the situation. On the price and control levers, we cannot control material costs. Even if the Government was to buy a lot of steel, timber and blocks, the prices would be locked in as they are now. The levers of control in relation to deliverability - and deliverability concerns costs - are unfortunately on the soft costs, including the VAT, the development levies, the special charges, the development bonds, to name but a few. That is our sense of it at the moment. Obviously, we have to finalise our thinking on the issue.

However, we are facing an immediate and extraordinary crisis.

Mr. Kevin James

I accept the Deputy's point about land. The society’s report is saying that everything has to be considered. Land, depending on whether it is being used for apartments, low-density schemes or high-density schemes, can account for between 8% and 16% of overall development costs. We need to chip away at these percentages or make land more available. The Land Development Agency, LDA, is in the same scenario as private sector developers and struggling to make projects viable. We are in extraordinary times.

For us, the focus is on short-term measures – we are not necessarily saying that they should become permanent, as they could be temporary in nature – that would allow us to make some projects viable. Right now, there is an acute shortage across the country. We need to consider how to resolve that and create high-density housing quickly. Even though small developments are equally as important, focusing on them will take away from the focus on creating high-density developments.

Our reports clearly show that, due to the limited workforce and so on, there was 13% inflation in the year up to the start of 2022. Given that a further six months have now passed, some of the large schemes that were in the planning process are no longer viable. How do we create a scenario that will break the viability deadlock? A large number of projects will not proceed unless we come up with a solution. That is what we are trying to do in examining the component parts, for example, land, soft costs and hard costs. However, further workshops and case studies of separate projects will be required if we are to determine the impact of inflation and see where the gap is. The gap has increased in the past six months.

Next to contribute will be Deputies Duffy and Ó Broin, myself and Deputy Gould. We only have approximately 15 minutes left, so I ask members to be as concise as they can.

I have raised construction workforce capacity and apprenticeships. It might not be simple to do, but for us to bang the drum on this matter in our report, it would be great if each organisation told us how many people should be in the workforce, what the shortfall is and how that needs to be made up. We could then push that with the Government or whomever. The issues of 35,000 units per year, retrofitting, Ukraine and direct provision are all in there. What construction workforce do we need? From what the witnesses stated, it sounds like we are only halfway to where we need to be if we are only able to achieve 20,000.

Is it possible to provide us with that information?

Mr. James Benson

A future skills report was published a number of months ago. It detailed that 27,000 more apprentices would be needed over the coming years. It split that figure up between the various trades, professions and so on. We would be happy to forward a copy.

Did the CIF have input into that report and is the figure in question the agreed number?

Mr. Conor O'Connell

I believe so.

I will make a quick point and leave time for Deputies Gould and O’Callaghan.

The short-term gains have to be on both the public and private sides. Regarding soft costs, developers’ margins and VAT are roughly the same quantum in terms of the impact on the overall cost of a private sector unit. The private sector would probably be smarter if it advocated for burden sharing in that respect. If we start reducing VAT, it reduces the tax revenue for schools. We saw headlines in newspapers today about the Department of Education being concerned about residential planning applications for areas where there were no school places.

I agree with Mr. O’Connell on strict timelines, but they must apply to both the public and private sectors. Just as there should be statutory timelines for planning decisions by the board and for an environment court to dispense with legal challenges speedily, there should be timelines as regards planning permissions, planning applications and commencements. If we started to say that, outside of exceptional circumstances, rigid timelines applied to the development process for public and private, it would benefit everyone. If the CIF is arguing for action on the State’s side, taking a little pain on the private side would strengthen that case. I say this respectfully.

I thank the witnesses for their contributions, which have been helpful.

Mr. James Benson

I agree with the Deputy. Clarification of what would be “exceptional circumstances” would be important because, all too often, “exceptional circumstances” are included in a development process and no one has any idea about what it means. If it is defined – for example, if it details that someone is held up because of State or semi-State bodies – and everyone knows what the level playing field is, I imagine it would be in the interests of future delivery.

Ms Lisa Rocca

We are discussing capacity and workforce requirements, but timelines are not being met because of resourcing within the public sector, for example, An Bord Pleanála, Irish Water and ESB. What numbers are required to ramp up those services so that we can all work together on this?

The complete labour force, including in those utilities and services.

Ms Lisa Rocca

Yes. For example, what would be required for fire certificates? It is a little open, it is not an eight-week period and it could go to court. It would be great and provide security to speed up such timelines. From a developer’s perspective, the banks will still be charging interest. If a developer had more certainty about the timelines, it could be built into the model.

I would hope that an economic feasibility study would be the developer’s job. A developer should not be at a pre-application meeting if a project is not working.

I will speak next, followed by Deputy Gould. I can give the three organisations an opportunity at the end to reiterate their wish list, which was Deputy Ó Broin’s question.

There was a suggestion in one of the opening statements that we should shorten or consolidate apprenticeships. I tend not to agree with that outlook. We are training people in a highly technical and skilled industry and an apprenticeship should take time. People need to learn and hone their skills on and off the job. I would be reluctant to see any reduction in or condensing of apprenticeship durations.

