We are now back in public session. Good evening, everyone. I will read some formal notices now regarding privilege. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the place in which Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where the member is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

Our first petition to be dealt with is No. P00020/25, regarding Pearse House regeneration, with Dublin City Council. From Dublin City Council, we have Mr. Martin Donlon, executive manager for housing delivery, and Ms Collette Egan, senior executive officer. I thank them for being with us today. Before we start, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present, or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts, is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. The witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if the witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Before we hear from our witnesses, I propose we publish the opening statements on the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On behalf of the committee, I extend a warm welcome to our witnesses and thank them for being here. Mr. Donlon will read his opening statement, which should take no longer than ten minutes. We will then have questions and comments from members. Each member will have approximately ten minutes, depending on how many members are in attendance. Members may speak more than once. I now call Mr. Donlon to begin his opening statement.

Pearse House is one of Dublin City Council's largest social housing flat complexes, situated in Dublin’s south inner city. It was designed by the city's then housing architect, Herbert Simms, in the 1930s and consists of 345 flats. The estate was added to Dublin City Council's record of protected structures in 2013 and remains listed as a protected structure under the Dublin City Development Plan 2022–2028. Due to the size of the estate, it was agreed that regeneration would be completed in a phased approach.

Dublin City Council received stage 1 approval from the Department of housing in April 2021 to progress the regeneration plans for phase 1. The original proposal aimed to refurbish blocks L, M, N, and P on Erne Place by amalgamating the existing flats to meet modern size standards and adding an additional floor to the housing blocks.

This proposal was to deliver 75 homes.

Blocks L, M, N and P consist of six studio, 40 one-bedroom, 24 two-bedroom and eight three-bedroom flats. All are currently occupied, bar three. An integrated design team, led by Bucholz McEvoy Architects, was appointed in May 2023 following a tender and procurement process. It proceeded to evaluate options for providing the 75 homes. These were appraised in terms of conservation and heritage requirements, building development standards, cost review and overall site assessment, including the masterplan, and future potential development. The design team commenced with site surveys and inspections of individual flats and housing blocks. Fifteen of the proposed 75 units within phase 1 were to be provided by adding an extra floor onto the roof. However, following structural testing by the design team, it became apparent that adding that floor was not cost effective due to the structural works required to provide the additional floor.

The design team continued in its design development, cognisant of the section 57 declaration prepared by the conservation section of Dublin City Council's planning and development department. This declaration provides for works that are permitted under the protected nature of the estate. It conducted detailed analysis regarding the level of interventions - openings and demolition works - required and assessed them under the criteria noted in the declaration. With agreement on the level of interventions, unit plan layouts were progressed to deliver new homes that would meet the current space standards and requirements. Following design development, testing and input from consultant teams, including a conservation architect, a preferred option proposal providing for 44 homes in phase 1 was identified. This included 39 homes to be provided through the amalgamation of the existing flats and five new-build homes on Erne terrace.

During this design stage, there was ongoing consultation with the residents of Pearse House. In June 2023, a letter from Dublin City Council was circulated to all residents updating them on progress with the project and, later in the year, a senior executive architect from Dublin City Council met the residents association to discuss proposals. A community information event on project plans, attended by the integrated design team, took place in October 2023. This intensive consultation continued through to 2024, with project newsletters issued regularly and Dublin City Council attendance at residents committee meetings.

The pre-Part 8 circulation of layouts was initiated in September 2024 to the south-east area committee and included a presentation of the proposed 44-unit scheme. At this meeting, the local councillors noted the initiation and the pre-Part 8 process commenced shortly thereafter. This culminated in a pre-Part 8 planners’ report issuing in November 2024, which recommended the project and noted the proposed refurbishment of blocks L, M, N and P is welcomed and will provide high quality residential units, and that the proposed new build element will activate Erne Place.

