Mr. Michael Cleary:

The Part V process worked insofar as it was allowed to work in the boom years. It delivered as developments occurred. The issues around delivery are probably not that different in the private sector and the public sector. There are issues with some of those sites. I am familiar with them by name but I am not involved with them directly. There were probably infrastructure or historical title issues on some of those sites that needed to be addressed. It is now likely that the funding is being put in place, as has happened for many of these sites in the past 24 months.

I am presuming that these sites have planning permission, which has a lifespan of five years or thereabouts. It is not in the landowners' interests not to start moving because the planning permission will expire. Under planning law, if a certain percentage of the scheme is not under way within the duration of the permission the capacity to deliver on that permission becomes null and void. That is how the planning process addresses those issues and forces the landowner to focus. I am not familiar with the specific site in question beyond the high-level information I read in the newspapers, so I cannot comment further.

On the suggestion to take out 10% of the site area and develop it separately, that would be a difficult task to undertake. The process would probably be along the lines of that followed by the National Development Finance Agency because it would be delivered by public procurement. Many of those designs do not lend themselves to this. What 10% of the site would be chosen? Would it be the 10% closest to the infrastructure? Would ransom strips be created because access to infrastructure such as roads, foul sewers, etc., would be needed? These are just observations. If I was advising a client undertaking this, these are the risks I would say they should consider.