Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome everybody to the meeting. The committee meets again to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the land value sharing and urban development zones Bill 2022. I welcome the representatives from the County and City Management Association, Ms AnnMarie Farrelly, chief executive of Fingal County Council; Ms Máire Igoe, acting executive manager of Dublin City Council; and Ms Deirdre Scully, planning officer of Dublin City Council. I thank them for giving up time from their busy day to assist us with this legislation. The opening statement has been circulated to members.

I will read a short note on privilege before we begin. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the place where the Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in meetings. Those witnesses attending in the committee room are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their contributions to today's meeting. Members and witnesses are expected not to abuse the privilege they enjoy. It is my duty as Chair to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that witnesses comply with any such direction.

Members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Ms Farrelly to make her opening statement.

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.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Farrelly is probably aware that this is our third meeting on this matter. We met with Department officials last week. The Irish Planning Institute was in earlier this week. Next week, we will be meeting with construction developers and valuers. We could write to the Department about the clarification points raised by Ms Farrelly if there are common areas in respect of which we are all seeking clarity. There are only three members present, so I can allow a little more time this morning. We will start with Deputy Ó Broin. He will be followed by Deputy O'Callaghan.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

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.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps one of our guests could come back to me on the question of the four valuations so I understand that.

Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

My colleague will come in on that point.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Farrelly.

Ms Deirdre Scully:

This new Bill has a positive approach to how the UDZ, as opposed to the SDZ, is done. One of the interesting things in the explanatory memorandum is the complexity of delivering SDZs and the challenge of a LVS element in delivering large-scale infrastructure, which has proven a drag on getting some of these schemes moving forward at the pace we hoped for. The UDZ is more beneficial in that it interlinks more strongly the LVS and the compulsory purchase order, CPO, powers. The whole justification for that is far better in this legislation. I presume this Bill and the future planning Bill will be amalgamated at some stage and the new concept will be more integrated. It will be good to see how they all fit together.

The way the UDZ legislation has been written in this Bill is a lot more inclusive and open. That is why we are asking for some elements of the public consultation to be extended and for a bit more flexibility about how the dates are outlined because for a local authority, once the Minister has written, we are locked into a timeline, which may cause problems for us as the process moves on, like in the development plan. We do not want to have public consultations for four weeks in the middle of the summer or over Christmas. Those are not good times. We would like a little flexibility included in the Bill to extend the timelines without crucifying ourselves on the other side as regards preparing the chief executive report because if we do extend them, that eats into the very short timeline we have for the chief executive report. We need that recognition to allow local authorities to make some local decisions about how those processes are run and to give more time to allow for better elements of public consultation to be planned and run, and to tackle these issues. What is being incorporated at a variation stage is quite complex and to run it is not the same as a simple variation to a development plan. What the public is being asked to comment on is a whole range of issues. It is not as simple as, say, the swapping of zoning. We are asking them to comment on, say, a brownfield regeneration site, around which there would most likely be a very large residential population. The public need more time to engage with that so we would like for those dates to be revised on that basis.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Having been through a full SDZ in Clonburris and the tail end of an SDZ and an SDZ amendment in Adamstown, I like that plan-led approach, although I appreciate the clunky nature of them. In some senses, if the UDZ goes through as outlined, with all of the benefits and flexibilities Ms Scully is proposing, it is hard to see how any local authority would use an SDZ process, given the flexibility built into the UDZ. Is that Ms Scully's sense of the situation? Dublin City Council obviously has quite an experience of SDZs.

Ms Deirdre Scully:

We would be most likely to look at the UDZ legislation as it provides a better process for engagement and a better outcome because one does not have to do the entire site. One of the issues in the likes of Adamstown, for example, was that the entire site was done at once. Every single change then had to go through the board, which was cumbersome and did not allow the space to adapt. When we are looking at the roll-out of projects in very large areas, as Dublin City Council is in south Dublin with the City Edge project, there is no way an SDZ could be used from one end to the other. It is too big and complex. It is going to be built over a lifetime. What is in the UDZ would suit much better and allows the development plan to take in many of the concepts and to set a strong framework, which is a positive thing. I wait with interest to hear how the Department sees the SDZ model being maintained in the planning and development Bill.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I broadly share Ms Scully's assessment. Specifically within Dublin city, and this applies more to those in the city than those of us in the county, there is obviously the whole issue of smaller brownfield sites that could facilitate significant compact growth and mixed use. Does Ms Scully think that, as currently framed, the tool of the UDZ could be applied or do we need some kind of mechanism? We could be talking about sites that are quite small geographically but that could be quite high in respect of density. I am keen to try to see how to avoid rezoning a site. The Chivers site is one example of where some people feel burned by the process. Is there a way of introducing a smaller scale UDZ for compact growth and higher density on brownfield sites in inner urban areas? Could that be added to this legislation? Would that be helpful for a council such as Dublin City Council?

Ms Deirdre Scully:

In my reading of it, I see this legislation as fitting that model as it is. Dublin City Council's development plan has the concept of strategic regeneration development areas, where we do set out a framework as to how we see particular brownfield lands rolled out. The UDZ will create a refinement of that and allow for a greater level of detail, which is positive. There is a resource issue there in that all of that work has to be done in advance of writing a development plan because once the development plans are started, an enormous amount of work is required of the staff who are there. It is about timing and how we integrate those things into the development plan. That will have to be worked on as we roll forward into the next series of plans. However, I think it will be beneficial. Let us consider, for example, the Grangegorman Development Agency and, in some ways, how we hope the Land Development Agency will deliver some of its key brownfield sites. This legislation provides a beneficial tool in that regard. A purpose-built vehicle can work through in great detail how a brownfield site will be delivered, engage with the local community, work out all the transport implications and how the design fits within the area. That is a positive element through which the scheme can deliver for brownfield.