On 29 October 2024, the stage 2 submission for the funding and project approval for Pearse House phase 1 was submitted to the Department. The application proposed the delivery of 44 homes in phase 1 and it included a mix of 11 one-bedroom, 27 two-bedroom and six three-bedroom homes. Supporting information included cost plans, scheme design drawings, project risk register, programme, design statement and an architectural heritage impact assessment. The Department issued a response on 24 February 2025 that advised it had concerns around the proposed loss of 34 homes and the high costs projected to deliver the 44 homes. It noted that it was difficult to support the plans that resulted in an overall reduction in the number of social housing homes when an emphasis should be on increasing the number of homes. It expressed concerns that if Dublin City Council were to extrapolate this approach across the entire complex, the results post redevelopment would be a significant loss in unit numbers. Follow-up correspondences with the Department advised us that no loss of homes in Pearse House would be acceptable and we should minimise the amalgamation of existing homes in any new proposals. Following this response, Dublin City Council instructed the integrated design team to look again at the design strategy and assess the options available that would meet the Department’s requirements. Options such as demolition and minimal amalgamation were considered. However, following detailed discussions, these were deemed unsuitable due to planning constraints, technical challenges and future bed mix requirements.

The integrated design team explored the option of delivering a six-storey infill development of 22 units within the phase 1 site facing onto Erne Street. Drawings were prepared to enable comprehensive sunlight and daylight studies to be undertaken by external consultants. These findings were shared with Dublin City Council’s planning and conservation teams. However, the analysis indicated that the proposed development of this scale would have an excessively intrusive impact on existing homes in blocks L, M, N and P, making this option unfeasible. Further studies showed anything over three storeys would have a similar impact. To provide the three-storey infill development, the costs would be high and would not provide value for money in terms of the unit numbers realised.

Two potential infill developments within the larger courtyards of the estate were examined. Drawings, sunlight analysis and impact assessments were prepared and reviewed. This option was ultimately deemed unfeasible for now, due to the constrained nature of the site. It would result in the complete loss of on-site car parking for residents and reduce the amount of available communal amenity space. However, the option to provide some new infill remains under consideration. We are currently testing options for this and we will have a more definitive view on what is possible in this regard in the coming months.

The emerging preferred option proposes enhancement and upgrading of the existing homes in phase 1. This allows us to keep 78 homes in phase 1 with no amalgamation of existing flats, meeting the requirements of the Department. A scope of works has been prepared by the design team in line with what can be done to protect structures of this nature. This approach would require moving tenants out to allow the works to take place and it would see the upgrade of each flat, walkway, stairwell and the general area of blocks L, M, N and P. This is work that will need to be carefully considered and co-ordinated with the existing tenants and community to avoid major disruption to people’s lives. More detailed examination of the proposal is required, but it is considered that the works proposed would make a positive intervention to the existing homes and make them more comfortable for residents.

The proposals would include the following, as well as precinct improvement within phase 1 around blocks L, M, N and P: a strip-out of all aged services and replacement of all internal and external windows and doors; internal drylining of flats and adding insulation to window and door reveals; new warm roof upgrade with insulation; provision of new non-slip waterproof surfacing to access decks and stairs; repairs to concrete communal stairwells; decoration of each flat, including painting, new wall tiles to bathrooms, floor coverings to bathrooms and kitchens; replacement of existing boilers with high-efficiency boilers; replacement of pipework and radiators; installation of humidistat vents in bathrooms and kitchens to improve ventilation throughout; new kitchens and bathroom fit-outs; full rewire throughout; upgrading of plumbing works; and repairs to defective brickwork. Should this approach prove successful, our intention would be to progress a similar approach across the entire estate in the remaining 267 flats.

A major concern for any regeneration plans in Pearse House is the lack of opportunities for decanting around the area. There are 345 flats in Pearse House and most of them are occupied. There are serious overcrowding concerns and this means there would be a need for many two- and three-bedroom units to be available for decanting. Since 2023, only 13 three-bedroom units have become available in area M where Pearse House is situated. The issue of moving tenants so that we can carry out works will be complex and it will require a lot of engagement with existing tenants to find those solutions.

Dublin City Council continues to frequently engage with the community in Pearse House to provide updates on progress. Meetings with the residents committee took place in June and October 2025 to keep it updated on the project’s status. Ms Collette Egan was out there recently as well. It has been very supportive of our plans to date and continues to show support and understanding as we try to move forward. Our next step is to submit a revised stage 2 application with the proposals for the intensive upgrading of all flats in phase 1 and precinct improvements. We are keen to ensure we can get the agreement with the Department to improve the existing homes as quickly as possible. This has been the focus of much of our work recently, with a view to getting the revised stage 2 submission in by the end of next week or the following week.