I do not agree with the analysis on zoning – that is fine, as we can disagree on it – because, at the end of the six years, we will not take out the duster, clear the chalkboard, all the zoning will be gone and we will start again. The witnesses will have a fairly good indication that, if land zoning is correct for that use, it will more than likely continue into the next local area plan. That should provide surety as well as a lightning rod for services. I disagree with the comments on the six-year plan. I am open to being persuaded that it should be extended or whatever, as we can improve any system continuously, including the planning system, but I disagree with the planning system being held up as a reason for delays and costs.

I have a question about profits. There was a suggestion in one of the opening statements that was submitted – I did not write down which it was, but I believe it was the CIF’s – that, once pre-tax profits started going below 10%, there was a difficulty in securing finance. Did I read that correctly? What is the cut-off point? Is it 9% or 8%? If we go back a decade or 15 years when house prices were high as well, what kind of profit was being won then and what was the cut-off point?

Mr. James Benson

I will answer the first part of that question. A developer needs 10% to 15% to meet the financiers’ criteria. It is important to note that those that are providing development finance are the same institutions that are providing the consumer finance. When a business plan for a development is presented, not only will they look at the potential margins to account for the risks – we have seen abnormal levels of risk in recent years – they will also consider who in that area will get the housing and who will get the required mortgages.

It is a combination of those who are providing the development finance and the consumer finance, which is an important point. The margin they will seek is 10% to 15%.

Has that always been the profit margin in construction?

Mr. Conor O'Connell

It is probably a recent enough phenomenon. Previously, in times past, it would have been the pillar banks that were providing the finance. We all know what happened there. The pillar banks have gone out of the market, certainly in being the sole providers of development finance. That 10% to 15% margin came into play in the past five to six years, possibly a little longer, when investment funds started financing development. Some funding is mezzanine finance, mixed with the pillar bank finance. The margin is there to cover the risk and we have seen why in the past number of months, if not the past two or three years. Construction is a very risky business. It was shut down for a considerable period. Financiers want to cover that element of risk, which is why they are looking for that level of margin. In recent times, unfortunately, that has been needed.

Mr. James Benson

It is worth making the point that there must be a commercial element to any development. Builders need to have a margin to allow for the future acquisition of land, which is the raw material, and the costs involved in getting through the planning process. It is a long time before there is any return on that. We need that forward investment and with most traditional builders, those margins are reinvested. Many of our own members around the country are traditional builders who have been in the sector for decades and are looking to reinvest and build homes. It is a very complicated dynamic. The finance model is very complicated.

Mr. Conor O'Connell

We are representing the house building industry or the residential construction sector, which is always trying to forward plan. Builders are building houses but they also have to buy the next field or the next brownfield plot of land and so on. They are always in that cycle.

It is good to clarify that because while, of course, profit has to be made as part of the entire cycle in terms of moving on to the next phase, there was some talk about excessive profits being made. I understand the risks involved and that profit margins are tight in the context of materials inflation and so on.

Mr. James Benson

I would make one final point on that. The issue of margins always comes up but there is a reason we are only seeing 20,000 units being delivered every year. That is quite a low level and it tells the story in itself.

Mr. Conor O'Connell

I represent the broader Munster region. There are really good, solid towns there with huge demand, yet the private sector cannot deliver. It is a real frustration for us, that the viability gap is there. In terms of the question, it depends on where one is. Fine towns such as Tralee, Dingle, Ennis, Clonmel, and even Waterford, cannot deliver the private sector units that are much in demand. There has to be a reason for that and it comes back to viability.

Mr. Kevin James

I do not disagree. The surveying profession is there to do is the interface between the client, the designer and the contractor. It is really about understanding what is fair and reasonable. One must understand the dynamic around the constraints imposed by the funder and what is an acceptable margin to satisfy the pillar banks and funding institutions, the contractor's margin and that of the subcontractor. The intelligence at the moment is that when we came out of Covid, contractors were trying to their order books full. They were competitive. There was a lot of competition just to get mobilised and get surety in their work. What we are beginning to see now is a trend whereby because there is not enough capacity but there is so much demand, those in the supply chains have begun to increase their margins. We are beginning to see a bit of a delta in terms of specialist contractors who are sought-after subcontractors, for example, with margins beginning to increase. This puts an extra burden on the main contractor in terms of the ultimate costs. The main contractor is also looking at the risk profile of the public procurement and the contractual terms for projects.

The margin, to some extent, is dictated by the complexity of the project itself and that has to be looked at on its own merits. When one pre-qualifies contractors, which we do all the time, we look at their solvency, their credibility and at whether they are capitalised and can deliver the particular project. They have to have a margin. There must be a reasonable margin but, at the same time, we must make sure that no one is gouging the market. That is what we are doing in feeding information back to the clients.

