Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

I will start with a couple of high-level points. The reality of development plans is that a lot of land is historically zoned. As the Deputy rightly states, it remains undeveloped. That can be a fact of land ownership and pace of development. The site might be activated, but it might be a ten- or 15-year development of that site. Our question is, albeit that it retains its zoning in the most recent development plan, what is the most appropriate point to judge that market value from its historic and originally unzoned approach? We are not entirely clear on that.

In terms of impact of development costs, there is not doubt that any additional costs will impact on viability, as there are issues with delivery of medium- to higher-density developments. This is particularly true at the moment. It has to be carefully assessed from that perspective to make sure it does not inhibit development further. That said, it can typically be the landowner rather than the developer who has benefited from the new zoning. It is welcome that we look at it and carefully assess how we might deal with that issue. In terms of market value, that speaks to the last point about land being zoned for quite some time. There are obviously new mechanisms for dealing with non-development. Market value can change distinctly from one economic cycle to another. The question is whether it is at a point in time, or exactly how is it measured and how often? We are working closely with the Department on the question of resources. The Deputy will be aware that with the pace of change in the planning regime, it requires additional resources to implement these. This refers to the changes first of all, and the need to ensure that change is implemented at pace and correctly. Second, it refers to the scale under which the planning system is operating. That discussion is ongoing with the Department.

There is also a further discussion as to whether planning fees are appropriate at this time and whether they need to be reviewed and contribute better to the cost of running the planning service.

It is good to have a more flexible type of development zone and that is the purpose of the UDZ, as I understand it. I might ask my colleague from Dublin City Council to come in on whether the SDZ legislation might be a more appropriate approach but we welcome the flexibility of the UDZs and the fact it is plan-led development that allows for better assessment of what should go on individual sites. I will ask Ms Scully to come in on some of the planning points.