With the agreement of members, we will deal with the minutes later. Item No. 2 is a discussion with the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on a motion on the specification of an area of the Poolbeg Peninsula. The committee will discuss the motion referred to it by both Houses on 29 March 2007, the proposal that Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann approve the order, a copy of which was laid in draft before Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann on 22 March 2007. I welcome the Minister of State and his official. I propose that committee members be invited to speak on the motion following the introduction and briefing of the Minister of State. I draw the attention of committee members to the fact that this meeting must conclude by 11.30 a.m. to facilitate another meeting.
Proposed Planning Scheme for Poolbeg Peninsula: Motion.
I am pleased to speak on this important motion, the passing of which is a first step to pave the way for the Dublin Docklands Development Authority to prepare a planning scheme for a substantial area of the Poolbeg Peninsula. For the benefit of the committee, I wish to outline the legal background to this motion and explain the operation of the planning scheme approach that has been such an important tool in the development and regeneration of the Dublin docklands area.
Section 25 of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997 provides that the authority may prepare a planning scheme for the Custom House docks area and any other area specified for that purpose by order of the Minister. However, where it is proposed to make such an order, section 6 of the Act provides that it be laid in draft before each of the Houses of the Oireachtas and that it shall not be made without a resolution of approval from each House.
A planning scheme indicates the manner in which the authority considers the relevant area should be redeveloped and sets out policies on land use, distribution and location of development, overall design, transportation, the development of amenities and conservation. Section 25 of the 1997 Act also provides that development certified by the authority to be consistent with a planning scheme shall be exempted development for the purposes of the Planning and Development Act.
The advantages of a planning scheme in an appropriate area include increased certainty for developers, more rapid decision-making on development proposals compared to the normal planning process, and better integration of development and infrastructure provision. There is also the opportunity to involve the local community in planning issues from the outset in the preparation of a scheme.
This planning scheme approach was considered appropriate to facilitate the rapid and integrated development of the Custom House docks area, which had a large amount of disused property that had been in public ownership. However, it was recognised that a similar approach would not necessarily be appropriate for the wider docklands. This is the rationale underlying the requirement for Oireachtas approval of any order under section 25 of the 1997 Act.
Given the special nature of the planning powers involved, the authority has applied very strict criteria in identifying areas for section 25 planning schemes. The principal criteria used relate to the extent of the need for redevelopment by reason of obsolescence, vacant condition, under-utilisation, or dereliction; the significance of barriers to investment or redevelopment by virtue of ground contamination or lack of infrastructure; the extent of isolation from immediate established third party interests, such as neighbouring residential development; and the need for intervention to achieve the objectives of the authority's master plan with regard to its social, economic and physical planning policies, and secure appropriate integrated development, especially where there are complex land use issues to be addressed. The authority's master plan, adopted in 1997 and updated in 2003, identifies just three areas outside of the Custom House docks area as being suitable for the application of planning schemes.
A planning scheme for the Grand Canal docks area was made in 2000, while a scheme for the North Lotts area was made in 2002. Both schemes were amended in 2006. The Poolbeg Peninsula is the third area the authority considers to satisfy its criteria and where necessary redevelopment can best be achieved through the section 25 process. Accordingly, the authority has now formally requested that the Minister exercise his powers to specify part of the peninsula for the purposes of making such a scheme.
In terms of the objectives of the national spatial strategy, the peninsula is essentially a brownfield area in good proximity to the city centre, and would be considered a very suitable location for intensive urban development, subject to the protection of local character and amenities. The proposed planning scheme area excludes those parts of the peninsula that already house or are earmarked for major infrastructure, namely, power generation stations, the wastewater treatment plant, the site intended for the proposed waste-to-energy plant, and a container storage area used for port operations. Following consideration of all submissions, the authority will finalise the scheme and then submit it to the Minister who, following consultation with the Minister for Finance and consideration of any objections from Dublin City Council, may approve it with or without modification.
