Mr. Philip Jones:

Part of the issue is at what level it is set. The legislation seems to indicate a figure of 30%. The question is whether that is enough to have an impact on landowners and future developers. The Department lacks information. As the Deputy will know, the Department had Indecon examine this matter and Indecon, in its report, indicated that it had very little data and that its analysis was therefore a bit tentative. The Minister is given the power to bring the rate down to 20% but it seems the Minister has only been given the power in subsections 2 and 3 to bring the rate up to 30%. As the Deputy knows, the way these things are done suggests those square brackets imply that those provisions are not finalised.

We are of the view that the Minister should have the power to set the rate at between 20% and 50%. One of the issues with this proposal is that it provides for a publicly accessible land value register. As that gets rolled out, people will begin to see something they do not often see unless they look at the property pages - who believes those in any event - namely, that this land is worth X amount of money. Sometimes the developer may have 200 houses and the land cost is €20,000 per house. If that value goes down, it will be very difficult for a developer to argue the price should go up when there is a publicly available land value register. Over time, I believe it will have the effect that landowners' expectations of the value of their land will go down. From that point of view, developers will be able to get the land more cheaply. That is the logic of what the Department is proposing. Certainly, it is going to take, as Mr Keran stated, a couple of years to work its way through the system. However, I believe it makes sense because normally in analysis of developers’ costs, the land cost is a residual. In other words, the way it works is developers ask what they will get for what they sell, how much it will cost them, what their margin will be and what will be left over to pay for the land. In fact, because that cost will be collected at the development application stage, if it has not already been paid, they will be prepared to pay a great deal less to the landowner for it.

Unless we bring in price controls, which I am not suggesting, it will be very difficult to prevent them charging more. As with getting rid of the development levies, who knows if the saving will be passed on? The value is in having the register which will be publicly accessible, although I know the Department talked about the general data protection regulation, GDPR, and all of that. That, however, is talking about who the person was, and not where the land is and what its value is. I believe it will have a dampening effect on development land prices. Ideally, development land prices should not be anywhere near where they are now but that is because of heightened expectations.

The other thing in the Bill is that the council can use compulsory purchase orders, CPOs, to acquire land, taking into account the land value contribution.

We have said that we think it should apply, not just within a UDZ, but to all. That goes back to the idea from the Kenny report that a local authority should be enabled to engage in active land management. Certainly, when there is a whole pile of different landowners and one is trying to get development in a co-ordinated manner, that can hold up development for quite some time. I well recall different developers in Clonburris arguing that they wanted the bit that was most valuable. That happens even in normal planning applications where there are a couple of landowners. If a local authority has the power to CPO the land, effectively at a reduced value, it will either concentrate the minds considerably or it will be implemented because the local authority can buy it, assemble the land, which is already zoned, and if it is serviced it can then sell it on like most modern European countries do. It is not up to the private market to decide when development happens. The state or the municipalities come in and make the land available. This is an important first step in achieving that. I hope that covers the question.

In terms of the content of the schemes, one of the key issues, in 171AK, is what should be in the scheme. Members will recall a couple of high-profile court cases involving whether maximum densities, heights and so on should be included. We have a couple of suggestions in that regard. First, 171AK(2) states: "A development scheme under this Part shall be generally consistent with the planning framework". We need clarity because, by definition, once a scheme is adopted, a developer would need to know what is within the scheme and therefore it would automatically be a "Yes" and what is not within the scheme and therefore would be automatically a "No". Equally, the public need to know what is allowable and what is not, so the scheme needs to be clear. We suggest that instead of phraseology such as the "types of development which may be permitted" and "building height envelopes", the Bill should refer to "minimum and maximum building heights", "minimum and maximum residential densities" and "maximum non-residential floor areas", so that everybody going in, whether it is a developer or the public, will know this will be allowed and this will not. The wording in 171AK is rather vague at the moment, so we will certainly suggest that it be changed. The word "maximum" is definitely needed, as we know from the court cases involving the north docks. I hope that covers everything.