We recently started a consultation process for the Ballyboggan Road area, which is a Dublin industrial estate. It is a very complex area. Depending on how this Bill goes, there is potential for areas such as that where there is deeply fragmented ownership. We need to balance that and ensure we can resource it with open spaces, school sites, connections and new roads that need to go in.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will we come back to the question about the four zoning valuations?

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think it would be a very short answer.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to bring in Deputy Cian O'Callaghan. I do not want to rush an answer to that question. May I bring in Deputy O'Callaghan?

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Cathaoirleach can go ahead on that point.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Deputy have sufficient time? Okay.

Ms M?ire Igoe:

With the LVS, there is the existing use value at the time of zoning, which can be self-assessed. There is then the market value without planning permission. We will also have the existing use value at the time of planning for Part V and the development value or market value with the benefit of planning for Part V. Those are the four valuations. From the resource point of view-----

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am with Ms Igoe.

Ms M?ire Igoe:

-----there are implications.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The valuations are existing market value, existing use value-----

Ms M?ire Igoe:

There is existing use value at the time of zoning. There is the market value without planning permission. There is also the existing use value at the time of planning.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That could be five or ten years later.

Ms M?ire Igoe:

We hope not if this legislation does what it is supposed to do.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Ms M?ire Igoe:

There is also the development value or market value with the benefit of planning.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Those two latter valuations are for the purposes of establishing the Part V discount.

Ms M?ire Igoe:

That is correct.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is about the interaction and resourcing of those four valuations. That is perfect.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for coming in. The point that was just made emphasises the reference in the opening statement to the importance of having in-house valuation skills and teams trying to do all those valuations instead of being reliant on external valuers, who may be busy doing other things, and trying to find people who do not have conflicts in the process and all of that. The point has been made very well. This legislation would assist with that and with Part V delivery. That is a good point.

In consideration of UDZs, why have SDZs not been used to any great extent? What are the potential advantages of UDZs, as outlined in the legislation?

Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

The Deputy will be aware of the SDZ in Hansfield in Fingal, which has delivered housing at pace, even in poor times, since 2014. It has probably been the highest deliverer of housing in Dublin and perhaps in the country. It works well but there was complexity in its establishment.

To some extent the SDZ suffered somewhat from the downturn as well. We did not have the opportunity or even the need to look at further SDZs. Where there is a large infrastructural requirement, the UDZ is essential just to plan that out and have all the stakeholders on message in regard to what is needed to activate the site. The SDZs have worked well. They are complex to deliver. They certainly work very well in the planning permission stage and increase the pace of decision because there is that full assessment on which to rely as the planning process is worked through. Again, the creation of SDZs is too slow but it is essential that the infrastructure is planned. We see this being done through the UDZ process.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the creation too slow in regard to the need for the local authority to interact with the Minister on it and go through that process, or is it the whole planning process?

Ms Deirdre Scully:

Any SDZ is a very large project. In many ways what the planning authority is doing is taking some of the work of a planning application and pulling it into the plan-making stage by going to the board with the plan itself. Rather than the developer having to apply for permission, go to the board and go through the process of justifying the development to An Bord Pleanála, the council has done that for the developer. That adds to the time it takes to prepare an SDZ. It is a necessary part of it because it has such an important and significant impact on a person’s third party rights. It is essential but in recognising and identifying an area for an SDZ, it must be reflected that as a tool the SDZ it is designed to deliver a whole range of things. It is not a quick delivery. There are other local area plans, there is the development plan process and the way land is zoned, or, for example, there is the way in which Dublin City Council has the strategic development regeneration areas, SDRAs, where we set everything out in the development plan and give a general framework as to how the area will be developed. Those lands can move forward immediately. It is about making sure the sites picked are the correct sites for the tool in question, rather than a problem with the tool itself.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If UDZs come in and are going to be used more, resourcing for planning staff will be critical to that. If we have this in legislation but do not resource it, it will not happen. Is that a fair summary?

Ms Deirdre Scully:

Obviously, the UDZs need to be resourced. It is a question of prioritising work to ensure that critical sites such as this, which are of national importance, are staffed and delivered ahead of other pieces of work that are important but not absolutely necessary at that particular time. It is a balancing act. The proposed change in the Bill, which would give space between development plan reviews, will benefit the delivery of UDZs because we are talking about using the same people. Instead of these people embarking on the review process, which is resource-heavy, in three years' time when they have just finished the development plan, we will have an additional number of years which can be devoted to doing more local plans and UDZs. That will be a key opportunity as the legislation rolls out.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In regard to the comment about the engagement with the Department over the planning staff and getting more resources, are the witnesses confident they will get the required staffing for the local authorities? There are two elements of this, namely, funding and allocations, but also being able to hire staff in planning and forward planning. What sort of challenges are being experienced there by local authorities? How can that be addressed?

Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

There is no doubt that resourcing and planning require a holistic approach. That begins with the colleges and universities in attracting more people into the discipline in order to get more graduates and, for our part, working to make sure adequate training can be given to those graduates in order to become planners.

In regard to the ongoing discussions with the Department, a number of staff, about 100, have already agreed to be appointed this year. The recruitment of those staff is proving challenging because others, such as An Bord Pleanála, the regulator and all the local authorities are also recruiting. However, the principle of needing extra resources is established. That is accepted. We are working to try to find ways in which to increase the supply of planners. It is a challenging space. In regard to the alignment of all the various pieces of legislation, if, for example, the exemption from the land value sharing aligned with the exemption from Part V, we could find efficiencies in that way in order that every piece of legislation talks to the other and reduces the number of steps in any given process in order that it is not a parallel process and that land value sharing could be integrated in some ways with other processes associated with the development.

