Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 2 November 2021
246. Deputy Neasa Hourigan asked the Minister for Finance his plans to amend the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009 to direct receivers to leave tenants in situ during sale of properties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52057/21]
View answer247. Deputy Neasa Hourigan asked the Minister for Finance if NAMA can provide a map and details of lands it holds by location, size, planning permission and commercial viability analysis, respectively. [52058/21]
View answer253. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Minister for Finance if NAMA will make available a map and the details of land that NAMA holds by location, size, planning permission and commercial viability analysis; the details of its property portfolio locations and vacant units; the details of the person or body NAMA is selling its property to and the amount; if NAMA receivers are evicting any tenants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52075/21]
View answer265. Deputy Joan Collins asked the Minister for Finance the persons or bodies NAMA is selling its property to; the amount they are being sold for; and if NAMA receivers are evicting tenants. [52441/21]
View answer266. Deputy Joan Collins asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide a map and details of land that NAMA holds including location, size, planning permission and commercial viability analysis; and if he will provide a list of its property portfolio including locations and vacant units. [52442/21]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 246, 247, 253, 265 and 266 together.
As the deputies may be aware, assets often referred to as "NAMA land" or "NAMA properties" are not owned by NAMA. NAMA owns loans. Such property is owned by private persons or companies who owe money to NAMA (“NAMA debtors”) and serves as collateral for those amounts owed.
I am advised that Sections 99 and 202 of the NAMA Act prohibit NAMA from disclosing confidential debtor information, including inter alia information on the specific location of assets owned by NAMA’s debtors, details on the purchasers of properties sold by NAMA’s debtors and receivers, or the sales prices attained. I will therefore respond to the deputies’ questions within this context.
I would firstly draw the deputies’ attention to the fact that, to date, NAMA has directly facilitated the delivery of 13,000 residential units on secured sites and a further 8,900 units have been built on sites which benefitted from NAMA funding but which were subsequently sold by current and former NAMA debtors and receivers.
I wish to point out that there has recently been some uninformed commentary on the amount of residential units that NAMA can and has delivered. It is important in that context to set out the factual situation regarding the restrictions under which NAMA operates.
- Firstly, NAMA does not own the development sites in its portfolio; rather these are owned by private entities (debtors). NAMA cannot force them to act in a manner which may hinder or reduce their repayment capacity.
- Secondly, NAMA must act in a market conform way; meaning the Agency cannot provide preferential funding terms to its debtors.
- Thirdly, many of the sites in NAMA’s portfolio are simply not suitable for residential development at present owing to a lack of appropriate planning, zoning, or essential infrastructure and services (roads, water, sewerage, utilities).
- Fourthly, the growth in property values has allowed a number of NAMA debtors to refinance their debt and exit NAMA with their landbanks. These sites will be developed with funding from their new lenders.
- Finally, under NAMA’s legislation, commercial viability is the most important and relevant criterion for NAMA-funded residential development. This basically means that NAMA can only finance developments that are expected to yield a profit – this is an important demonstration that NAMA is in compliance with EU State Aid rules.
On this basis, NAMA expects to directly deliver a further 2,000+ units from its secured portfolio.
Table 1 illustrates NAMA’s delivery potential based on the viability and profile of the remaining sites with planning permission in NAMA’s portfolio. I am advised that delivery of the 2,000+ units in the first 2 rows, (a) and (b), where it is indicated that funding is approved or under consideration, will be extremely challenging. NAMA’s objective is to make the sites under (d) and (e) as shovel ready as possible by achieving planning before disposal. The sites under (f) will only likely become available post-2025, but it is important to asset manage them between now and then by trying to resolve infrastructure and zoning, and ultimately planning.
