Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I understand. I will go through a series of points and questions and group them together.

Regarding the commitment to conduct the five year review, is five years simply too long? Now I know people will say things have to bed down and settle in but I would like to consider the five year review. We need to bear in mind that we are doing pre-legislative scrutiny here. What are the witnesses' thoughts on the five year review?

The witnesses talk about the intertwining of the LVS and the RZLT, and how it can be complex regarding the zoning recommendations. They might just tease out what they mean by that, because that clearly has to be a matter of concern, if there is that complexity. I started by saying the LVS and the RZLT are complex. Clearly they are going to make different demands, but I would like to hear about the witnesses' perceived idea of potential issues around the zoning recommendations and the fall-out of that.

The witnesses then went on to say that the LVS could discourage landowners, leading to zoning removal request, adversely affecting sustainable development. That has to be of concern. We have a housing crisis, and a lot of crises in this country. This is one of them, and this focuses on addressing some of that and land management use in its broadest terms. They might just talk about the potential for it "leading to zoning removal requests". Remember, people are entitled to seek to have their lands considered in the context of the mechanisms of zoning, which the witnesses would be more than familiar with.

It statement states that the CCMA would welcome further clarification on the seven points, and I want to thank the witnesses for that. That is the key, as I said at the very beginning. It is important that they are not coming to the table saying they know it all, and I am not suggesting the CCMA would ever say that. However, I like the way it is set out; it is very professional. I genuinely ask the witnesses to bring that back to the CCMA. It is a really constructive set of seven key issues and challenges, and they, more than likely, will possibly form the basis of some of our recommendations. They might just touch on that slightly.

Ms Scully made the point earlier on regarding the importance of the core strategy, masterplanning and a clear pattern of development with a roadway. I fully accept all of that, so I am not asking her to comment on that. However, I would like to say that she is dead right. That is the message we have always got to get through here. When it is all joined up, hopefully this will all make sense.

To touch on a few issues in wrapping up, as was said, the LVS process is highly intricate. It requires all local authorities to invest significantly in new administration information management systems, a geographic information system, GIS, to track all payments and evaluations, in addition to requiring local authorities to make land value determinations. This is an enormous body of work. This strikes me as a whole sub-department or mini-department within the Department, or a whole standalone section itself. Clearly, there are enormous challenges, and I know we do not have the time to set them out today. However, we, as a committee, would benefit from having that teased out more by the CCMA, as much as it can tease it out. They are enormous challenges, and clearly nobody can anticipate them at this stage. However, ultimately, there has to be additional funding and resources from central government to address this, because there is no point in having this legislation if we do not have the mechanisms, training, professionalism, and the information technology, IT systems in place for that. I hear what the witnesses are saying, but it would be helpful if we had a stronger follow-up from the CCMA regarding what is really envisaged there. There may be a potential for shared services among the four Dublin authorities. There seems to be some move towards greater synergies within Dublin. Others would have the whole thing wound into one. I do not support any of that. Ms Farrelly, the chief executive of Fingal County Council, can rest assured of that.

We are told the introduction in the Bill of other complex changes, like the RZLT, pose significant operational challenges too, so this is also a major issues regarding challenges for local authority resources. The need for additional staff is clearly an issue here. We cannot divert staff in planning, etc. I know local government pretty well. I know many planners in Dublin city and county. They are under enormous stress and it is very difficult to get new planners into the system, so I think that is really important.

I will finish by referring to independent valuers. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council would be familiar to me. It would use Dublin city valuers, and I think all the Dublin authorities may use them. However, that is not always satisfactory. I am not going to go into anything more than that. It is not always satisfactory, and I have seen differences in valuations between a Dublin city valuer and, shall we say, Lisney and some of the bigger firms. Then there are the terms of reference which are set around instructing a valuer. If one changes the specification, one gets a different result. There has been a lot of controversy - and I do not want to over-emphasise this - in regard to local authorities in this country. I am not going to single any out, but I can think of three off the top of my head, and none is in Dublin. There has been litigation and major controversy regarding to the valuation and disposal of properties, and the manner in which all of that has been conducted. Much of this has gone through the courts, and I am not going to comment on that today. However, that is a really strong point, which Ms Farrelly made, and a difficult one about there being no conflict of interest. It is very hard. Ireland is a small place, not to talk about Dublin, so that is a challenge.

I will finish by saying well done to the CCMA on a very professional, slick and focused approach. Teasing out the seven issues which the witnesses have raised as a concern are particularly interesting, but I would like them crystalise them into some recommendations which the CCMA would like us to pursue. We are here to work with the CCMA, not against it. Our remit is planning, housing and local government. We are supportive of local government and want to see it strengthened, more transparent and more democratic, so we are with the CCMA all the way. However, I would like the witnesses to tease out that issue of additional resources. If we are going to go along with this legislation, we must, in parallel, ask, "What resources do local authorities need to make this effective?" I thank the witnesses for their time.