List of Persons or Bodies who made submissions and the issues raised in these submissions

Transcription

1 MEETING OF DÚN LAOGHAIRE-RATHDOWN COUNTY COUNCIL 14 DECEMBER 2015 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 (As amended) SECTION 48(6) DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION SCHEME, 2016 to 2020 CHIEF EXECUTIVE S REPORT Part 1 Introduction The Chief Executive s Report advised the Elected Members at the 14 September 2015 County Council meeting that a Draft Development Contribution Scheme (2016 to 2020) under Section 48 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, had been prepared for public display. The Report was noted and it was agreed that the public display period would commence. Following this meeting, notice that Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council had prepared a Draft Development Contribution Scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, was advertised in the Irish Independent on the 18th of September The notice advised that a copy of the Draft Development Contribution Scheme was available for public inspection at the Planning Department, at the Concourse County Hall, the Dundrum Office, Council s Libraries and on the Council s web site. A copy of the Draft Scheme was also circulated to the Members, to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government and to the Local Enterprise Office. Submissions or observations with respect to the Draft Scheme were accepted up to 5pm on Friday 30 th October The Chief Executive is required, not later than four weeks following receipt of submissions, to prepare a Report on the submissions received and to submit same to the Elected Members. The Chief Executive s Report is set out below. The Act provides that the Scheme shall be made by the Council not later than six weeks after the receipt of the Chief Executive s Report, unless the Council decides, by resolution, to vary or modify the Scheme, otherwise than as recommended in the Chief Executive s Report, or otherwise decides not to make the Scheme. Part 2 List of Persons or Bodies who made submissions and the issues raised in these submissions As required by Section 48 (5) of the Planning and Development act, 2000, as amended, a copy of the Draft Scheme was sent to the Minister of the Department of the Environment Community and Local Government. No submission was received. Further, in accordance with the Development Contribution Guidelines for Planning Authorities, January 2013, and Circular Letter PD5/2007 the Draft Development Contribution Scheme was submitted to the Local Enterprise Office. 1

2 Ten submissions were received within the prescribed consultation period (see Table 1 below). The issues and concerns contained within the respective submissions received are set out within said Table 1. Table 1 : Submissions Received and Issues/Concerns Raised No. Received from / On Issues / Concerns Raised behalf of 1 Construction Industry Federation (CIF) While the levy contribution reductions of recent years are welcomed, they are still considered inadequate to address difficulties experienced by the construction industry in that contribution rates are a major consideration regarding the viability of a development. CIF consider that the following items should be taken into consideration in reviewing the Contribution Scheme : 1. The Draft Development Contribution Scheme (DCS) must recognise the existence of the local property tax regime. There should be no duplication of costs for service provision. Signage should be posted on sites identifying projects to be funded by DCSs. 2. A significant reduction in development levy rates is required to reflect changes in market values. 3. Often the current cost of construction exceeds the market value of completed development. Financial institutions are unwilling to finance upfront costs e.g. development levies. 4. A flexible approach to the determination of payment of the DC rate will help bridge the deficit between construction costs and current depressed market values and lack of available funding. 5. When allocating anticipated cost, costs and benefits associated with the existing development should be stripped, out as well as costs associated with anticipated new development during the life of the Scheme. 6. The range and scale of development projects to be funded must be realistic and essential. The appropriateness of long term projects unlikely to be commenced during the Scheme s lifetime are questioned. 7. CIF recommends a mechanism be established whereby a credit adjustment can be applied for levies already collected or where projects are cancelled/postponed. 8. The Council should also prepare and publish yearly progress reports on current and completed infrastructure projects funded from DCs. 2 Mr M. Reynolds 1. An objection to the Draft Levies is stated. It is considered that the purpose of the Levies is to generate monies to pay for the wages, salaries, pensions and expenses of Council officials. 2. It is submitted that these taxes (levies) will stop/slow down building activity thereby slowing down economic recovery. 3 Mr M. Reynolds 1. It is considered that the main reason for these taxes (levies) is to pay the wages, salaries, pensions and expenses of Council Staff. 4 Sandyford Business District Association (SBDA) (Contact : Manahan Planners) 1. The charge proposed in the Draft Scheme per residential unit in Sandyford would be 46.7% higher than the rest of the County, and for offices, it will be 71.5% higher than elsewhere in the County. This is discriminatory and an anti-development measure and should be rejected totally. 2. The Sandyford Urban Framework Plan (UFP), , provides the strategic policy context to allow investment and development to take place in the Sandyford Business District. 2