Table 1: NAMA Residential Delivery Pipeline
|
NAMA delivery potential |
(a) Under construction (600 units) or with funding approved (900 units) |
1,500 units |
|
(b) Planning permission granted and funding under consideration |
800 units |
|
|
Future delivery by private developers |
(c) Planning permission granted but will be sold or refinanced by debtors |
2,000 units |
|
(d) Planning applications lodged and under consideration by the planning authorities |
800 units |
|
|
Long term (post-2025) |
(e) Planning applications being prepared |
3,200 units |
|
(f) Longer term potential subject to viability, planning, various infrastructural requirements and zoning |
11,700 units |
|
|
Total |
20,000 units |
|
Land Assets
I am advised that NAMA debtors and receivers own an estimated 426 hectares of land that is potentially suitable for residential development in Ireland between now and 2035. It should be noted that only 63 hectares of this land has planning permission; the remaining 363 hectares does not yet have planning. Table 2 sets out the size, unit capacity, and local authority area of residential land with planning permission securing NAMA’s loan portfolio. This data excludes sites which are currently under construction or where funding is approved for construction (circa 1,500 units). NAMA regularly assesses the feasibility of sites with planning permission and, where development is deemed commercially viable, NAMA provides funding for the delivery of new residential units on the sites.
Table 2: Sites with planning permission
|
Local Authority Area |
Potential Units |
Site area (hectares) |
|
Cork County Council |
24 |
4 |
|
Dublin City Council |
199 |
3 |
|
Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council |
745 |
14 |
|
Fingal County Council |
411 |
15 |
|
South Dublin County Council |
817 |
15 |
|
Wicklow County Council |
549 |
12 |
|
2,745 |
63 |
Table 3 details residential zoned land without planning permission owned by NAMA debtors and receivers. This data includes sites where planning permission is lodged, being prepared or which are subject to pre-planning and feasibility assessments. The development of the majority of sites in Table 3 can only occur over the medium to long term.
Table 3: Sites without planning permission
|
Local Authority Area |
Potential Units |
Site area (hectares) |
|
Cork County Council |
300 |
32 |
|
Dublin City Council |
7,400 |
94 |
|
Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council |
720 |
7 |
|
Fingal County Council |
4,751 |
136 |
|
Kildare County Council |
1,340 |
37 |
|
Meath County Council |
415 |
9 |
|
South Dublin County Council |
110 |
10 |
|
Wexford County Council |
436 |
15 |
|
Wicklow County Council |
219 |
23 |
|
15,691 |
363 |
Additionally, NAMA holds security over 212 hectares of unzoned land which is not yet included in any local authority development plans.
Vacant Units
As regards NAMA’s remaining property portfolio, the majority of the units are already rented. I am advised that there are 26 vacant and habitable residential units currently available to let within NAMA’s secured portfolio. This figure is at a point in time and reflects some of the frictional vacancy typical in a functioning property portfolio. I would point out that this figure excludes properties that are on the market for sale, being prepared for imminent sale, or contracted for sale and as a result are not available currently for letting. The figure also excludes properties that require fitout works or have a legal or other issue which needs to be resolved before they can be either rented or sold. NAMA debtors or receivers do not request people with leases to exit the property pre sale. NAMA is currently working with its debtors and receivers regarding appropriate strategies for these units, which includes assessing the suitability of the units for social housing. While NAMA does not own residential properties, it ensures that its debtors and receivers keep vacant periods in residential properties to a minimum and in instances where Local Authorities express an interest in any vacant units, NAMA facilitates the purchase of the units at market value.
Property Sales
NAMA’s legislation requires the Agency to obtain the best achievable value for its assets. I am advised that it is NAMA policy that sales of secured properties by debtors and receivers are openly marketed; accordingly, properties are typically sold to the highest bidder. Purchasers range from first-time-buyers to multi-national property investors. While NAMA cannot divulge the identity of purchasers, I am advised the majority of NAMA-funded newly built residential units are sold to individual purchasers.
Receiver Obligations
The deputies will be aware that receivers have independent fiduciary duties which they must fulfil and cannot take an action which would reduce a debtor’s repayment capacity, such as the sale of property at less than its market value. I, as Minister for Finance, have no role in respect of these obligations. That being said, I am advised that NAMA receivers do not typically seek vacant possession of residential properties before they are offered to the market for sale; this is particularly true for larger block sales of residential units. In cases where vacant possession is required, I am advised that, where possible, existing tenants are offered the opportunity to purchase the relevant property at market value.
