Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

We have a similar amendment but we support Deputy Pringle's amendment. I am surprised they are not grouped. Deputy Pringle's is a bit more fleshed out. It relates to the earlier discussion about the non-residential space in these large-scale developments. The point about these developments is that they are large scale and they have big impacts on towns, communities and populations in a way that relatively small-scale developments do not. They need to be viewed differently because they can fundamentally alter the character of an area. They can alter the landscape of an area and significantly impact in a lasting way. To go slightly off the point, some would say that the biggest disaster that ever happened in Dún Laoghaire was Dún Laoghaire shopping centre. I actually quite liked it when I was a teenager but arguably it has become a major problem in the town's development.

One can never perfectly legislate for these kinds of things but with the benefit of experience of the wrong kind of development often happening and the SHD being a particular model which has failed and done so quite spectacularly, we need to learn some lessons to try and do it better the next time around. One lesson is that with large sites, where there is potential for a big development impact, we cannot see it in terms of waiting to see what the developer hits us with. Then we are on the back foot from the word go because sites are sitting there for ages and often people do not know even who owns them. Then out of the blue - bang - there is a massive big development that is going to fundamentally impact on the people not only in the immediate vicinity but also on the entire town and that could fundamentally change the character of the area and impact on large numbers of people. We have to have a different approach to that kind of development than we do to the common or garden small or modest development. That means one gets the community in on the ground floor rather than having the community on the back foot reacting. Then there is an adversarial thing where people accuse one of always being a naysayer and serial objector. It is adversarial and confrontational from the word go. We need to change that.

I will give an example. I appreciate that the supporters of the Government are keen to say that this is a positive change and that they are bringing it back to the local authorities, that it is what we called for and it is. I accept that. Credit where it is due. However, things were not perfect around large-scale development before either. The SHD process was particularly bad but things had not been perfect before that. Therefore, returning to the pre-SHD status quois not good enough. One can say the planners are good. Of course they are but the planners are also reacting to the proposals by private property owners who are primarily motivated by the concern to make money out of the site. Let us be honest here. These people are not primarily developing these sites in order to benefit the local community. That is not their purpose. Their purpose is to maximise the value of the site. They often have no connection whatever with the community but have come in because they see an opportunity to make money. There was a point about who knows what and whether they have good judgment and that we should not tie their hands when it comes to the site's viability. Think about some of the disastrous decisions these developers make simply on the basis of how they think they can make money. They cannot even get that right and they build stuff they cannot even make money out of. I would give the example of the Seamark Building on Merrion Road. I keep talking about this because it has been there for ten years. I pass it and it drives me absolutely ballistic every single day. This massive building built by McNamara is right beside St. Vincent's Hospital. It should be part of the hospital but it is just sitting there empty. It is an absolute disgrace. What a big mistake that was. Would the local community have ever suggested building that? They absolutely would not have suggested it.

The most recent example in my area is St. Michael's. One of the big SHDs that really broke the camel's back for many in Dún Laoghaire was a plan for a massive development on the St. Michael's Hospital carpark. First, it is shameful that the carpark of a public hospital - even if it is owned by a private religious charity but which we all pay for, it is our flipping hospital - was allowed to be sold to a developer. Then a big SHD was proposed. Everyone was going ballistic about it. It went to judicial review and then because, I think, the developers knew that the judicial review would not go well, they pulled out. Now, with this proposal, they would just put in a new application for a SHD on the site and that is allowed. This is a critical site. We in Dún Laoghaire will be dealing with another SHD, despite this legislation, on an absolutely critical site for the future development of Dún Laoghaire. This is on a historic, heritage site, overlooking the harbour, right next to the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council buildings. The people of Dún Laoghaire and the community organisations have ideas about what could be done with that site and always have had.

As for what is going on some of the areas adjacent to that, in and around Eblana Avenue and so on, people have long thought we could do brilliant things for Dún Laoghaire. We have already got the abomination of Richard Barrett's Bartra co-living development going up just around the corner. It got in under the wire and is now towering above Dún Laoghaire. Potentially, the group could still get an SHD on a site around the corner.

See this speech in context