Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I am the chief executive of Fingal County Council. I also represent the County and City Management Association, CCMA, and I am on the committee on housing, building and land use. I am accompanied today by Deirdre Scully, who is acting city planning officer, and by Máire Igoe, acting executive manager. On behalf of the CCMA, I thank the committee for its invitation and look forward to assisting the committee on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft land value sharing and urban development zones Bill 2022.

Planning is one of local government’s core functions and local authorities play an essential leadership role across the full planning service. The CCMA welcomes the consolidation of planning legislation via the recent planning legislative review, resulting in the draft planning and development Bill 2022. The CCMA would support a clear vision that aligns this Bill with the draft planning and development Bill 2022. It should be noted that the recent publication of the land value sharing and urban development zones Bill 2022 necessitates careful consideration and attention to its potential implications. However, owing to the novelty of the document and given that full consideration is ongoing, there is a risk of misinterpreting certain sections of the Bill.

The CCMA supports the concept of land value sharing, LVS, and urban development zones, UDZs, and the need to address the levels of land speculation experienced in areas of high demand. Moreover, it is a positive step forward to have the recommendations of the Kenny report incorporated into legislation. The CCMA appreciates the decision to incorporate this provision in the planning and development legislation rather than the Finance Act, contrasting with the residential zoned land tax, RZLT. The commitment to conduct a five-year review is equally welcomed as this provision is untested and it is essential to address any emerging lacunae or gaps, apply lessons learned and incorporate options to streamline the process as the impacts of the provisions become apparent.

The CCMA posits that, ideally, valuations should be conducted during the zoning phase. However, payment can also be levied through a condition of the permission, effectively transferring the responsibility to the developer instead of the landowner who benefits from the initial zoning. This strategy integrates the payment as part of the development levies. As such, it remains uncertain whether the land value sharing scheme would influence land cost more than the existing levy scheme, especially if this method of collection at the permission stage remains predominant.

The effect of the land value sharing scheme on land cost compared with the current levy scheme remains uncertain. Unforeseen valuations at the planning stage could disrupt development viability. The requirement for planning authorities to publish an LVS eligibility map by March 2024 and review self-assessments by July 2024 demands substantial resources. With an insufficient number of valuers, evaluating numerous submissions in a tight timeframe is a challenge. The legislation necessitates four distinct valuations on relevant sites, presenting challenges for local authorities lacking in-house valuation teams and potentially risking reliance on private valuers. The Bill's interpretation indicates LVS applies to all lands designated for residential or mixed use but it fails to clarify implications for unserviced land. The publication of the LVS map, coinciding with the first review of the residential zoned land tax map, could cause confusion and resource strains.

In smaller settlements, intertwining LVS and RZLT could complexify zoning recommendations. Thorough contributions processes are vital for large-scale transformations to ensure appropriate funding. Elements related to land price publication may need reviewing for full data access. The CCMA is concerned about mandatory land value assignments due to the potential risks and challenges. In areas with stagnant land and property values, LVS could discourage owners, leading to zoning removal requests and adversely affecting sustainable development.

To move on to urban development zones, the CCMA notes the overlap between UDZs and strategic development zones, SDZs, questioning the future role of SDZs and whether transitioning from urban development zones to strategic development zones is worthwhile. The legal deadline for An Bord Pleanála to decide on non-material UDZ changes is appreciated as it promotes timely resolution of issues and increases responsiveness. The revised UDZ approach, encouraging early involvement of stakeholders, is seen as an improvement over SDZs. However, land speculation concerns and unrealistic expectations of local authorities to create detailed plans within tight deadlines, amid resource constraints, persist. Several deadlines, including the four-week period for a chief executive report post consultation and the six-week window for consideration of the council proposal, are considered impractical. Extensions for consultation periods, assessments and environmental screenings are recommended.

The CCMA would welcome further clarity on the following items. On LVS, we would welcome clarity on whether the valuation date is established at the point of rezoning or the creation of the development plan and how applicant self-assessment deadlines will be enforced, because considerable delays could cause a number of problems.

How will updated market value be dealt with if the land stays undeveloped and the LVS remains unpaid for a prolonged period. How will ministerial direction on a county or city development plan impact the LVS? It is unclear if the maximum levy of no more than 50% of the increased value includes LVS Part V and RZLT. It is also unclear whether small settlements that do not have a specific zoning for residential development will be included. In view of the additional layer of assessment for smaller applications concerning their statement of exemption, if a development is rejected, is the reason considered non-compensatable?

On UDZs, what is the benefit to local authorities of having a UDZ in their plans? What are the benefits to local authorities of progressing from UDZs to SDZs, particularly as the UDZ phase could potentially incorporate the required level of detail. What are the implications and advantages of having UDZs and SDZs in local authority plans? The memorandum states: "The measure is structured to streamline the valuation process as much as possible, minimising administrative strain on local authorities and avoiding undue delay to the decision making timelines within the planning process, which could otherwise impede the approval and initiation of development." Despite these stated aims, the LVS process is highly intricate. It requires all local authorities to invest in new administrative information management systems and a geographic information system, GIS, to track all payments and valuations in addition to the requirement for local authorities to make land value determinations for individual sites.

Overall, the revised approach for UDZs is largely welcomed, although land speculation risk remains. Unrealistic deadlines and insufficient consultation periods require revision for thorough decision-making. The implementation for a legal deadline for non-material UDZ changes is welcome because it would enhance the responsiveness of the planning process. The general scheme and the introduction of complex resource-heavy changes like RZLT will pose significant operational challenges for local authorities. The adequate funding of additional skilled staff is imperative to avoid diverting staff and resources from other planning functions, like the urban regeneration and development fund and local plan preparation. The increased intricate workload necessitates a centrally funded, integrated resourcing strategy, established and tested well in advance of the legislation's commencement to realistically achieve its objectives. I thank the Chair and members.