Glenveagh Properties got a little singed last month when the homes developer sent a report to Government lobbying for changes to building standards to allow more houses to fit into suburban sites. In particular, its suggestion to allow smaller gardens drew some criticism. But it isn’t giving up the fight.
Glenveagh released strong interim results on Wednesday, with revenues up 57 per cent and a tripling of profits. So it could be argued that the current planning system, flawed as it may be, isn’t affecting the company’s interests all that much.
But the company remains adamant that the current planning system is hindering rather than helping in the delivery of enough homes to solve the housing crisis. The system, says Glenveagh’s chief executive Stephen Garvey, is too focused on encouraging apartment units in suburban locations. People don’t want these apartments, he says, and the system should be tweaked to encourage houses instead.
Glenveagh argues that many existing planning permissions for unwanted apartment blocks in suburban locations could be swapped for housing schemes. But greater house unit density would be required on the sites. Garvey said on Wednesday that it “isn’t all about squishing in more houses”. But, really, it is.
Glenveagh is not a charity. Clearly, the company is lobbying in its own interests. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it is wrong. Garvey argues that a loosening of standards on issues such as garden size would lead to more development of relatively affordable starter homes, which is what the market needs more than empty suburban apartment blocks.
The company’s report sits with Minister for Housing Darragh O’Brien. Public records show it also appears to be lobbying local authorities in areas in which the company is active, such as Wicklow and Fingal in north Dublin.
Developers cannot be allowed, alone, to rewrite building standards in their own interests. But Glenveagh has opened the door on a debate that does need to be had: to what extent are well-meaning building standards helping to perpetuate the housing crisis?
