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

I will make two comments and then I have another five questions, apologies. The first may be more for the committee’s report on this. It is not an enviable position to only have a real conversation about resourcing after the Bill has passed. I know that is not Ms Farrelly’s fault but it is almost too late at this stage. It may be valuable for us to say that when legislation is proposed, particularly legislation of this kind, that along with the regulatory impact assessment there should also be a resourcing and staffing impact assessment. If any Government or Minister is proposing a change that significantly increases the demand on public services, it might be helpful as they make those proposals to know what the resourcing impact would be. That is just an observation. Second, since we have strayed beyond the Bill into more general comments about zoning, I will make two observations. At some point, we have to get to where zoning is accompanied by conditions in the same way that planning is accompanied by conditions. I do not mean to conflate the planning process and the zoning process but given that zoning is a blunt instrument, but still a very significant gift by the public to the owner of the land, the need for a discussion around what kind of conditions might be appropriate to activate etc. would be useful.

I hear what Ms Farrelly is saying that if land is clearly very suitable for development that one might not want to dezone it. However, there is a separate issue which is a core strategy that includes land that is never going to be developed because the owner does not want to develop; that is lying to itself somewhat. There may be land in an equally or almost as appropriate a location that could be zoned if land is dezoned on request of the owner - that is her solution - but the difficulty arises if the only available land to zone is outside of the appropriate limit. That is where one gets the challenges. My own local authority and Ms Farrelly’s would be in that kind of position. I take the view that if land is repeatedly zoned residential or mixed use and is not developed then we have to ask how we can deal with it. That is a side point.

Returning to the matter at hand, will the managers elaborate on some of the concerns in the submission? I understand them but it is useful to have it on the record. They make the point that with the land-value sharing there is a risk of reliance on private valuers. Obviously, there is an issue of potential conflicts of interest. I invite our guests to talk a little more around that and how we could have independent valuers other than those who would be employed directly by a local authority or some other State agency.

The opening statement, in the same paragraph, makes the point about implications for unserviced land. What could those implications be? The statement says that "in smaller settlements, intertwining [land value sharing] and [Residential Zoning Land Tax ] could complexify zoning recommendations.”. I do like the word “complexify”; I do not think I have ever heard it before. How can that work?

On staffing, Ms Farrelly mentioned there was sanction for an extra 100 staff. Is that an additional 100 staff in the planning authority functions of the local authorities? Is that in response to the labour force assessment that was done in the second quarter of last year when there was a notional 543 additional staff required?

Finally, I have a question on affordability because Deputy Cian O’Callaghan’s question is really important. Ms Scully will know of the hard labour under way in trying to find a way of delivering affordability in Poolbeg under the terms of the condition of the strategic development zone. I am a strong supporter of that SDZ and that condition but it is proving very difficult. One element of this Bill in the UDZ heading 171AQ might provide the answer to that. It is the provision whereby a local authority can acquire some of the unactivated land within a UDZ. The way it is written in the section, it is for infrastructure or facilities but if that was expanded to include other things such as housing, it could provide a mechanism because, as colleagues from Dublin City Council will know, there was a time when the owners of the land in Poolbeg offered to sell a portion of that land to the State at a significant discount to the State. The State, in its infinite wisdom, declined the generous offer from NAMA and as a result it has been left trying to reverse engineer affordability into it. Will the witnesses comment on section 171AQ or the general heading? It seems to be something very valuable. Last week, the Irish Planning Institute made a very compelling case not only to strengthen that but to apply it to all residentially-zoned land, not just land within UDZs. Does anyone have thoughts on that? It is a long section of the Bill and it is complicated but even if they were just headline thoughts, I would be interested.