Ms Anne Colgan:

The two examples that have been raised are the Shanganagh development in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and the current work on the site of the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum. Having personally had some involvement in Shanganagh, I can say categorically that it was a very positive engagement with the LDA. That experience offers quite a useful and interesting model as to how the LDA and the council can work together on council land. That land was left fallow for many years until a cross-party group of councillors put forward a proposal for social and cost rental housing on that site, together with some affordable housing for purchase. Our proposal stayed with the Department for a considerable time but did not make any progress and eventually, the Land Development Agency came on the pitch and we engaged with it. There was active engagement directly with the elected members both at party and individual level and there were regular briefings. In effect, it was possible for councillors to set down and influence the proportions of the different types of tenure on that site, in agreement with the LDA. It was only when both parties were satisfied that it was possible to deliver on that project that the question of a disposal of our land to the LDA arose. That was done as part of section 183, with conditions attached to copper-fasten the tenure and so on. We as elected members had several meetings with the LDA. It was most forthcoming and open to the proposals from members and it was ultimately a highly constructive engagement. It is a very worthwhile model for future engagements with the Land Development Agency going forward. I have heard some criticism about the number of engagements there were but those were mostly with the architects developing the master plan with the LDA. They were very positive engagement between our professionals and those of the LDA.

The situation at the Central Mental Hospital site is very different because it is not our land and belongs to another State agency.

The LDA is proceeding to prepare its master plan at the moment. The LDA is engaging in a very significant level of public engagement around that and meeting elected members at their request but there is nothing in the Local Development Agency Bill that makes that a requirement. It is down to goodwill and the building of relationships between the parties; getting to know each other and working together makes that possible. There is nothing in the Bill that requires the LDA to produce a master plan in partnership or have any level of public engagement so there is scope for reviewing and revisiting the Bill in that regard.

The tricky thing for all of us is that the likely development will be handled under the strategic housing development legislation, very possibly, which, as we know, allows for the overriding of the county development plan in deference to building height and density regulations, and so on. The point I would like to make at this point is that the future of the relationship between the LDA and the local authority needs to be one of complementarity and mutual support. That may not be the ethos of the Bill but that may not be the fault of the LDA if the ethos of the Bill is one that says the LDA can take one's land whether one likes it or not or whatever. The Land Development Agency is in a unique position compared with any other developer in that it is the State, effectively, because it is building large developments and neighbourhoods, and sustainable neighbourhoods are the meat and drink of a county development plan. That is what we spend our time doing - to prepare neighbourhoods - so the LDA must work within that context.