The development plan process is resource-heavy and quite difficult so the changes are welcome. I agree with Ms Scully’s point that efficiencies can be made and some space for the development plan to be implemented on the ground will give opportunities to work on plans.

To reassure the members, all planning authorities prioritise plans, whether they are local area plans or other types of plans, to areas that can be activated first. Where a critical piece of infrastructure is needed and will take time to deliver, the time may be better spent in trying to get that infrastructure delivered. In planning and land use terms, there is little point in having a plan if there is no plan to deliver the infrastructure. Members may hear from landowners that their LAP is not done. However, there may be a valid reason in respect of the infrastructure required for the site in question that it is not top of the list for plan preparation. There is an approach that is taken in any event but more resources are needed.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In regard to the UDZs and in cases where, for example, industrial lands or Dublin city lands are rezoned for housing, is there a mechanism available under the UDZs proposed in the Bill that can address how that overall plan can be made for that area, whether between multiple landowners or infrastructure? Those issues can be addressed. Can the issue of affordability be addressed through a UDZ? Beyond Part V, I do not see how it could be but am I missing something there? Can a way be found through a UDZ? If the intention is to rezone industrial lands, not just to provide general residential housing but to provide a large amount of affordable purchase or rental housing on these lands, could that be done through a UDZ? Is that not allowed for? What is Ms Farrelly's view on that?

Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

In regard to any plan, that viability assessment is essential. There is little point in having a plan that cannot be implemented. That economic piece needs to be kept through the plan-making process. However, it is ultimately about prioritising plans, choosing the sites that require less intervention and less cost to get activated, and getting those completed first. It is very much about good plan-making and understanding what the ultimate development of a site should be. There is no easy solution to the viability issue.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have just a few more questions. On the deadlines, what would be considered realistic? I heard the comments about wanting more flexibility. That point is well made in regard to Christmas and over summer periods when there is an issue for the public in regard to not being available. There can be some cynicism when those deadlines fall there. There is also an issue for the local authorities and their staff having less availability over those periods. What sort of deadlines would be realistic there?

Ms Deirdre Scully:

There is an option A and an option B process in the Bill for UDZs, where they are done with the full plan or otherwise. The dates should not differ for consultation on both of them. They are both looking at the same space and area. The decision about whether to go for a full-blown UDZ or a candidate one does not change the issues the community will have to address or bring up. It does not change the scale of submissions the local authority will get because ultimately the area is going to change. To treat one as a simple variation and the other as a more complex consultation is not an option when there is no real difference for the people who engage with the process. The dates should be the same as for option B. Option B gives more time than option A. Those dates could just be rolled over with a caveat that, for example, the council has a three-month window in which to move dates as to when the process is commenced. A simple statement like that in the Bill would give us the space to say that the Minister had commenced the legislation on such a date and wrote to us within a month or so of the guidelines being issued, which was three months later. There is a series of dates that are tightly joined as to when local authorities will kick off the process.

If there was a statement saying that the decision of the chief executive to move the dates by up to three months is allowable to accommodate the consultation process at an appropriate time, something like that would just give us the breathing space and that would be a really good benefit. On the whole, regarding how much time is given, option B and option A should have the same dates.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have two final questions. It was said in the opening statement that this could be levied at either the zoning or the development stage. I think I was picking up some concern that if it is levied at the development stage that this may not have the same effect in terms of suppressing land speculation and moderating land values. Did I pick that up correctly? Will the representatives from the County and City Management Association, CCMA, expand on that? On the concern that it could lead to zoning removal requests, in a sense is that not a positive thing if that happens since zoning has been tightened up and we do not have a lot of over-zoning going on? Obviously, the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, has played a role in that. It is of critical importance that zoned land is relatively quickly brought into use. If an owner has a long-term view of not wanting to develop land for residential use that he or she is using for farmland, and if it is not in a critical location but is zoned for residential, is it not better to have clarity brought in on that and in cases where they actually request the zoning be changed to agriculture, it is taken out of the calculations? Indeed, if it is in a critical location where the land will need to be used for residential use, the conversation could at least be brought to a head and have clarification around that as well. Are zoning removal requests not a potential positive thing in terms of bringing absolute clarity around use of a piece of land and whether or not it will conform to the zoning potential?

Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

On that last point first, it is really important that land is zoned in the right location. That is the first principle we work to. I can think of lots of examples in Fingal where sites in or on the edge of towns that should be zoned may be in another use at present. We would like to maintain the zoning in the right place first of all. That would be the principle to which we work. I will ask Ms Scully or Ms Igoe to come in on the point of levy.

Ms M?ire Igoe:

On the point of levy, it is the fact that the zoning is being delayed so it might not actually be the person who paid the value for the site so it is unsure whether that would have the impact or the desired result. That is more it. This is something that will probably iron itself out in the longer term, but the way things are at the moment, the land may have already changed hands, therefore at the time of the exiting zoning, that person has got the value of it at this stage. They pass it on to someone else and they are the ones coming in for the planning permission now. This is especially true of those who have come in in the past number of years, say someone who may have purchased land in 2021 and moved it on. There is a danger that rather than do anything with it, they will let it sit there because they are the ones who would end up having to pay it and this would be the opposite effect. Again, it is probably something that will iron itself out.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will follow on from the line of questioning by Deputies O'Callaghan and Ó Broin in terms of the principle of rezoning and dezoning. It is very rarely that we see land dezoned and for any of us who has ever sat through county development plan meetings, it is quite common to see land rezoned against all recommendations. I include the land tax in this as well but does the CCMA think this may serve as a way of - for good reasons - stopping over-zoning of land and those zonings that we see being done because councillors may have the numbers to vote them through and the OPR does not always catch it?

