Public consulation on Development Levies

Fingal County Council has published a draft Development Contributions Scheme to cover the 5 years from 2015 to 2020. Details here.

I will be responding by the deadline of 25th November myself. My thoughts so far are as follows:

  • ​The scheme involves the making of a list of projects which are to be funded by the scheme.This list is not binding in the sense that money doesn’t have to go on the projects on the list and new projects can be funded through the scheme. However, clearly projects on the list thereby get a sense of priority.  I’m not sure but it seems that full implementation of the GDA cycle network isn’t on the list. I will be looking to include this vital infrastructure; if there is any other infrastructure project that has been overlooked, please identify it. Other infrastructure which I will be suggesting for inclusion:
    • Road and street redesign to to ensure compliance with the Design Manual for Urban Streets and Roads;
    • Works to improve access to and amenity at beaches
  • The proposal is that development contribution rates​ remain unchanged. This is predicted to lead to a shortfall of €31m or about 10%. If this happens then infrastructure which we have identified as essential will be unfunded.
  • Commercial/industrial and residential development are levied at different rates. When I asked why this was I was told because they require different levels of infrastructural expenditure. In fact the commercial/industrial rate is simply 78% of the residential rate for all of the types of infrastructure (transport, surface water, parks) to be funded. That this is not related to the associated infrastructure cost is demonstrated by the fact that the same surface area of development attracts different charges for provision of surface water infrastructure depending on whether its residential or commercial. At a first glance it seems daft that at a time of housing demand in Dublin and when we have large quantities of derelict/empty commercial property we would effectively subsidise commercial at the expense of the residential.
  • Car parking is proposed to be exempt, which it shouldn’t be  (10(i)(j))

I encourage everyone to make your own submissions.