Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour) | Oireachtas source

As Mr. McDonagh is reticent to name a site or local authority, I will. What about the Player Wills site? It is an incredible site that I know well. It covers 4.32 ha and has been vacant for more than a decade.

I know NAMA's remit, I explain it to people from time to time and I know how strict its mandate is, but to the public leaving that acreage in a prime location with access to facilities and the potential for between 600 and 700 houses idle for ten years is a disgrace. A motion tabled by my colleague, Councillor Rebecca Moynihan, was passed unanimously by Dublin City Council last night. It called for negotiations between the council and NAMA on the sale of that site. NAMA has its mandate but it also has access to the site along with housing, flats and sports facilities, etc. For want of a better phrase, there are "economies" that make sense here. I understand that NAMA was doing a joint venture, JV, on this that has fallen through and now that it is on the open market, given its mandate, the agency has to pursue it. Surely there has to be a coming together in this regard whereby NAMA can fulfil its mandate and the council can use the natural economies that exist by developing that site. Surely the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government will not say that it cannot purchase this site at a commercial rate due to a lack of funding. If that is not the case, then it is robbing Peter to pay Paul because DCC is looking for sites to develop. This site is available with its economies and the council will end up spending money in other ways, which will not give the taxpayers as much bang for their buck because it will cost more. This site creates huge economies. What is the status of the site? Are there any negotiations with DCC? Has the JV fallen through? Will NAMA talk to DCC based on the motion that was passed last night? I want answers.