My first point relates to apprenticeships. We need to reach our goals in increasing the number of apprentices in all trades but we also need to have better pay and conditions and better security. Apprenticeships in countries such as Germany are much more highly valued than they are here. College is seen as the number one goal when people are leaving school, with apprenticeships valued less. I come from a working-class area and lots of my friends have risen to the top of their profession through the apprenticeship system in various sectors. Apprenticeship is particularly important in the construction sector. The wet trades are hard trades. There is talk about moving the age of retirement to 67, 68 and beyond but there is no way someone can continue plastering at that age. We have to make apprenticeships attractive and encourage people to get involved by having proper terms and conditions and by respecting apprentices.

An issue that we have not touched on today is the fact that the quickest way to increase capacity is to turn around vacant properties. Doing that takes fewer materials and less time and the carbon footprint is lower. It is an easy win and I invite our guests to comment on that. We have between 60,000 and 90,000 vacant properties, depending on whether one uses data from GeoDirectory or the latest census. They can be brought back into use quickly to increase supply.

Ms Lisa Rocca

I thank the Deputy for bringing that up now, although I know it is pencilled in for discussion tomorrow. The SCSI has been working on a report for the past number of years on retrofitting and the costs of same. A specific committee is working on that and it will be part of a series of reports. That will be published in September and we will be glad to share it with the committee then. It is a very good subject. The properties are there and can be turned around quickly. We have a housing crisis so it makes sense. I know it is up for debate tomorrow but we feel very strongly about that. I am glad we are talking about it because we need to work together to get that going more.

Mr. Kevin James

It is really about the data and the availability of information. The market perception is that we have a huge number of vacant homes. Decisions are being made based on that. We need to improve the intelligence in understanding the complexity and the costs involved in refurbishing certain homes. Data visibility and the decisions being made will be telling in the future. From the industry's perspective, we are very supportive of it. The Deputy is absolutely right. If we can turn around vacant properties and make them available in a cost-efficient way, that is something we must do as quickly as possible. That said, there is a level of complexity in each and every vacant property. That is why the data being collected and the decisions being made around that are important.

Mr. Conor O'Connell

Vacancy is a huge area that needs to be tackled. We need a sustainable development initiative to regenerate and rejuvenate our city and town centres all over the country. There is data available and we can all see vacant properties when we walk around our cities and towns. There are lots of buildings that can be brought back into use. One of the issues is that some of the buildings are small and if they are converted into five to seven units, or into two or three units above a shop, then the taxation structure for small landlords has to be reformed because it is not attractive at the moment to take on a derelict building. One does not really know what one is facing when one is trying to regenerate it. It is a risky area and then if a small landlord is renting out the property, the current taxation structure is a disincentive. There are also issues with building regulations.

There are other issues as well, including significant title issues regarding many derelict buildings in our towns and cities. It can be very difficult to secure a title.

Mr. James Benson

There is a complication that needs to be overcome. There is a need for prioritisation between planning, conservation and fire regulations. This is one of the reasons we have not seen a greater use of our built environment. The UK uses a graded system for conservation where no material changes are made to the outside but the necessary fire lobbies can be installed inside. There needs to be alignment between conservation, planning and fire regulations. However, we can bring these units forward.

Deputy Gould is right in that we need to make better use of the built environment, including these vacant units. We talk to homebuilders throughout the country a number of days every week. They say one of the main barriers to delivery is infrastructure. Deputy Gould spoke about making better use of the built environment that already had critical infrastructure in place. That would provide cost savings and time savings and make better use of infrastructure. This critical issue needs to be addressed.

I thank Mr. Benson. I call Senator Boyhan briefly, as we are almost out of time.

I will not ask questions. I was present earlier and I read the witnesses' excellent submissions. Congressman Richard Neal from the US was just addressing the Seanad, so we unfortunately had to be there and were somewhat locked down. My apologies.

I thank the witnesses, who are critical to our work. I read the Construction Industry Federation's excellent paper, as I did the County and City Management Association's, but I wish to single out the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland, whose presentation was excellent. They were all excellent, but I particularly liked the style of the society's presentation and how it set out its key eight requests. Doing that is helpful for us when we are drafting our reports.

I thank the witnesses for attending. We rely heavily on the input of our stakeholders and the people outside what is perceived to be the bubble of Leinster House. I thank the witnesses for their engagement and their time as well as the professionalism and expertise they bring to the table. This is not just an exercise where we ask them questions and they bat back with ready-made answers. This is a meaningful engagement. I am sorry for not being here earlier to engage more. I certainly had many questions to ask.

We are out of time. I thank the witnesses for attending. This is the first of two meetings we will have. We will prepare a report on it and issue the witnesses with a copy. I found today's meeting interesting and helpful, and I believe members did as well. I believe that the society will be in Leinster House again tomorrow.

Mr. Kevin James

Yes. The questions and answers session can continue then.

It will give an opportunity to other Oireachtas Members to engage with the society. I believe that will run from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. in the audiovisual room.

I will take precedence at that.

The joint committee adjourned at 6.03 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Thursday, 26 May 2022.
Barr
Roinn