Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
COUNCILS WILL BE able to transfer state lands to the Land Development Agency without a vote from councillors under a new Bill aimed at “clearing blockages” and “driving on development” of house construction.
The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Darragh O’Brien today published the Land Development Agency Bill which puts the State agency- tasked to fully utilise state lands to build affordable homes – on a statutory basis.
The LDA was established as a State agency in September 2018 with an aim to build 150,000 new homes over the next 20 years.
Today, O’Brien said he will be able to specify the affordability requirement for the delivery of affordable homes for sale or rent on public lands.
This affordability requirement can be varied on sites in different areas depending on local housing needs, he said.
It will provide services to local authorities for the development of large scale multi-tenure sites for housing in urban centres over 30,000, and will assist with the construction of increased social housing on local authority owned sites, said the minister.
The agency was first launched to much fanfare by the then Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and then Housing Minister Eoghan Murphy.
At the time, Varadkar said the new agency “will have teeth” and “will hit the ground running”, stating that having a strategic plan in place for housing will end the “boom-bust cycles” of the past and ensure there is a long-term plan in housing delivery.
He added that the new agency will be viewed in the future to be just as pivotal as the establishment of the ESB and the IDA.
O’Brien said today that the new agency will be key to driving up housing delivery.
“Local Authorities can transfer lands to the LDA without requiring a council vote, accelerating the process, clearing blockages and driving on development.
“Ultimately, through this Bill, the LDA will be empowered to provide homes for affordable purchase, cost rental and social housing – another step in the Government’s direction of ‘Housing for All’,” he concluded.
Sinn Féin’s housing spokesperson has criticised the Bill stating that it undermines local democracy and forces councils to use public land for “unaffordable private housing”.
He also said there is a meaningless definition of what is deemed “affordable”.
In 2018, Murphy came in for criticism when he said government policy classes affordable as individuals earning up to €50,000 or a couple earning up to €75,000.
“And then when we talk about house prices we talk about €320,000 generally in the Greater Dublin area, Cork and Galway and €250,000 in other parts of the country. So we will be working towards those sort of affordability requirements that already exist as part of government policy,” said Murphy.
However, since then, the general scheme of the Bill was subsequently revised in October 2020 in accordance with the priorities for the LDA in the new Programme for Government, with the minister stating now he will be able to specify the affordability requirement.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Better off spending their money policing what they already have . Saw guy 2.30 in afternoon last week urinating in middle of boardwalk beside O Connell bridge as tourists and children walking by. Drug and alcohol abuse rife in heart of city. Spend the money on cleaning the place up.
@DB: I think you’ll find that building a bridge to connect the two largest growing commercial centres in Dublin, and policing drug abuse/public disorder matters, are NOT the same thing…
@Jodi: thank you for that. As a taxpayer who is partly paying for this I’m simply pointing out I would rather clean up the city first then spend more money on infrastructures. Your point would be relevant if the commercial institutions were paying for this they are not we are and at the moment the city needs in my opinion more security then new bridges. But each to their own.
@DB:
Mate, the amount of tax you put in wouldn’t pay for either of those things. What you’d prefer is rather irrelevant to what is going to happen.
@DB: But I want MY taxes spent on the bridge… So…
@DB: Have you heard the word of budgets…
@DB: A significant part of DCCs budget comes from companies paying rates. A tiny part comes from local property tax. The rest comes from government who make a big part of their taxtake from corporate tax.
The first 19 lines in this article say the same thing over n over .
@Eugene Walsh: and New Wrapping Street is wrong.
@David Dickson: wats wong
@Eugene Walsh: no they don’t
the rickshaws will make good use of this
Cant see anything in the picture blinded by all the skyscrapers
@Jim: I think you’re looking at a pic of Canary Wharf instead? ;)
@Jim: The dock lands is turning into Dubai or manhattan. Stop this craziness. City center should be three bed semis only. We are loosing the run of ourselves
I’m not surprised the Government are investing more money into Dublin, They always seem to forget about the rest of the country?……….
This money could be invested into employing more SNAs in rural areas, buying more technological equipment to aid children who need these to learn in class or it could be spent on trying to repair the hearing and lives of the children and family who suffered at the hands of the HSE. Not on Dublin and their bloody bicycle problems. The rest of the country is dying of death and it’s the Government’s fault for not spreading and spending their money efficiently and effectively to benefit all parties.
@Dearbhla Jones: It might seem that way but in terms of per capita investment the State spends roughly eight times more providing essential services to rural dwellers than to those living in large cities and numerous studies in this area have shown this. Additionally, since Dublin is the engine of the Irish economy and Dublin citizens pay significantly more in property tax for similarly sized dwellings then any development that benefits Dublin can also be said to indirectly benefit the country as a whole and helps to subsidize our rural dwelling brethren.
@Dearbhla Jones: Why should Dublin City Council pay for a load of stuff in the country? You get this is a local government decision, right?
@Sean: this should be an automated response to every “all ye in Dublin get it all and we gets nattin out here” comment
@Dearbhla Jones: This is Dublin City Council money. The house tax money, the money that central government get and give back out. Dublin does not receive the amount it pays in ayig for other less populated counties. In other words, we can spend OUR money where we want. If people dont want to live in parts of the country that is not Dublin’s fault nor governments
It’s for the central bank staff surely. Though I’d be happy to see a bridge there.
At this rate it be easier to fully cover in the river and then there be plenty of space for cyclists, bus corridors or whatever else.
Always thought that that auld drain running through the city could be usefully covered over!
I’m more interested in hearing what ‘Campshires’ are, and why is a street called ‘Blood Stoney’?
@Fiona Fitzgerald: Blood Stoney was an engineer, he designed most of the quays
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bindon_Blood_Stoney
The council are not responsible for policing.
dumping cyclists into the middle of pedestrians does not work here or in the UK. This is a known fact.
Finally, great idea!!!
have your say