Gabhaim buíochas le Martin Donlon. We appreciate the level of detail he provided in explaining that. I call Senator Andrews.

I thank Mr. Donlon and Ms Egan.

I do not say this often, but I have huge sympathy for Dublin City Council because the Government has effectively thrown it under the bus. The Government made a commitment. There were four years of intensive planning and consultation with the residents and Dublin City Council. Planners went out. I attended one of the planning evenings at the swings in Pearse House. People were understandably getting hopeful. They started to believe they would have new homes of a decent size and decent conditions to live in. In advance of the election, the Government gave that commitment but, after the election, it was dropped. The Government has effectively reneged on the commitment it made to the residents of Pearse House, who now have to put up with the second best. That is not a reflection on the witnesses or the staff. I know they have met the residents and have been trying to work through this. I know Mick Mulhern was committed to delivering a decent standard of living to the residents of Pearse House. It is really disappointing for residents.

There will be some improvements. Would this be described as retrofitting or an upgrade? I am curious about that because, as has been said and as I have said before, back in the 1930s Pearse House was a fantastic building but it has gone beyond what is proper and right for families to have to live in now. The bricks have become perforated and do not keep out the moisture. There are many issues. The people who object most to the delisting of Pearse House are those who do not have to live in it, The Irish Times readers or whoever. They do not have to live in it and objected strongly to the delisting of Pearse House.

Given the envelope the Government has provided, I understand it is going to be challenging and difficult for Dublin City Council to deliver much more quality housing. The size of the flats is a big issue. If you have a disability, it is difficult. Nobody who is in a wheelchair can live in Pearse House comfortably. A lot of disabilities cannot be catered for in Pearse House. I know many residents who live on the top balcony in Pearse House who have had to undergo knee surgery or heart transplants. It is nearly impossible for them. They become isolated and alone living in the flats because of the building they are effectively trapped in.

Leaving that aside, I will ask some questions on the upgrade. The bathrooms are going to be an issue. They are an issue. If I were to stand in one of the shower units, I would have to bend down to have a shower. A bigger person would struggle to even turn around in those shower units. God forbid you drop a bar of soap because you would have to leave it there. That is how tight the shower units are. How will the council manage access for people with disabilities? How will the shower units and kitchen units be adapted? With regard to social spaces, there is a significant population in Pearse House. What social spaces and amenities will be improved?

The witnesses may not be able to answer my next question right now but perhaps they could at a later stage. It is a listed and protected building but will the witnesses give us some sense of what is listed and what is not? There is a lot of confusion about that. While it sounds insane to me, I understand that there are certain requirements as to the colour of the paint. It has to be a yellow. If these are the strict guidelines residents have to put up with, it is hard to see how these flats can be regenerated and upgraded.

What sort of maintenance programme is to be put in place? Will it be the same maintenance programme? Maintenance in Dublin City Council properties is far from good. People are left waiting for days or weeks for somebody to come out to address fairly serious issues. If a tenant gets a private contractor to upgrade the shower or put tiles in and there is then a leak, the council will say it has nothing to do with it and that the tenant will have to get somebody else in, even if that contractor did not touch the plumbing. What is going to happen in relation to issues like that?

There was mention of detenanting. What is the timeframe for starting the detenanting process? Is it going to be done block by block or will the whole thing be done at once, which would obviously be tricky? Where people have been made an offer, can they refuse? They will obviously have to move out but, if they are not doing so, how long do you wait? What is the process for that detenanting? Again, that might not be within the witnesses' remit but, if they can find out, some follow-up correspondence would be great. Do residents who move out have a right of return? I note the first tranche of social housing at the Irish Glass Bottle site is to come on stream in the first half of next year. Will the council use those homes to detenant the flats?

