DraftDevelopmentPlan: Councillors' proposal that land zoned 'institutional' can only be used for social/affordable housing will result in less of that housing being built, argues property consultant Kevin Nowlan.
The revised Draft Dublin City Development Plan, which was published this week, has a nasty surprise for institutional landowners.
Many such property owners were considering selling their land in Dublin city to fund pensions for their ageing communities and to provide modern community and public buildings on smaller portions of their lands.
If the proposals in the draft plan are included in the final version of the plan then the financial managers of these institutions better think again as their treasure troves may have turned to ashes.
What has happened? The city councillors, many of whom are new to their responsibilities, have, against the advice of the professional planners and city management, decided that any land zoned "Z15"or "institutional zoning" cannot be used for normal residential development but only for social and affordable housing if not required for institutional or community use.
The result is that such land in the city centre that would have sold at up to €5 million per acre will be reduced to a fraction of this value if this proposal is implemented into the new plan.
This is because the value of land for social and affordable development is defined in the 2000 Planning Act as "the existing use value" of the relevant land and the existing use of the majority of these lands is as open space or as very old buildings.
The councillors argue that they are protecting public open space and the future open spaces of the city. In reality, the land that they propose sterilising is, in most instances, not accessible to the public - it is located behind walls and railings and will only become available to the public if it is sold for development.
Under the provisions of the old development plan, any development on Z15 lands has to provide 20 per cent of the land as public open space, i.e., as open land accessible to the public. If the councillors are unhappy with the 20 per cent open space currently provided under the zoning, they should consider amending this element of the development plan rather than neutralising these lands completely.
If this section of the development plan goes unchallenged or unchanged what will happen? The answer is nothing at all. The institutions will sit on their land for a further six years and hope that, at another round of the development plan merry-go-round, that the policy will be changed. Why would they sell if they were not going to gain anything?
Indeed no social and affordable housing will be built on such lands because the city cannot easily CPO religious lands and thus this method of forcing the institutions to sell will not be open.
In fact the city, which has been successfully promoting social integration through part 5 of the Planning Act, will hardly want to see pure social and affordable development on a single site. While the proposal is possibly laudable as a social objective it has not been properly thought through.
The ultimate loser for such land not coming forward for development will be the city and those people who want to live in the city area. It will result in even greater pressure on development in the suburbs and would lead to a requirement for the State to fund new schools and similar facilities that are going unused or underused within the city.
The councillors should be taking a pragmatic view about land zoned for institutional use. If these lands are brought forward for development then they will be snapped up by developers who would provide about 40 residential units per acre thereon.
Under the Planning Act 2000 up to 20 per cent of such houses must to be provided as social and affordable units at significantly discounted prices. As discussed above, if developed, 20 per cent of this land will also become public open space.
Thus for every acre of Z15 land brought forward for development there would be about eight social/affordable houses provided. Therefore if, say, 200 acres of such land came forward in the six-year term of the development plan, this would provide about 1,600 new social/affordable homes that would otherwise not be built in Dublin city and create around 40 acres of open space which otherwise would not be set aside.
The councillors should see the opportunity as one for securing a "win win" situation for the community, the institutions and the new homeowners and not one for ignoring the fundamental laws of supply and demand.
By proposing the current development plan amendment the councillors will not increase the quantity of open space in Dublin city. They will in fact reduce the amount of open space that would have been created over the period of the new development plan if the current Z15 zoning was left unchanged. This proposal will also reduce the number of social and affordable units created within the new development plan period.
If the councillors do not change the provisions of the draft plan to allow normal residential development on Z15 lands, then WK Nowlan & Associates will be advising its institutional clients to postpone any plans for sales of their surplus lands and await for common sense to prevail in our civic leaders.
My advice to property owners affected by the proposed policy is to contact your property/planning advisor and your local councillors as soon as possible.
Kevin Nowlan is a chartered surveyor and property development consultant giving strategic advice to institutions and property owners. He is a partner in W K Nowlan & Associates