Ms Deirdre Scully:

We are only now seeing the outcome of the impact of bringing in residential zoned land tax, RZLT. The bills have not been issued so we do not really fully know what the impact is going to be on zoned land. As part of the preparation for today, I was made aware of individual cases in other local authorities where there are requests to consider changes in zoning away from residential due to the impact of RZLT. Some of those things may get ironed out as RZLT moves on and we get clarity as how to the board will react to appeals and how the Revenue Commissioners will implement it. It is still very new.

On the point made by Senator O'Callaghan - I was so used to seeing him in the council chamber, I keep saying councillor-----

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As long as Ms Scully does not call us Senators-----

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She just did.

Ms Deirdre Scully:

Apologies.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will forgive Ms Scully for that.

Ms Deirdre Scully:

Regarding the whole impact on the core strategy, it will bring clarity in some areas but every site is unique as is the situation of every owner. Land may have been zoned. A site may have gone into probate. There are a whole range of complexities there and it is very hard to find a one-size-fits-all solution. On an overall level, it will hopefully refine the core strategies better in local government. Land should only therefore come forward when the owners are ready, the infrastructure is there, and there is a willingness to bring it on, rather than a situation where historically land may have been zoned for 15 years, it was nowhere near being serviced and it was going to take a very long time to bring forward but yet it is being counted in the core strategy because it is there. They will all hopefully interlink as the current arrangements that have been set in place under the new wave of development plans begin. All of the pieces when put together will drive a better and clearer pattern of development. It is important we know where people want to continue with their existing uses and business and that is reflected in the development plan. That can change in ten years' time. People move on and they do different things. It is very hard to say that it is good for everybody but overall it will definitely give a better core strategy for each development plan.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the principles of proper planning is that it is done in the common good. In terms of the zoned land types, I have been approached by people whose land has been included in the zoned land tax. They do not want to pay the tax but neither do they want the land dezoned because it is obviously worth a lot more as an asset as zoned land. I expect that in many cases the land would be looked at and you would say you cannot make more of the land and it cannot be moved around - we know land is an oddity in that regard - and that it must remain zoned, that the tax is applied, that the land should be developed or that the land should be sold. Is Ms Scully starting to see more of that come into local authorities now? Are there more requests for dezoning of land?

Ms Deirdre Scully:

No. I have only heard of a couple at this stage. However, in saying that, I have not done a thorough assessment across all of the local authorities. I know of two or three off the top of my head but that is anecdotal information. I have absolutely no idea. As I said, it is so new. The appeals have not even been processed yet. We do not know exactly what the outcome is. That is the beauty of local government. Each town and each area can drill into these and take local circumstances and environments into account and what the likelihood is of certain sites being developed and phase it in. They can recognise that zoning is not a permanent thing; it is reviewed and reconsidered in every development plan. Maybe the person would like to see land being used for future housing or whatever in the long term but they are not ready now. There is no harm in saying that this is a future site but we are not going to zone it. That is sometimes useful, particularly in planning infrastructure, to know what the general direction of travel of a particular town and how it will expand will be because we need to know that for drainage which operates on lifetime assessments and transport, traffic or any of those things. It is about trying to strike that balance and acknowledge that a site may not be zoned now but it may be zoned in the next development plan if the demand is there and if the core strategy fits with it. In saying that, it has to be down to each individual town to know exactly what it is and the local knowledge of the councillors in making those decisions as to where they zone and where they do not.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Scully is right that it is early days in terms of the zoned land tax. It is very early days of what we are look at here; there is not even an Act yet. We have to let these things settle a little bit and see how they work out. There is no doubt as time goes on that things may have to be adjusted and tweaked. We have had quite a good discussion on resources and we are all really well-versed on the resourcing challenges across all the planning sector from the planning regulator, to the board and to local authorities. When legislation like this is being formulated, I am interested to know about the interactions between the CCMA, the director of services for planning and the senior planners.

There is a back and forth that could go on to get that local knowledge the senior planners have in their areas and from directors of services with regard to the difficulties of actually executing these requirements. Is there a good channel there? The officials have raised a number of points of clarification, which I am sure are not just new. Do the city and council managers have those channels of communication with the Department?

Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

The purpose of the housing, building and land use committee is precisely that, which is to look at changes and developments in areas around housing and planning and to understand what the resources might be and what would be required. Our assessment is that the land use committee would be made up of chief executives and directors of planning and that senior planners would have an engagement with it. As necessary, then, there would be involvement with the Department as well. It would be the committee the Department would look to for views on various matters impacting on planning or on the delivery of housing and economic development. There is a good structure established. One of the difficulties, which the Chair mentioned, is the fact that all of us - the board and others - were looking for the same thing at the same time. When there is a transition from the strategic housing developments to the large-scale residential developments, LRDs, there is a point when there is a big resource impact and it balances out over time. Yes, there is a good mechanism for a review of the upcoming legislation and for input as to what legislative change might be needed. I believe the structures in place work well but there are no easy solutions to some of the problems.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Ms Farrelly have any recommendations for the committee on how we could improve that process? I am always conscious that when we do something that is relevant to this committee, it gets lumped onto the local authorities and it is on the local authorities to do that. All through Covid, everything was put on top of the local authorities. Does Ms Farrelly have any recommendations or asks the committee might recommend to improve on that structure?

Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

One aspect is that we need to recognise that planning authorities have different challenges. Whereas one might talk to the 31 local authorities, there might be chalk and cheese between different local authorities with regard to the scale of what they are dealing with or even with the issues that arise within each local planning authority area. The timelines are also very tight. The development plan process is a very arduous task. There are very tight timelines.

Reference was made to the issue of dezoning. Certainly, our challenge is in dealing with the expectations of landowners in the development plan process around proposed zonings and whether we are working towards core strategies or other constraints that are now there to assist good planning. That is not always the expectation of those on the ground. We are still going through that level of engagement with third parties that requires a huge effort just to work through the process. Ms Scully made the point that whether it is a large or small urban development zone, UDZ, the community involvement or the third-party involvement might actually be the same. Working to tight timelines without an assessment of the task in hand is probably the biggest challenge we have. That said, we understand that the plans have to be delivered quickly and early to facilitate development. This is why we need to have our priorities correct and get those plans done. If the efficiencies are then achieved in the last stage of the development management process, it must be recognised that the time is well spent on the plan making. If the SDZs are evaluated, particularly those that were not unviable and that could get going, the efficiencies in the planning system can be seen when the SDZ is in place. I believe it is the same for the urban development zones because no matter what happens or whether it takes a long time to deliver a plan. If the site is not ready, it is not ready. The plan-making process will make sure the right sites are ready and at the right time for development.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My last question is on the resources. Consider, for example, a lot of GIS mapping requirements and the evaluation of land, is there scope for this to be done regionally and to procure third-party assistance, but without each of the 31 local authorities trying to do its own one? Would it be a better use of resources, in a constrained market, to get somebody in? If we know the sites that are more likely to come on and where the demand is for housing and so on, would it be a better method? Would that relieve the local authorities in some way?

Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

Yes. I believe there is space for shared services. We in Dublin share the one City Valuer's Office. That works well. There is also a place for frameworks of independent valuers, as long as they are independent and do not have any conflicts. Yes, there are ways we can work it through. The question is whether there are enough valuers, irrespective of who they are employed by. We just have to work that through. If we are telling the market there is potential before valuations in a process, we would expect the market to react to that in the context of the provision of more services. Yes, it would not be advisable for there to be a valuation office in every local authority, but there are shared services options.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is this something where the regional assembly might have a role so these services could be done regionally rather than on a county basis?

Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

I have not thought that through, but certainly a regional approach seems optimal in most circumstances

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Farrelly.

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is good to see the officials again. I have worked with them in different guises. I would not worry about using the wrong titles. There are often occasions when local authority officials are in here and we revert back to calling them managers. We can always get it wrong and it says more about my age than anything the chief executive said.

I want to discuss two points of complexity and it is important at this stage to try to get the officials' views on this, one of which is the areas where there might be joint ownership between a private landlord and a local authority. One site that comes to mind is the Ballymun shopping centre, which was a good site and was a 50-50 arrangement. I am not sure if there are many such sites, but have the officials thought through the implications there? Obviously, we would not want a scenario where a local authority was contributing or paying in that way.

The second point is where there is complex multi-ownership of sites. I believe Dublin City Council has had discussions with regard to some of the older industrial estate sites where multi-ownership has proven one of the key issues as to why development has not happened on those sites, because lots of people just want to continue doing what they are doing there. Have the officials given any thought to areas where there is complex multi-ownership and how the total zoning of a site would impact in those cases?

It is the nature of the city that in all of the ten years I was a member of Dublin City Council, I dealt with only one rezoning outside of the city development plan process. It shows how much the city is already zoned or where it is not done through a local area plan, LAP. The concern would be that there would be requests to dezone and this would put additional pressure on planning departments that are already quite stretched, with the resource implications of that. It would be interesting to see, within the cities that have established zoning networks or known zoning status, if the officials anticipate an increase in demand for requests for dezoning.

Ms Deirdre Scully:

On the ownership and how it works through, there are exemptions where housing is being delivered, be it social or affordable, under the land value sharing, and this is obviously very welcome. The regulations will have a lot to do after the Bill is enacted. There will be a need for the detail as to how all of this is going to be worked out, and for the detail to be run through in the regulations. There is real opportunity for the CCMA and those working in the field to help refine the regulations so that all of those nitty-gritty pieces of how we actually deliver all the processing here are trashed out. This could be one of the things that is looked at. I do not know what the answer is. From my own perspective as a professional planner, once the plan itself is correct and what it is trying to achieve is right, and once it is aligned with the corporate goals for what the local council is trying to achieve in delivering new communities and regeneration, I would expect there to be a solution there that would be easily fitted in.

The plans, whether it is a UDZ or LEP, will still seek to achieve the same vision for the area. It is just getting the mechanisms right and that is something we can seek clarification on in order to make sure local authorities are not unduly burdened or impeded in achieving the order.

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We would not want to see it get in the way of attracting investment to an area that needed regeneration, for example.

Ms Deirdre Scully:

That will be an interesting area of study as the concept of land value sharing moves forward. There will be questions about value and how significant the burden of cost is in areas that need to attract investment but are not the obvious places for investment because clearly that has an impact on value. There will be an element of the unknown but the Deputy is right that we need to closely monitor it and see how it works out. If there are concerns they can be addressed either by regulation or an update of the Bill at a later stage.