Is it a retrofit or an upgrade? The witnesses mentioned wiring, plumbing and all of that. That is all desperately needed. Are the drains underneath the building going to be fixed? I am contacted every week by people who have been flooded because the person in the next unit has put wipes into the drain, leading to flooding and sewage in the flat. They move out and the council does almost nothing to help or accommodate them so they have to move in with a friend or family member next door for a few nights until it is all cleared up. Are the drains going to be fixed? That is a really important issue. You can fix the piping in the actual flats but, if you do not fix the drains, it is not going to last. It is not a long-term solution.

That is it. That is my array of questions. I appreciate the witnesses coming in. They are getting the brunt of it because residents are upset but, as I have said, the Government is responsible for reneging on its election promise rather than Dublin City Council.

I will go to Mr. Donlon and Ms Egan for a response to those queries. There was a substantial number of queries there.

I will first respond to the question as to whether it is a retrofit or an upgrade. That is almost a technical question. The building being a protected structure seriously restricts what we can do.

Again, the question is what is the nature of the significance. What is of significance, as they put it, in terms of conservation? What is deemed to be of significance with this building is its actual form, its shape and how it forms a street. This estate has the only intact Simms street. We have learned a lot over this time. It is the overall form, how it addresses the street and the internal street it has itself. That is essentially the more significant aspect of it in terms of conservation. There are other elements, like some of the detailing around windows and doors. There are a couple of original details of that nature still intact. Of relevance to the first question as to whether it is retrofit or overclad, the building itself is mass concrete construction so it is a cold construction. Where you might see retrofit being carried out is where the building is overclad in insulation, that is, wrapped in external wall insulation, which offers the opportunity to warm the structure so there is not that cold bridge that happens where condensation forms and damp is generated in units. If you were to overclad the building, and this points maybe to the conversation that has come up where somebody has discussed the colour of the paint, it is essentially the form of the building and the finish of the building on the outside, so we are restricted in treating it with a deep retrofit where you might overclad the building in a different insulated finish. We therefore have to carry out all that work internally where it is not seen so it does not impact what is deemed to be significant about this protected structure. In terms of the works that are done internally, it is an absolute full strip-out of all services, including all drainage, and an upgrade of absolutely everything in that sense. The condensation issue is dealt with through dry-lining the building on the inside so as to avoid that conflict with the protected structure. It is really important to stress how restricted we are in terms of how the protected structure responds to the building.

In terms of the adaptation of showers and kitchens, we will absolutely bring this as far as possible in terms of the kitchens in particular. The bathrooms will potentially become wet rooms. This is all stuff that is on the drawing boards at the moment. We can certainly get involved and engaged with the community and residents in that regard. If there are particular cases, maybe we can do a bit more of an adaptation that might help a particular resident who might have particular issues. Otherwise, again, as to what happens on the outside of the building, we are very confined or restricted.

As regards the amenities and improvements generally to amenities around the building, the number of options that have been looked at over recent months, interventions in the courtyards and extensions along Erne Terrace, those can only be brought so far because of the daylighting impact on existing residents. It is a planning issue. What we deem to be quite significant as well is the impact it would have on the parking and the amenity that exists, albeit in its current condition. On blocks L, M, N, and P, the first phase of this, we intend to fully upgrade the open space. We can share a red-line drawing, as we call it, outlining the area that will be impacted, renewed or improved in terms of the overall amenity. We can provide that information.

As regards a maintenance programme, the point I will make about this level of intensive upgrade that we will undertake is that all those maintenance issues will be dealt with. This is the most thorough response in picking up on all those maintenance issues. They will all be addressed and picked up. In terms of the overall management in the longer term around a maintenance programme, that will fall under our maintenance division within the city council. We can have those discussions, but if they start with a building with fewer defects and fewer flaws, it certainly will make it a lot easier. That is what we would see as a real benefit of this proposal.

As regards de-tenanting, we would look at it block by block purely because of the logistics around this, also giving tenants the time to think about and plan the move. There will be detailed consultation with residents coming up to that and we will absolutely give plenty of notice. The process for de-tenanting will be managed by allocations. We have had a couple of initial conversations with the allocations department and how we might best go about this, and those in the department are certainly open to suggestion and accommodating us on this. Regarding the Irish Glass Bottle site, given its adjacency, as set out earlier, and that there have been only 13 three-beds delivered in that area in recent years, or any units coming on stream or any such site that becomes available, we will certainly examine those as an option to de-tenant to.

