Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. O’Leary for his presentation which is very helpful. I have a question on each of the sections of the Bill. Who ends up paying for the cost of betterment? It seemed from our question to the Department in the past week that there were two schools of thought. Obviously, this charge will not impact on any land that currently has an active planning permission as it is only applies to land for which planning permission is obtained after December 2024. There seems to be a kind of suggestion from the Department that while it might have some impact in the short term on all-in development costs, a little bit like Part V over a period of time, it might actually push down land values more generally and, therefore, as it comes out in the wash, it will not really have an impact. I am interested if the IPI has a view on that part of the debate. I appreciate Mr. Keran has said that there is the other value, namely, the generating of revenue for infrastructure which can then release land. There is this issue of whether it will, even in the short to medium term, have an impact on development costs and ultimately on house prices. If so, could that be modest and what would be the more medium to long-term impacts?

I ask the witnesses to expand a little on the setting of the land value sharing contribution at 30%. When we asked the Department about this last week the answer was a little confusing and referred to where it was 20%, with sharing usually set at 50:50, one adds the 30%. In some senses, the 20% of Part V is not a discount value but is the existing-use value of the land underpinning it. What are the witnesses' thoughts on that?

Deputy Higgins and I have an intimate knowledge of the Clonburrris SDZ because we were on the council when that SDZ was initiated. When I originally saw the concept of UDZs, I was concerned by something which I believe the IPI first brought to my attention, albeit as a different set of propositions in a previous submission. I thought the UDZ would be different from an SDZ in the sense that a strategic development zone is a very large strategic site. I thought the urban development zones would be medium to small sites, with perhaps more nimble 3-D planning schemes, particularly for inner urban compact growth areas.

Separate from the IPI’s commentary on this, it previously had a UDZ proposal. Will the witnesses share that proposal with the committee? I like some of the differences between the urban development zones and the way the strategic development zones currently operate but, like the IPI, I wondered why the SDZs were not just changed and if there could be a different proposition for the UDZs. When I put this to the Department officials, they stated that could be done but they had not really thought of it. I am thinking here of all those brownfield sites in our inner urban cores where a nice, nimble approach - almost SDZ-light - might be taken for those sites in respect of the speed with which we can get the 3-D master plan. This is an attractive idea but the Department seemed to be thinking of this for the UDZs, which are really just SDZs by another name with some tweaks. I would welcome the witnesses' thoughts on that. Will they also elaborate on the IPI's concerns with the content of the UDZs?