Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The amendments cover many wide-ranging issues relating to the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (Dissolution) Bill. I have a detailed and substantial answer which I need to read to address the concerns the Deputies have raised. I ask them to bear with me as it is long and detailed, but it is important to read it to provide the necessary clarification.

I do not propose to accept the amendments which I will discuss together as they touch on similar themes. Proposed amendment No. 1asuggests clarification of the future structures and roles of the docklands housing trust and the docklands community trust. The docklands community housing trust owns 72 social housing units which it manages for the use of the residents within the docklands area. The trust will continue to operate as before with the assistance and collaboration of the housing and docklands units within Dublin City Council. The trust has contributed greatly, in its current guise, to meeting the social housing needs of residents of the docklands since its inception. During the years the docklands community trust has managed funds allocated to it by the authority to the betterment of residents of the docklands. The trust benefits the docklands community in a number of ways such as by providing assistance for residents in pursuing educational opportunities. Both trusts have fulfilled their functions and roles admirably during the years.

The trusts mentioned were not established under the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997 and are legal entities in their own right. As such, they are outside the scope of the Bill. Article 10 of the memorandum and articles of association of the trust provides that they can be altered with the written approval of the authority.

In circumstances where the authority ceases to exist, it is replaced by its successor, which in this case is Dublin City Council. The authority is currently engaging with the boards of the trusts on the governance requirements post-dissolution. Therefore, it is not deemed possible to accept this amendment.

On amendment No. 2, the DDDA has over the years contributed to a community fund, administered by the Docklands Community Trust, to the benefit of the local community in conjunction with the Docklands Community Council. That fund has now accumulated assets of €1.3 million which uses the interest earned to assist and enhance the lives of local docklands residents, primarily through providing grants for local school leavers to pursue third level educational courses.

In seeking to dissolve the authority and transfer responsibilities to Dublin City Council, the Government was anxious that no additional financial burden would be placed on the taxpayer. By means of a prudent transition plan, devised by the authority and the city council’s docklands unit, an orderly wind-down of the authority has been ongoing. This wind-down has sought to generate sufficient funds from the sale of the authority’s residual assets to discharge all its liabilities at dissolution. Given the ongoing nature of some aspects of the authority’s business, the final financial picture will not become fully apparent until all liabilities are finalised and discharged, when the dissolution comes into effect.

During the Second Stage debate, a commitment was given to the House that the authority would make a substantial contribution to the community on its dissolution. This commitment remains in place and the level of contribution will be decided in light of the financial circumstance of the authority on dissolution. However, I can assure Deputies that it will be substantial and will enable the Docklands Community Trust and Dublin City Council's docklands unit to continue to support local community and educational initiatives. That is to be welcomed. For these reasons, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 2.

I am also opposing amendment No. 4 for the following reasons, and I propose to respond to each element (a) to (c) of amendment No. 4 in turn. In respect of part (a), concerning the social housing element, it is already required, as part of the granting of planning permission for residential development within the SDZ area, that the social housing requirement of each development shall be provided in line with current national housing policy. In this regard, current national housing policy requires the provision of 10% social housing, as introduced by the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 earlier this year.

An independent review of Part V of the 2000 Planning and Development Act regarding social and affordable housing was carried out prior to the initiation of the Urban Regeneration and Housing Bill. This review, which included a public consultation process, identified that the provision of social housing through Part V should be retained. The review also recommended that the overall requirement should be up to 10% of units in residential developments. This requirement copperfastens the original objective of Part V in legislation, namely, the delivery of social housing, combined with integrated and sustainable mixed-tenure communities across the country.

The reduction in the requirement from 20% to 10%, as introduced by the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015, should be considered together with other amendments introduced by the same Act which have reduced the alternatives to the delivery of units within a Part V agreement. For example, the options of payment of cash in lieu of units or the transfer of sites or parts of sites have been removed and, instead, the remaining options are focused on the delivery of completed units. In addition, under these new Part V provisions, it is the intention that all local authorities, including Dublin City Council, in their Part V negotiations, will seek for developers to fulfil their Part V obligations entirely by social housing.

Affordable housing provision shall not be agreed to by planning authorities until further notice. That is something which both the Minister, Deputy Kelly, and I will keep under review. We note that it is a very important tier of housing which should be made available to citizens. We will be making further announcements on it in the future. The effect will be that Part V agreements will in future deliver more social housing units than were realised before when the 20% social and affordable requirement was in place. For the reasons set out above, I am opposing the first element, part (a) of amendment No. 4.

With regard to part (b) of amendment No. 4, concerning local employment, there are many objectives within the North Lotts and Grand Canal Dock SDZ that already address this issue. For example, objective ER11 of the SDZ planning scheme 2014 requires Dublin City Council to liaise with agencies and organisations to maximise employment and training opportunities for docklands residents. This process has already commenced, with Dublin City Council’s docklands unit working with developers and the local employment services in the area to maximise new employment opportunities, both in construction and also with new employers in the area. The rate of employment through the local employment services will be monitored and reported to the Docklands Community Council and its successor within the city council, the docklands consultative forum.