We have discussed right of return. Those are the sorts of things we have had discussions about already with allocating and accommodating people. There will be a lot of engagement with residents, a lot of discussion and a lot of community meetings to discuss and agree all this.

So the residents will have a right of return.

Yes.

The underground drainage is burst in many places and causes a lot of issues for residents and leaks and so on. Like I said, you can fix the internal piping, but if you do not fix the drainage underneath, it will cause huge problems in the medium and long term for residents. Is that part of the retrofitting?

Is it part of the scope of this? Yes, it will be, for sure.

Will the pipes all be replaced or just repaired or-----

To start with, they will have to be surveyed. We will have to ascertain what the issues are, whether there are clay pipes that have collapsed or whether they have been blocked by material that has made its way into the system. There are several different options for repair before you might have to excavate and replace pipework to start with. All this will be defined in a scope as part of the documentation that we will hope to get out to tender early in the new year.

There is a vacant site there that Dublin City Council owns, JP Motorcycles, where I think it has been agreed the council will build new homes. Will the witnesses give an idea of what those new homes will be? Also, is there no way that the council could go up four or five storeys and build more? That is not possible. Okay. Would Dublin City Council consider purchasing the former Mattress Mick site in order to alleviate the massive overcrowding in the community in the Pearse Street, Markievicz House, Townsend Street area?

In terms of the vacant adjacent sites or nearby sites, there is the JP Motorcycles site next door. We have done a feasibility study on that. I assume members are all aware of the Department of housing's design manual requirements. The idea with that is to standardise all our design types, like what we would have done a generation ago with unit-type plans, a typical plan that you could repeat to offer some security in the market and interest among contractors. We are very much directed by those design manual unit types. We have carried out a feasibility study. There are a number of options being examined. The most viable option for that site is two three-bed, two-storey houses. Because of the eave line set by the adjacent buildings in terms of planning, we are very much restricted to a two-storey height. There is also the overbearing and the overlooking of the property to the back of it, onto Pearse Street. That is essentially two three-bed, two-storey homes with a back garden. Then we looked at 69 Pearse-----

The former Mattress Mick site, is it?

No. 69 was another one, and then we looked at the former Mattress Mick site. We looked at the maximum capacity. Again, if you are dictated to by eave heights and by adjacent developments, you are again going to be dictated to by overlooking, that is, back-to-back distances. The front of those homes looks onto Erne Terrace. That is north facing, so the back is south facing. We looked at the private open space and the balcony, which will be on the north face. There are several different things you have to think about in the planning and the restrictions that are imposed in planning: daylighting, overlooking and private open space.

So, believe it or not, four to six units is the absolute capacity that we could obtain there.

Is this on the Mattress Mick site?

Yes. There are abnormals there in that sense around the existing Victorian basement to the front. That would be a challenge in terms of the viability of delivering that at any affordable, value-for-money cost.

On the appropriate uses, there is probably consideration there onto Pearse Street about if it should be homes or retail and commercial. It is going to be a busy street for people to be living on. There have been three sites nearby looked at. We have already initiated a design team in-house, which has started to look at and progress the MJ Motors site.

What about No. 69?

That is just onto Pearse Street. There are restrictions on the appropriate use of that building. It should be retail or commercial rather than residential. There are also the issues around the basement and the abnormal cost that would arise in trying to retrofit residential at first floor level. All of these sites present challenges. They are quite restrictive in what we can realise on them.

I thank Mr. Donlon very much.

Gabhaim buíochas le Martin Donlon agus leis an Seanadóir Andrews.

Mr. Donlon and Ms Egan should be very relieved to hear that I do not have too many questions. Senator Andrews has covered a lot of them. I wish to go back to when the Pearse House Residents Association was before the committee. In fairness to Mr. Neil Maloney, who was as a witness to the committee, he said that there was a lot of engagement between the residents and Dublin City Council, which is vital. Even in my past as a county councillor, meeting with residents before developers even came into an area, be it pre-works on road safety, zebra crossings or whatever, gave people ease, so engagement is vital. Mr. Maloney said that the residents were very proud and had made it their homes, which is a big difference with property. A box is a box, but a home is a home. There is a huge difference. In the engagement with Dublin City Council, he said that the resident were being hope. All of that is very positive. The council is starting in the right place.

