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

I thank Ms Farrelly for her presentation. It raises some important questions that did not come up in our two previous meetings. That is really useful. I agree with the Chair that it would be good for the committee to write formally to the Department on foot those ten points for clarification and ask for a written response. We can then share it with the CCMA. That would benefit all of us.

I will invite Ms Farrelly to elaborate a little more on some aspects of her submission in the interests of clarity. With respect to land value sharing, she spoke about unforeseen valuations. Will she explain that a little more? Obviously, resources for the valuation, mapping and UDZs will be a huge issue. We are conscious that the planning authority, building control authorities and housing departments are already short of staff, and this is another significant ask. Has there been assessment or dialogue with the Department about what kind of resources would be required in the initial set-up period and its management afterwards? Ms Farrelly speaks in the same section about four distinct valuations. Our understanding from the Department is that there are two valuations. There are existing use and market value at the point of the most recent zoning. Will Ms Farrelly elaborate on what she means by four distinct zonings?

On the issue of whether it is at the point of zoning or the development plan, our understanding from talking to the Department officials is that it is the most recent zoning. In their answers to our questions, we took that to mean the date the last development plan was agreed. Will she explain the query she has, so we understand it properly? Two of the big discussions in the two most recent meetings were about what the impact of this new levy would be on development costs for land where planning permission will be granted after December 2024. Does Ms Farrelly have thoughts on that? Likewise, and she refers to it more as a question than a view, there is the issue around the point at which such a levy would have an impact on dampening land values. Has there been discussion about or consideration of that?

With respect to the UDZs, I am in agreement on the core issues she raises. While there are clearly some nice things in the UDZs it is not clear why a UDZ would be separate from an SDZ. Could they not have amended the latter in order to provide options or flexibilities? My principal question is if it would not be better to amend the operation of strategic development zones to reflect some of the positive changes proposed in the UDZs. We have also been having this discussion, particularly with the Irish Planning Institute, about whether a UDZ should be a completely different tool for smaller sites. This is particularly the case where rezoning of brownfield or commercial for compact growth and mixed use developments have potential in our urban centres. Is that not the direction a UDZ should be going in, particularly as we would have a different mapping tool from those much larger, strategic sites of statewide importance?

The third of Ms Farrelly's clarifications relates to how updated market value would be dealt with if land remains undeveloped. Our understanding was that the valuation was at each point that land is zoned. Obviously, we are moving to ten-year development plans. We were teasing out with the Department whether that would mean everyone has just agreed to development plans in the last cycle. Does that mean there would not be a revaluation for five, six or ten years? They seemed to indicate that they might consider some interim review mechanism, but it is obviously not in the scheme. Does Ms Farrelly have a view on what she would like to see in that regard? How regularly should the valuation be updated? As we all know, some residential zoned development land sit idle for two development plans if not longer. I would be interested in her thoughts on that.