3 No. Received from / On behalf of Issues / Concerns Raised The UFP provides a blueprint for a thriving community, a greatly increased workforce (additional 17,500 employees), additional commercial provision (350,000m2), the provision of housing (1,000 additional dwelling units), and enhanced retail, healthcare and leisure and community facilities. The introduction of the proposed charges will be counterproductive to the aims of the Development Plan. 5 Central Park GP Co PropCo Limited (Contact : John Spain Associates) Specific Town Planning Issues identified are as follows : 3. Draft County Development Plan, The SBDA made a submission to the current review of the County Development Plan, including in their comments that the SBD lands are a valuable resource and should be nurtured accordingly. It is submitted that the proposed charges will deter investment and development and further, create a competitive advantage for other areas e.g. Cherrywood. 4. Recent Approval of the Cherrywood Planning Scheme The SBDA s submission to An Bord Pleanála regarding that Scheme stated, amongst other points, that there needs to be a level playing field regarding how planning applications are dealt with for development in either Sandyford or Cherrywood into the future. Planning and Development Management Standards should be implemented equally in both areas. Based on the proposed charges, it would appear that an inequitable regime is being created whereby one development area will be paying much higher rates than all other areas. 5. Sandyford Urban Framework Plan The SBDA were very involved in the public consultation stage of the SUFP, and welcomed its adoption. It is now intended to subsume the UFP into the future 2016 CDP. In this regard, any intention to alter part of the UFP should be undertaken as an intrinsic part of the current CDP Review process. 6. Draft Development Contribution Scheme In all of the above submissions by the SBDA there is a concern that a differential would be created between the SBD and Cherrywood, thus giving the latter area more favourable terms by reducing their development contributions. It was, however, never considered that a differential would be created by increasing the DCs payable for the SBD. This is considered inequitable, unreasonable, unfair and discriminatory. In addition to the proposed charges in Sandyford being higher than elsewhere in the County, the SBD is in competition for inward investment against other Counties in the Dublin region. Charges in the other three Dublin Planning Authorities are across the board lower than those proposed for the Sandyford Business District area. 1. Request that Section 48 DCS includes for an appropriate reduction in development contributions for developments which have commenced construction based on an older Planning Permission which attracts financial contributions in excess of the current rates. In this regard : Block H at Central Park is currently under construction. The Commencement Notice predates the recently adopted Urban Regeneration and Housing Act, 2015, which Act provides that where a commencement notice has not been served then the 3

4 No. Received from / On behalf of 6 Tudor Homes (Contact : ILTP consulting) 7 Wm. O Riordan & D. McDonald Joint Receivers of Benreef Limited and Carlovent (both In Receivership) (Contact : John Spain Associates) Issues / Concerns Raised Planning Authority may apply reduced levies. The Section 48 DCs payable in respect of Block H are based in the rates applicable at the time of the Grant of Planning Permission (February 2009) rather than the current rate (said current rates are 42% less than the 2009 rates.) It is disingenuous to apply 2009 rates to the development. It is considered that the application of current Section 48 DCS rates to partly completed development will encourage the completion of such developments. It is submitted that a more equitable approach would be to include a provision in the proposed Draft DCS to allow the current rates of contribution to be applied to unbuilt elements of a proposed development. The following wording should be added to Section 10, Exemptions and Reductions, Where there are outstanding payments in accordance with a phased payment plan agreed with the County Council for a partly completed development, the current rates of development contribution will be applied to any outstanding payments. In the Cherrywood Planning Scheme, 2014, one of the critical steps to be addressed before any development can commence is the establishment of contribution scheme(s) or alternative measure by which to fund the provision of infrastructure and service. No Scheme has been forthcoming to date. Alternative Options to address this Pre-condition include : i. The Draft Section 48 Scheme appears to be applicable to development within the Cherrywood Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) lands, however, the common infrastructure within the Cherrywood Planning Scheme (CPS) is not included in the Draft Section 48 DCS. As common infrastructure within the CPS area benefits the wider community, this common infrastructure should be included in the Final Section 48 DCS. ii. To exclude the SDZ lands from the Section 48 DCS, and for a separate Contribution Scheme to be provided for the common infrastructure elements of the SDZ lands. iii. Since there are a number of landowners /developers involved in the SDZ, it is imperative that other parties and DLRCC put forward their respective proposals. 1. It is proposed that the lands covered by the Cherrywood SDZ Planning Scheme, 2014, should be the subject of a separate Section 48 Development Contribution Scheme (DCS). 2. As an alternative, in the absence of a separate Section 48 Scheme for the Cherrywood area, that Infrastructure required under the Cherrywood SDZ Planning Scheme should be included in the List of Projects (under Appendix II of the Draft Section 48 DSC, ). 8 BMA Planning 1. Support is given for the change in the Contribution Scheme to address ancillary car parking within residential and commercial development. However, it is considered that this issue requires additional clarity. In this regard : Car parking associated with a particular development (residential and commercial) should not be subject to additional DCs as this amounts to double counting. It is submitted that the definition of gross floor area as set out in Article 3 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 4