I understand where the witnesses are coming from when they reference listed and protected buildings. By listening to what the witnesses have said and from Senator Andrews's questions, if the council had a wish list - hypothetically, if the council had been given the full resources to do what it could down there - Mr. Donlon mentioned the Mattress Mick site and the other place and that three or four properties would not be cost effective-----

No.

It would be extremely expensive. If the council were to get the ballpark figure for the 345 properties that are there, could it be done? Senator Andrews spoke about the sewers. They are probably earthenware pipes that are running under the buildings. Every service outside of the building could be taken down into an access junction, redivert them outside of the complex, tap them back into the sewers and get stuff done. That is a huge issue. I worked in construction, sewerage, water and all of that, among other things. We will not go on about my résumé. I recall when there were large-scale tower apartments and everything was run from the outside down to the bottom were the access junction was. This was not too long ago. We had come on to take over from another company. The apartments were being lived in, but they had never connected the pipe into the access junction. There was a build-up. It was fairly interesting. One can get over those problems. I will always give credit where credit is due. I have heard from the residents association and Dublin City Council, and of course there is frustration. The process is slow and there is always trepidation and queries about whether the council is telling people the truth or not and why it is taking so long. If there was a ballpark figure, could the council achieve what the residents are hoping for or what would be the realistic amount?

We are not here to wave a stick all the time. We are here to try to assist any council. We have had instances at previous committees - I will single out Tipperary County Council, which was amazing when it came before the committee. It threw everything up on the table. Within about ten to 15 days after that, a 16-year ongoing problem was all of a sudden sorted. If the council realistically got the resources, could it achieve the maximum of what the residents are looking for? Could it bring it three quarters of the way or a third? I know the council is restricted by finance, but if there is a housing emergency, where there is an action, there is always an instant reaction. If we are scratching our heads in two years’ time because the complex's top two floors are flooded and we have no place to put people, will we be asking ourselves why we did not resolve it? Do the witnesses know what I mean?

It is exactly to that point of the housing crisis and emergency. The restriction or confines are greater than just cost and value for money. The protected structure is a huge challenge. What can be done to that building is a huge challenge. All of the options would involve a reduction in units. To amalgamate units, one is naturally going to lose units. We looked at an alternative option to that where we amalgamated but we did not lose units. We looked at making a one-bedroom studio, a two-bedroom, a one-bedroom, a three-bedroom, a two-bedroom. Even with that, though, the protected structure nature is one thing and the appropriate roof extension had to be set back to not dominate what I mentioned earlier about the significance of the structure - its form, height and how it forms and relates to the street. The roof extension had to step back to not dominate the overall structure. That ended up being a narrow plan and not very viable in terms of the units it realised. Also, the structure required to set that roof extension back from the building edge was not relying on the structure of the building. It was stepping back whatever distance all around to have less impact, so it would have needed to find new structure down through the building. That was invasive and did not represent value for money.

When we looked at the minimal amalgamation when it went from a two-bedroom to a one-bedroom, the building is quite unusual for its type and the time it was built. It has a heavy spine wall down through the centre. This differs from a lot of other buildings of its type, including Simms buildings. That spine wall had to be perforated and demolished in areas and perforated through to create the link from one to the other. All of these surveys and work had to be gone through to get to that point. What can be done with the existing structure is quite minimal or quite confined. On the extension where we were originally proposing the roof extension, we knew that any additional buildings throughout the estate would impact on car parking, amenities and daylighting. We did not anticipate that daylighting would have such an impact. That was discovered through all the different modelling that went on over a couple of months.

There was the direction to not to lose units and the requirement for additionality. There was a real challenge. The challenge is more than funding. The challenge is dealing with the protected structure and the structural integrity of this type of building, and then any additionality, such as daylighting and impact on amenity and residents' car parking. There are a lot of restrictive elements that challenge the delivery of the scheme that we all want.