The authority believes that an integrated, high quality, high density mixed-use development in Poolbeg, in line with the objectives of the Dublin development plan and the authority's master plan, is the most sustainable use of the available land, both socially and economically, and will help meet the housing, employment, community, cultural and recreational needs of the docklands area and the wider city. The authority considers itself uniquely placed, using the proposed planning powers, to deliver these objectives. In doing so it would work in collaboration with the city council, the Rail Procurement Agency, Dublin Port, the ESB, and other stakeholders.
The rejuvenation of the Dublin docklands has been an outstanding success. The vision was one of integrated physical, economic and social regeneration and by any standard it is being delivered. We are entering the final third of the projected 15-year timescale for this enterprise. The planning scheme approach has been at the heart of the redevelopment of the docklands, providing coherence and an accelerated planning process that has delivered high quality integrated development.
The lands at Poolbeg represent an important opportunity for the establishment of a modern sustainable urban quarter based on public transport and strategically located close to the city centre. The implementation of a planning scheme for the area will facilitate the more rapid achievement of this goal and guarantee that the authority can secure the social and public infrastructure objectives of its master plan. It is essential that we support the authority in what it is trying to achieve in the Poolbeg area and, accordingly, I have no hesitation in commending this motion to the committee.
The Dublin Docklands Development Authority is a very progressive and productive organisation. I visited the area in the company of the Fine Gael leader, Deputy Kenny, and was impressed by the work that has been done there. I fully support the motion as a positive interaction with communities in areas which have fallen into dereliction. It shows the light hand of the State in intervening in a constructive way to allow the authority to generate its own policies as a one-stop-shop for the planning process. A one-stop-shop allows proposals to be discussed and a decision made within a specific timeframe and without appeal. The community involvement which is critical to the success of projects requires co-operation, integration and listening to residents.
I am impressed by the authority's insistence on a mix of social and affordable housing. In an area such as the docklands, where apartments are very expensive, the management of affordable and social housing is to be commended. The community has been integrated and a once derelict part of the city has been given a new lease of life. That example should be extended to other parts of our cities and towns. I wholeheartedly support the idea of a one-stop-shop for planning which does not allow appeals to An Bord Pleanála in certain specific zoned areas urgently needing regeneration, provided the community is consulted and involved.
I am very pleased to be associated with this initiative. As Minister for Finance, I was instrumental in establishing the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. In my first budget speech, I called for a study of the area, which with the co-operation of my colleague in the Custom House, Deputy Howlin, resulted in the legislation being passed on 1 May 1997. I do not think any of us thought ten years ago that we would see so much physical rejuvenation in the area by an organisation which has a sell-by date to avoid perpetuating itself. As the Minister of State correctly noted, the authority is in the last third of its 15-year project timeframe.
The community council representatives on the board of the semi-State body work in a two-tiered structure below executive directors, the chairperson and the board of directors to represent stakeholders' interests, including the local community, large landholders and semi-State agencies such as Dublin City Council. At the behest of local community representatives, this council insisted on 20% social and affordable housing in 1997, at a time when there was no such provision anywhere else. The demand was resisted because it was a step in the dark and some people were not clear about where it might lead. It is to the eternal credit of the DDDA that it never sought money in lieu of a commitment to meet that provision, as Deputy O'Dowd has noted. For reasons I sometimes do not appreciate or understand, Dublin City Council and other local authorities have exacerbated problems in housing provision by taking cash that disappeared into their funds.
This project will not work unless the Luas is able to cross two rivers to make its way through the peninsula. Difficult planning work will have to be done before we can realise the potential of the area. The Minister of State is correct that this is an enabling motion to allow a planning scheme to be prepared. That scheme will go on public exhibition following consultation and inputs from a range of local and national players, and the signing off process can be completed if agreement is achieved. My constituency colleague, Deputy Gormley, will agree that many concerns exist, although their articulation would be premature at this stage in the process.
We need to ensure that a clear and open consultative mechanism is in place to enable meaningful participation. Such a mechanism would be a marked contrast to the Stalinist imposition of the incinerator, which is an abrogation of every principle of local democracy. The elected representatives of the local authority have had no role in it. The city manager is implementing a policy at the behest of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Government, even though it faces virtually unanimous opposition from members of Dublin City Council. However, that is another day's work and we will await the outcome of the planning process commencing on 18 April.
