Ms Claragh Mulhern:

There is the published regulatory impact analysis, which we can circulate again to the committee. It is probably the most comparable, because what we have done in it is set out different options. Option 2, I think, in that document is an evolution of SDZs, whereas option 3 is what we are bringing forward as the current proposals.

To summarise what Mr. Hogan outlined, we have turned the designation process on its head, whereas at the moment SDZs start with a Government order, and then the detailed masterplanning happens after that. Then it becomes part of the development plan, but nothing can happen on the ground while all of that is happening. Instead, we have turned it around so that one is doing the planning work upfront, involving communities and elected representatives, and doing all of the assessments which are required to identify what can be development, and, importantly, what is required with regard to infrastructure to make that happen so there is very early clarity regarding what is required for infrastructure provision, and the money which is associated with that, but also regarding the flexibility of how it then operates.

That piece around embedding it within the development is really important at the outset, because that is what allows development to happen more freely and much more speedily, that is, as long as it is in line with the planning framework included in the development plan, and also the detailed works of the masterplanning bit which we are more familiar with, regarding block plans and building heights. That does not all have to be done upfront, because in particular for large-scale areas within our cities, and brownfield lands, it could take a very long time to get to that level of detail for the entire area. The planning authority might want to pick and choose a few different locations to focus on for the detailed scheme, so it is much more flexible in how it operates. That is the key difference.