We are going to have to come up with another plan. Realistically, one sometimes wonder whether there is a way of getting around the designation of protected disclosure. Is there a way of making it easier?

Mr. Donlon gave a fully detailed explanation about going through the main core walls, which are probably mass concrete. They built them well at that time. It is a question of costs again and there are also other elements like reframing. We are only committee members here, but we are also legislators. How do we help councils to get over these issues? It is restricting the council and the families that want to move on. It slows down the process and makes it more expensive. Are we doing something wrong as legislators? That is my last question.

It is very hard to foresee these issues. It is of no help to the residents of Pearse House, but it is important to protect our built heritage. As the Senator said earlier, Simms had a big impact on the city. We are all familiar with the homes he built and the scale at which he delivered over the 13 years he was in practice as a city architect. They are very significant buildings, which were quite exceptional at the time. Now they fall far short of modern standards of what we would deem acceptable, but it is not a simple answer. It is important to protect that heritage and maybe we just try to work as best we can around it.

Senator McCarthy, do you want to speak on the matter?

Yes. I thank the witnesses for being here. Unfortunately, I am in a committee next door so I am running back in and out. The residents from Pearse House were here a couple of weeks ago. It was interesting to hear their take on things. I asked them what was the square footage of each of the one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments but they did not have this information. Perhaps the council has it. I am involved in an approved housing body in Chancery Place. There is a block of apartments at the end there called Chancery House, and I know it is a protected structure as well. These are lovely apartments but they are dated because they are in an old structure and there are limitations on what can be done. There is a huge amount of space there but because it is a protected structure I do not think it can be taken advantage of. My fear is that a conservation order is made to conserve the building, and then families who are subject to that conservation order have to live in circumstances that perhaps they should not be enduring in 2025, and this is done in order to protect heritage. Is it a priority for the council for Pearse House to be developed? I know that the council is saying in phase 1 that it will be stripped out and dry-lined, etc, but they are still very small apartments. In retrospect we might say that the two-bed apartments should never have had two bedrooms and the one-bed apartments should have been studios. However, in this way numbers would be lost. Is there a priority that ensures that even though there is a conservation order, perhaps people should not be living subject to such a conservation order? Does that question make sense to Mr. Donlon?

Yes. Ms Egan and I are housing providers. It is endlessly frustrating for us to have to report on a lack of progress or on the challenges around protected structures. We work very closely with the conservation office and the planning office. We very much understand what we can deliver. We have to work within those parameters. It is a real challenge to work with a protected structure of any type, but that is what we are faced with here. Given this understanding, where there are homes that are overcrowded, we will deal separately with them through allocations. We are quickly coming to terms with the parameters in which we have to operate to get homes upgraded and delivered as quickly as possible. We are making the best of what we are faced with, and appreciating and understanding and trying to work with the conservation office. We have brought it quite a distance on this. It was probably willing to make several concessions it might not typically make because of the strength of the argument we were putting forward.

Who, the families or city council?

No, the conservation office.

Okay, so it is putting families' welfare first.

It fully understands that. We had very robust conversations with the office in which we made the argument and spelled out our priority, but the issue is the nature of the legislation on protective structures and how we are confined. We doing as much as possible within those confines.

I will highlight one of the other issues mentioned by the tenants. They said that when they found mould and made a complaint, somebody would come and look at the mould and then never be seen again. The council's plans are brilliant, but still it is dealing with the same small apartments. Is there anything regarding the development of putting on more floors? The council has stretched that out and looked at every opportunity, and there is no modern way of doing that. Is that correct?

Surprisingly, there is not, because of the floor plate we would end up with. For conservation requirements associated with the width of the existing block, we have to step in at the upper level to have a limited or reduced impact on the overall building. When you take a floor plan-----

Is that for aesthetic reasons?

Yes, it is for aesthetics. It is a conservation practice to reduce the impact of the addition so that it can be read as being a later addition and not part of the original protected structure. It is all guided by the principles of conservation and a lot of rules and regulations.

Can that be appealed?