With regard to the integrated urban rejuvenation project, this motion opens the process in a consultative and democratic way, so I am happy to support it.
I must declare an interest because I live in the docklands. I have seen vast improvements thanks to the activities of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and people who come to visit from abroad are usually impressed by what they see. This is particularly the case on the southside, although I may be biased in that regard. The developments in the area of Pearse Street, including the new building by Daniel Libeskind, are very exciting. Comparisons are invidious but the DDDA's approach can be compared favourably to the redevelopment of O'Connell Street. It certainly offers lessons for other redevelopment projects. I recently became aware that people in Wales were impressed by the docklands model and want to copy it.
Deputy Quinn referred to certain concerns, such as the Luas. My party is strongly in favour of the extension of the Luas and I see it as a prerequisite for development. The Minister of State qualified his support for the Luas line by saying it would be developed in due course. In my discussions with the DDDA, it has made clear that the Luas is a prerequisite because the development cannot progress otherwise. We have seen how successful the Luas has been and its popularity has meant it has been over-subscribed. By passing through Ringsend and Sandymount, it could transform the area. The local residents deserve nothing less because the No. 3 bus has entered folklore.
People are still waiting for it.
They are still waiting for it in Ringsend. If a brand new shiny Luas passed through the area, it would be a fantastic development. The last thing we want to see is the construction of the Dodder bridge with only a No. 3 crossing it. That will not cut the mustard as far as I am concerned.
I was somewhat alarmed to learn of the transfer deal regarding Lansdowne Road. A rumour passed around that Bernard McNamara was going to take over Lansdowne Road. We held a housing conference in the area not so long ago, attended by Mr. Bernard McNamara, the developer. He made it very clear he was committed to 20% of the development being for social and affordable housing, which is absolutely vital. All the Deputies from the area are confronted by the housing shortage when people visit us in our clinics. If we had genuinely integrated development, involving social and affordable housing, it would transform the area.
A development of this scale will necessarily attract an influx of people from outside but local people also deserve to be housed in good accommodation with adequate facilities. Too often the ancillary facilities in such developments, such as playgrounds and schools, are forgotten about but they must be part of the mix. People will raise such issues during consultation and will ask about how sensitively issues concerning the beach will be handled. They will ask about the potential for flooding and that must also be considered.
The incinerator is totally incompatible with housing development in the area. How can we allow 500 trucks to drive past residents every day? It does not make sense but the Dublin Docklands Development Authority would love to have the site for the incinerator as it would be a perfect site for such a development.
This is not a case of NIMBY. Deputy Quinn referred to consultations with people but the waste water treatment plant received the support of the vast majority of people in the area, because they saw it as a good thing for the city. What has happened subsequently has changed that but the people of my area have not been found wanting when it comes to supporting beneficial projects. A major incinerator, the height of Liberty Hall and the length of Croke Park, is going too far and people cannot accept it. There is no access to the plant and the Luas will not be able to transport the waste to and from it, meaning it will be the job of huge trucks. I hope the Dublin Docklands Development Authority intervenes with a strong case concerning the incinerator because it does not fit in with our plans. With those caveats, I am enthusiastic about the Dublin docklands as a site and the authority will have my support in this matter.
I thank members for being so positive on the proposals. I reiterate my view that the Dublin Docklands Development Authority has set an example to others in regard to the 20% social and affordable housing target and has shown there is very little excuse for anybody to put financial remuneration above the provision of social and affordable housing. In that regard I am ad idem with members.
The extension of the Luas was designed to increase the development capacity of the area and was signalled in 2006. An amendment to the North Lotts planning scheme foresaw the Luas extending eastwards beyond the Point Theatre. The Dublin Docklands Development Authority has already initiated discussions with the RPA about this possibility and I understand the initial response has been extremely positive.
Deputy Gormley also raised planning issues and I know he would not expect me to comment on them in any way, as they are matters for another day.
I thank the Minister for his attendance. Is it agreed the committee recommends no further debate on the motion in the Dáil and Seanad? Agreed. A report on the committee's consideration of the motion will be laid before both Houses. A draft report is before members. Is the draft report agreed? Agreed.