In relation to multi ownership or complex sites, there are lots of them, particularly former industrial estates that are still fully functioning at some levels but have often diversified into a whole range of other uses. In those situations, every site is unique and it is down to doing a really good plan for those areas in talking to all of the different landowners, identifying which ones are likely to, or interested in moving ahead and those that are not and need to maintain their businesses. Ensuring that the UDZ is put in place recognises those other sites. It also identifies different areas. For example, an area may be identified as an employment area and may be kept in a general, mixed use zoning that may apply to the entire area. It is important that the local plan gets into that kind of detail and identifies the appropriate areas for housing. Hopefully this will be refined in the regulations to make it clear. Issues in relation to how the UDZs, the land value sharing and the Residential Zoned Land Tax, RZLT, all interact is something that really needs to be worked out very carefully. This is because there are situations where we have very viable businesses in regeneration lands that provide really important local employment, particularly in areas that are surrounded by socially deprived areas. We do not want all the businesses to leave. We want to see reinvestment and we want to get that balance right. There is no one solution for all of those things, they require work. We would like to talk to the Department about how the relationships work between the different elements.

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Zoning is a blunt instrument. It often encompasses a wide area. Whether a council decides to zone or not to zone is one of the difficulties. If the potential benefit is never realised, the whole process is a waste of the council's time if it does not actually result in any development in the long run.

Ms Deirdre Scully:

A lot of work should be done before any decision is made to bring forward a key site like that. The Deputy is very familiar with the case where the landowners came forward and said they were very interested in regeneration and wanted their lands to be looked at. That is a positive thing and there are other similar examples. It also could be the case that the site is in State ownership and that the council would be very keen to encourage the State agency to bring it forward and so engages with it to do so, setting the parameters and helping to set a value on the site.

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I suppose there are sites that are entirely in local authority ownership. I am thinking of site 31 which sits north of Ballymun. It is identified in part for Ballymun Kickhams GAA Club, and part for the National Transport Authority, NTA. It is owned by Dublin City Council but it is in Fingal County Council. As a result, a lot of interaction is required there between different councils for the residential zone. I think it is identified as residential zoned land even though it is owned by a local authority. A lot of interaction will have to go on at the regulation level. Would that be a fair comment?

Ms Deirdre Scully:

Yes, if memory serves, I think that site is now zoned for mixed use so the Deputy is correct. Close collaboration between the planning authority and the owner of the site is essential. Some good economic development has happened on the site. Now, aligned with the delivery of MetroLink, it seems like a good location for housing. I agree that a high level of co-operation is crucial in order to move that site on.

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I use that as an example because it is one that I am familiar with. Two local authorities have an involvement. One as the landowner and the other as the planning regulator.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the members from the CCMA and thank them their very concise submission. I like that it has a few asks and it raises concerns. We get a lot of submissions in here and at the end of them we are not really too sure what the ask is. I am very much a person who likes to get to the bottom of an issue and the ask.

At the outset I want to say that I do not think you can look at this tax on land value on shared and urban development without the context of the RZLT. I sit on the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We get a lot of engagement on the RZLT, particularly in agriculture. We have had many issues raised from north county Dublin, where there is a very strong horticultural sector. I think these are going to overlap and I think we cannot see these outside the context. While the witnesses are not politicians and I am not asking them to comment on political matters, we cannot see this outside the context of the political landscape that we operate in here. There are challenges caused by the perception that there is a major disconnect by Government policy makers in relation to rural Ireland, and the challenges around what I would call the active use of land. This may well be mixed use zoning but may also be zoned actively for agriculture, and align with national food and agricultural policies. I just wanted to set that out in the beginning.

I want to touch on a few issues on page 1. I will stay really focused on what the witnesses set out in their paper today. On page 1, the witnesses say that there is a risk of misinterpreting certain sections of this Bill. That is what we are told. Then I look at the opening statement given on the 4 May to this committee by the Department which says:

The land value sharing, LVS, elements of the proposals have been the subject of economic appraisal and detailed discussions with the Attorney General's Office, valuation experts and engagement with key stakeholders in order to provide a robust basis and understanding of the draft legislation.

That is all very fine and dandy. It is important to address the interactions and the channels of communication. It is important that everyone is singing off the same page, everyone understands that. Is that the case for the witnesses? We know it is very complex. We also know the challenge is to bring clarity and some sort of simplicity to legislation in terms of the understanding and the reading of it.Are the witnesses happy with the interaction and channels of communication? Are they sufficient?

Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

Our opinion is that when all of these pieces of legislation align, it will improve the planning system. It will bring clarity as to how we might activate land. There are penalties and encouragement as well as in terms of plan making and the various taxes. When the legislation is gotten right, it will improve the system.

Regarding the section on page 1, that was a safeguard from our perspective. We have been going through the Bill in detail, but just in case we misinterpreted something we included that safeguard. It indicates that we have gone through this and we may not have interpreted the Bll correctly based on the time we had available to assess it, so it is just a caveat.

There is ongoing engagement with the CCMA about the proposed legislation and then when it gets to Bill stage, but it is a work in progress. It is not right until it is right, so to speak.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

I thank the Senator. On the mapping piece and the need for skills and resources to do that, ultimately we will end up with one map. We have one development plan in any county, and we will switch on and off depending on how we need to describe the land and the purpose and type of information one needs on a particular site. Ultimately, we will all work towards having a development plan presented in this way.

It is fair to say that we have all come through the development plan process quite recently. I do not know of any requests for dezoning in that process, so until both the RZLT and the land value sharing is embedded in the system, the question of dezoning is unknown. We do not know what the impact will be. However, when it comes to the development plan process, it is certainly not an issue yet, and we will probably have to work through the system into the next development plan to understand what the impact would be. However, we do not want land dezoned which is in the right location for development, so that is a dilemma we are going to have to work through in the planning process. We are well used to that, and ultimately, the purpose of the taxes from the land value sharing is to activate land where the landowner might be reluctant to do that.