One of the starting points for us, when we got to the point of realising how confined we were, was to consider how we go about a delisting. When this was raised a number of years ago, we had a meeting with the conservation office and the planning office in that regard. It was spelled out to us that it was impractical and not reasonable to expect to get a building delisted. There were two-----

It is impractical for them because they do not live in them and that is a big-----

If the welfare of the families and the tenants is put first can such a conservation rule be appealed? The reason I am asking that is because of the Mayson Hotel near the Salesforce Tower. I think the Mayson Hotel was a protected structure but it went up sky high, so I presume it was "No", "No", "No", "No", then eventually a "Yes".

Not in that regard. The original structure can still be seen in the hotel, despite the addition. We work to those principles with our design team. We got to a point where the conservation office was satisfied that anything we would add to the top was legible as such, but it was not practical.

It was too small.

Yes, it was too confined and too small and we got too few units - five - across the top of the building. Then, we had all of the structural implications. To carry that weight on the top of the building meant that it did not sit in the right place, so the structure had to be transferred down through the spine wall. It was quite invasive and ultimately it was not viable and did not represent value for money, in that sense. It was impossible but several options were examined and agreed with the conservation office but they were just not viable.

I appreciate the Leas-Chathaoirleach's patience in giving me some latitude. When will the council start the process of detenanting and what block will it start with? The reality is that the Government has reneged on its election promises to the tenants in the flat complexes. Fianna Fáil and Fianna Gael are expecting residents to accept second best. They deserve more because they have been neglected for many years. They have had to put up with completely unacceptable conditions and they need to have this investment. The regeneration was the ideal scenario but now, unfortunately, the Government is expecting the residents in the flats to put up with second best, which is very unfair. When will the detenanting start? Which block is it anticipated that it will start with?

For the detenanting, a lot of conversations have to happen first. I spoke to the residents' committee but we have to get more agreements with everybody living in phase 1 and with allocations. We hope to go out to tender next March or April. If we know we are going to get the funding approval, once that goes in next week we will get the commitment and then I hope we will be able to start meeting with residents early in the new year. The homes on the Irish Glass Bottle site, for example, are coming up early in quarter 1. That is what I will be looking for. However, there are a lot of conversations and agreements that have to happen first.

It can be a slow process.

The residents are very understanding. Obviously, there is disappointment, but this is an opportunity and many of them understand that. As regards where we will start, it will be either block L or block P. That is what makes sense. We have to talk to contractors and have a real look at what realistically works best. It will all be done in consultation. The area office and the housing manager have a good working relationship with all the residents. I meet him with the residents' committee. That will be ramped up. It will probably be early January or February of next year. Everybody will know what is happening.

I acknowledge that Tommy Wilson has an extremely good working relationship with the residents. He is exceptionally professional. That bodes well for the future of the project even if it is, like I said, second best.

I have one question before we move on. I am a big believer in community consultation, as I am sure is everyone else here in the room. In Ms Egan's closing remarks, she mentioned Dublin County Council had community engagement in June and October. Senator Andrews mentioned he attended some of these events. What was the feedback from those events? Was it primarily positive or was it negative? Did people welcome the consultation? What was the general sentiment? Sometimes consultation is a word that gets bandied about where it is a tick-the-box exercise. I am seeing that across different issues of the State. From Dublin City Council's perspective, how do our witnesses feel that consultation went?

The consultation was with the residents' committee, including Neil and some of the other folks. There was disappointment but a lot of understanding. The way it works is they like to go back and explain it to the other residents. What we were trying to explain in June was different from what happened in October. There was a lot of support. People wanted timelines and to know when we were going to start. I understand that. The lines of communication are open. There is emailing and contact back and forth. It is not just waiting for a meeting to happen. I think the residents of Pearse House would agree we keep them informed, as we do the local representatives as well. All of that forms part of our consultation. It is not just one big envelope.

That is really important. Oftentimes to make a project like this a success and actually get through the issue, you need to have very clear lines of communication, with both the local and national representatives. We have to ensure the residents' voices are heard, but also that the consultation yields outcomes that are agreeable to people. That is really important. I wish our witnesses the very best of luck with their endeavours on this project. I thank Mr. Donlon and Ms Egan for coming in to speak to us today. This discussion has been very beneficial and informative for the committee. We shall now suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow the witnesses to leave.