In addition, objective ER10 requires Dublin City Council to facilitate and harness the employment-generating opportunities of the support services sector as well as enterprise activity with a range of key skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled and volunteer workers of all ages, as part of the overall economic regeneration for the wider docklands area. Further to that, objective ER12 requires the city council to facilitate agencies and organisations, in particular those engaged in employment and training initiatives in the docklands, to work together in a co-ordinated manner in order to maximise employment, volunteer and training opportunities for residents of all ages in the docklands area.

Objective CD10 requires Dublin City Council to promote a docklands local employment steering group with relevant stakeholders to facilitate an employment strategy promoting enhanced local employment access with a specific regard for younger and older people. Objective CD12 requires the city council to provide commercial facilities, such as local supermarkets, restaurants, cafés and leisure facilities, that provide opportunities for local employment and locations for the community to interact, meet and socialise, so as to assist community development. Having regard to the comprehensive supports already provided for in the SDZ planning scheme for local training and employment, the implementation of which will be monitored and reported to the docklands consultative forum, I am opposing element (b) of amendment No. 4.

Finally, in response to the third element, part (c) of amendment No. 4, concerning a contribution scheme for community gain, Deputies should be aware that chapter 4.3 of the SDZ planning scheme addresses community development and community gain, wherein it is acknowledged, at section 4.3.1, that the regeneration of the docklands is a project about people, not just physical and economic regeneration. With specific reference to community infrastructure and gain, the SDZ planning scheme confirms at section 4.3.4.2 that, as infrastructure is developed and regeneration advances to tackle the remaining brownfield sites, it will be a core requirement that opportunities for community infrastructure and gain are maximised through the design of buildings, the public realm that is provided and land uses that are proposed.

Dublin City Council has confirmed to my Department that its current development levies scheme requires all new developments to pay €34.50 per square metre for residential development and around €28 per square metre of commercial development to the city council. Of these amounts, €4.60 and €3.75 respectively are dedicated and earmarked to funding community facilities and amenities. Dublin City Council’s development levies scheme is currently being revised with the final version to be adopted by the council next month and, according to the council, the percentage dedicated to community uses is proposed to increase from 14.6% to 17.16% next year.

The docklands SDZ area is subject to the same levies as the rest of the city. What is perhaps more relevant here is that the benefits of the city council’s development levies will apply to all areas of the docklands, not just inside the SDZ area of the North Lotts and Grand Canal quarter but across the more established community facilities in the wider docklands area. Investment in upgrading community facilities from levies across the docklands will benefit new and upgraded community facilities and will serve both existing communities within docklands and new developments in the SDZ. For the reasons set out above, I am opposing the third and final element (c) of amendment No. 4.

I am also opposing amendment No. 4a as, upon dissolution, there will no longer be a need for a master plan for the docklands area, with the key policies and objectives captured in the city development plan.

The role and function of a master plan under the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act are inextricably linked with the operational functions of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, including, for example, the designation of areas where section 25 schemes would be appropriate. When the DDDA is dissolved, there will be no statutory basis or need for a master plan.

As a like for like replacement, the Dublin city development plan, as adopted by Dublin City Council, will be the planning policy document for the wider docklands area, in addition to the SDZ planning scheme 2014 which applies to the specified North Lotts and Grand Canal docks area. In this regard, Deputies might note that the Dublin city development plan, 2016 to 2022, is being prepared by the city council and the draft version of the plan is on public display. The draft development plan contains numerous policies and objectives relating to the social and economic regeneration of the Dublin docklands areas. For example, policy SC8 proposes to recognise the distinctive character of the docklands regeneration area and work with the relevant authorities to increase connectivity with the city centre. Similarly, section 15.1.1.6 of the draft plan states the docklands will be a strategic development and regeneration area and provide for the continued physical and social regeneration of this part of the city, consolidating the area as a vibrant economic, cultural and amenity quarter of the city, while also nurturing sustainable neighbourhoods and communities. Section 15.1.1.7 of the draft plan, relating to the docklands areas' social and community development, provides numerous guiding principles relating to housing and employment, education and social engagement, economic performance and business promotion, the development of a maritime strategy, marketing, environment, movement and transport, land use, urban design and flood risk and the implementation of the various objectives and policies that are associated and which will apply to the future development of the docklands.

On the basis that the key objectives and measures previously covered by the master plan are now planned to be incorporated into the city development plan or are covered already by the SDZ planning scheme, there is no need for, or value in, having a separate master plan. I, therefore, oppose amendment No. 3.

I have given a long and detailed response, but it addresses the concerns associated with the amendments. There is a clear commitment that many of these concerns will be addressed in the new arrangements.