On the resourcing piece, when the Act is enacted, that is the first thing which the CCMA will go about doing. Typically, that is our approach, to understand what the resources should be. That establishment phase of any new legislation is critical and resource-heavy. Ultimately, we would be looking with a longer outlook to see what we need to establish to run the system. However, getting the baseline right is critical, so there will be a combination of employing staff directly to do that, and if we need to buy in systems, we would look at that as well. We are fairly well along the introduction of e-planning, so we are getting more IT proficient and better systems are coming in place. Yet, resourcing will still be a problem, so I do not want to walk out of the room without saying that. That is why we have it in our clarification, to make that point well.

Regarding the five-year term, I do not think a shorter period would be appropriate insofar as, at the end of the day, development plan making and the implementation of a development plan takes time. A five-year review is appropriate. A lesser review time would not have any benefit, or add value to the system. That would be my perspective, but I might ask the city planner to come in on that.

Ms Deirdre Scully:

I agree with my colleague. Planning processes, and the roll-out of the development plan as things move forward into planning permissions, need to be given a bit of time. We also need to recognise that a two-year period, if there are particular economic challenges, can give a skewed version of what the implementation is. Having a slightly longer horizon, with the ups and downs of a modern economy in those, will give better clarity as to how, overall and in the round, the legislation is impacting.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to follow on from Senator Boyhan's point. It is important that there is some sort of very simplified reporting process on county development plans, if they go to ten years, for the elected members of the council. It should tell them the basics like how much land was zoned, how much has planning permissions on it, what has commenced, etc., just so one could track it all the way through rather than just waiting after five or six years, and getting a response on it then. The regional assemblies probably do that on the regional planning guidelines, or the regional spatial and economic strategy, RSES.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our visitors for being here and giving us the opportunity to pick their brains. I will not go over many of the questions that were asked by my colleagues. One of my big issues is around the derelict sites levy. The Derelict Sites Act came in in 1990 yet the vast majority of local authorities are either not collecting anything or only a fraction of what they should. How can we be sure that the non-collection of the levy from the derelict sites does not happen in this case? Do the managers see that as being an issue?

Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

There are certain strategies in place now to deal with the area of dereliction to try to activate lands, particularly the town centre first approach where we do detailed assessments of dereliction and vacancy in a particular town and then arrive at strategies to address that. I am not sure there would be much correlation between the two. Maybe Ms Scully can comment.

Ms Deirdre Scully:

One aspect of the land-value sharing is that when people come from planning they cannot avoid the situation. There is a period where it can be paid when the land is zoned or it can be paid at a later stage in planning. For those who seek to avoid it, that is not possible because it is built into the value of the land in the long term. If they dispose of the land they will have a decision to either pay the levy off or to sell the land at a slightly lower price, taking into account that the money is still owed to the local authority. The legislation has been designed to make it much more difficult for councils to not be able to collect it because once the land comes forward for planning they have to do that. They will be locked into a payment system. I am not a financial expert and I would not try to give advice on that but the way it has been drafted includes a number of steps to ensure that once the land is activated, the payments will be collected.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So Ms Scully can see no obvious loopholes in the legislation?

Ms Deirdre Scully:

That is one of the reasons we support the five-year review because we will not know until they have one.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some of my colleagues touched on staffing earlier. In the local authorities I deal with, everyone is to the pin of their collar. For this to work, it must be resourced. Ms Farrelly made that point earlier. We want this to work so surely the necessary resources have to be there in advance. We do not want the local authorities to have to deal with this without the tools they need from the word go.

Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

Absolutely. I mentioned earlier that the establishment phase of any new piece of legislation is the critical point and the most resource heavy. The timing of its introduction and the details of the regulations that Ms Scully mentioned are all critical to us to assess what we need to implement it. I can only agree with the Deputy that the resourcing has to be right from day one. That is the purpose behind the CCMA as an entity discussing with the Department exactly the resources we need and the funding of those posts, particularly in the context of fairly low planning fees compared with other jurisdictions and the amount of income we are bringing in. There may need to be some centrally funded posts too. Most new posts will probably have to be centrally funded.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, I must go to the Chamber. I want to thank the CCMA representatives. I listened intently to their comments today and I appreciate it.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

The Deputy’s point about the staff impact assessment and the appropriate time to do it was well made. We set out our case that this is resource heavy and we are trying to make that case right now. Precisely which staff are needed has not been assessed. That is something we could do at CCMA level, so we can take that away.

In relation to the-----

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On that, I know there is a certain diplomacy in terms of what the CCMA can say to us, given that it will be in negotiations with the Department. I will make one general point, however. In the context of pre-legislative scrutiny, our job is to comment on the general scheme. The more clarity the committee has on what those staffing requirements might be, the stronger the recommendations in our pre-legislative report to Government could be. I understand that there is a certain degree of tact that the CCMA has to employ. Even at a later stage as we are progressing pre-legislative scrutiny, if the CCMA was in a position to say to our committee what that could look like, that could form a part of our report and be of assistance to the CCMA in its engagement with the Department after the passing of the eventual Bill, if such a thing happens. That is an invitation.

Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

We can take that away, and we will certainly review it.

On zoning with conditions, to some extent we do that, but probably at a fairly high level in development plans where you know a site. For example, councillors can know sites that need A, B and C done to them and that should not be developed without A, B and C being done. It generally gets lost in that land transaction piece. If it is zoned, it is zoned. It is generally interpreted that way in respect of land value, other than if it needs some significant piece of infrastructure.

Regarding the alignment of core strategies, the involvement of the planning regulator, the taxes, the land value sharing and all of that, we will iron some of that out in future development plans and it will all become more balanced. It is a transition into perfection. On day one, none of these will work seamlessly. Ultimately, however, future development plans will benefit from the various reforms. That is how I view it.

We employ professional services across all disciplines. There are means of ensuring that there are no conflicts. We establish frameworks of planning consultants, for example, or environmentalists. They are required to ensure there are no conflicts with the work they are doing for us versus their private work. There are possibly solutions there if the market sees it being worthwhile to participate. That is the type of thing we would look at, as well as our own in-house valuers in the Dublin region, for example, or across the country.

The Deputy is correct that the 100 staff are part of that. A business case was made for the 540-odd staff, and that is work in progress with the Department. The distinction is that they will be funded posts, which is welcome – the first 100. It is at stage 1 of that assessment.

I might ask my colleague to come on the section of the legislation.

Ms Deirdre Scully:

On zoning, every zoning parcel of land is qualified by the text of the development plan. The depth and range of objectives and policies that are included in the plan all play a part in what the value of that zoning is. For example, in the Dublin city development plan, all major sites have to contribute to community and cultural space. In addition, where a request is made to us by the Department of Education, the Department of Health or any other public authority in the context of community benefit, the zoning of the site involved will change to reflect that. Our community infrastructure zoning is similar to other Dublin authorities. We have that across the city to protect those assets. While zoning is a blunt tool, it can be used in a positive way to ensure that the right mix of facilities and infrastructure is provided. None of it is unqualified; it is all deeply qualified by the text of the plan.

I have a comment on the general scheme. The definitions of “public infrastructure”, under UDZ, and “public infrastructure”, under LVS, are different. They are different because one includes social and affordable housing and the other does not.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

LVS does and UDZ does not. That is interesting. Well spotted.

Ms Deirdre Scully:

That might be something to think about.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the issue around implications for unserviced land and the intertwining of the sharing and the RZLT and-----

Ms Deirdre Scully:

That would be a concern for smaller local authorities with small towns where the scale of the investment and resources that could be seen accruing from zoning is not the same. As we mentioned earlier, there is always a risk in places where perhaps the RZLT is impacting on somebody who may not have been interested in bringing land forward. The issue of serviced land is wrapped in that, because there could be smaller towns and villages that are not fully serviced, yet they need to grow incrementally to accommodate their own natural growth and provide housing for the next generation. It is down to individual situations and the complexities involved when all of these processes are brought down and how it works out in areas like that, where it is not so clear or obvious, unlike, say, the major cities, where it is very clear there is process since there are many different types of landowners in an urban setting and many people interested in bringing land forward. In smaller towns and villages, where a council is actively trying to encourage growth and build up a town through the likes of the town centre first initiative, there may be sites that were zoned but where, for example, the water services are not up to scale yet. Those are elements that we will work through, but it needs to be borne in mind that there needs to be an element of sensitivity as all of the legislation impacts and rolls out.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one final question in respect of a clarification of the clarifications, if that makes sense. The first one goes back to a point raised at the start on whether the valuation date is established at the point of rezoning or the creation of the development plan. Simpletons like me would not have noticed a difference between those two things. Ultimately, the zoning is when the development plan is adopted.

Ms Deirdre Scully:

Technically speaking, it is when it is zoned. It is more about whether there is a variation, particularly if there a significant one, perhaps where a UDZ is being made and one can bring forward a parcel of land.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Scully’s query is that, notwithstanding the fact that the legislation stipulates that the valuation would take place at the adoption of the last development plan, if there some material alternation to that development plan at a future point in time-----

Ms Deirdre Scully:

Another example could be that when the NPF and all the regional spatial and economic strategies are updated or when a regional spatial and economic strategy is published, there should be an objective that a major area of land should be reconsidered. An example could be the Naas road area, which has been flagged quite a number of times in statutory documents that it will be a major regeneration area. Dublin City Council has have yet zone any of the land. There has been an uplift at a different stage because it has been named. So those things are going on.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With the indulgence of the Chair, could the same point be made in respect of other changes in policy? We teased this out with the Department. For example, when the updated design standards for apartments were published in 2018, including, for example, for the first time, co-living and build to rent, they obviously had an impact on land values. We saw that then in purchase prices. There is a five-year review. Is that enough to capture the outworking of what could be other policy changes by Government, regional authority or local authority that could impact land values?

Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

We are unclear exactly how the impact of even an announcement of public infrastructure, for example, MetroLink or whatever, on land values is incorporated in the general scheme. There are many factors that influence land value, as the Deputy knows. A point in time can be a significant issue as well. It needs further consideration. I am not sure that we have the answers.

Ms Deirdre Scully:

I am not a valuer. I would not aim to try to-----

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is interesting, because the Department seems to make a distinction between the market value and the transaction value, which, to me, just seems to be the market value at the most recent point at the purchase or sale of it. It had this fixed view that the market value is the value with the residential zoning at the point of the development plan. It was only indicating that the review was the time that would be looked at again.

Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

The valuation piece needs consideration about, for example, what exactly influences the valuation, what should be considered and whether irrelevant issues can be stripped out. Ultimately, there are disagreements between the landowner and, for example, the purchaser on what the value of the land is. That is the transaction element, which is the point the Deputy made well.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Department said that where there is a dispute, the same arbitration mechanism that is used for compulsory purchase orders will be employed.

Do the witnesses think that could also contribute to delays, particularly with the very tight timeframe for the register?

Ms AnnMarie Farrelly:

It is an avenue I would expect landowners to explore where there are disputes, so it would potentially delay the process.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Very diplomatically put.

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That brings our session to a close. I thank our witnesses for being with us today.