5 No. Received from / On behalf of 9 Hines Cherrywood Development Fund ICAV (Contact : BMA Planning) Issues / Concerns Raised 2001 (as amended), could be usefully employed in the DCS. The use of this definition means that the figure for gross floor area used in the calculation of DCs would (a) exclude ancillary (basement/other) parking and (b) be consistent with the figures for gross floor area as contained in the standard Planning Application form. Where car parking areas are reckonable for contributions, the Scheme should be very clear on how levies are applied. Note 2 pg. 5 of the Draft Scheme refers to gross area of a car park, while the Exemptions and Reductions section refers to the footprint of the development. A more practical measure may be to use rate per square metre and it should be clearly stated that only the parking space area (2.5 x 5 metres) is counted and not the circulation space. It is considered appropriate to make provision in the proposed Development Contribution Scheme for a separate Cherrywood SDZ Development Contribution Scheme. In this regard : 1. A separate Cherrywood SDZ DCS will allow an opportunity for DLRCC and the respective landowners to consider the specific and unique considerations which apply to Cherrywood SDZ. 2. A separate Cherrywood DCS will allow a means to secure the land delivery required for the delivery of common infrastructure. This may involve providing incentives to landowners to bridge the funding gap and facilitate the early delivery of infrastructure. 3. The Draft Scheme allows for subsequent separate DCSs to be prepared. It may be more appropriate and workable that levies for Cherrywood are determined with reference to one Section 48 Scheme for Cherrywood. 4. The Cherrywood SDZ Planning Scheme lands are also subject to the Section 49 Supplementary DCS. The cumulative levy burden needs to be considered. 5. Amendments sought include : i. Page 5. Amend Note 3 by deleting This will be in addition to the Countywide levy at the end of the paragraph. ii. Add Note 4, The Council intends to prepare a separate Section 48 Development Contribution Scheme for the area covered by the Cherrywood SDZ Planning Scheme, 2014 (including any revisions or amendments). This Scheme may cover contributions towards Cherrywood Common Infrastructure and other Countywide infrastructure. iii. Page 11, Insert in Appendix III PROJECT LIST, Cherrywood SDZ Planning Scheme Area only Cherrywood Common Infrastructure Infrastructure works to determined in the context of the Cherrywood SDZ Section 48 Development Contributions Scheme. 10 Councillor L. McGovern 1. With regard to the proposed Sandyford Urban Framework Plan (UFP) levies, an objection to the proposed additional levy increase is stated. Further consultation with the Stakeholders within the UFP area should be held and a reduction in levies sought in order to encourage enterprise and employment in the area. 5

6 Part 3 Responses and recommendations of the Chief Executive to the issues raised in the submissions The various issues raised in the submissions above have been grouped below and the Chief Executive has given a response and recommendation. 1. Financial contributions represent a double taxation when taking property tax into account, and contributions are a disincentive to construction activity. Section 48 Development contributions were first introduced in 2004 to contribute to the costs of public infrastructure which are capital costs. The Contribution Scheme is specifically to fund capital projects. The local property tax cannot be used to fund public infrastructure projects as defined by Section 48 of the Planning and Development 2000 Act as amended. The local property tax is used to contribute to the revenue (day to day) costs of the local authority. There is no duplication arising in this instance. 2. The levy contribution will be in addition to contributions payable to Irish Water. Following the establishment of Irish Water, the water and waste water contributions which were payable to the Planning Authority (PA) are now paid to Irish Water. 3. A reduction in rates would help to stimulate construction activity, and a reduction in levy rates is required to reflect market value changes. The Development Scheme Contributions are required to finance infrastructure that facilitates development. Since the introduction of the Section 48 Levy Scheme in the Planning and Development Act 2000 it is clear from the table below that this Local Authority has had regard to changes in the economic climate and has both reduced levies and not applied indexation to address same. It should be noted that the infrastructure funded by this levy supports future growth and is the primary source of funding for such infrastructure. 6

7 Section 48 Development Contribution Rates from YEAR Adopted 21 st January 2004 Ended 31/12/ Indexation of 9.39% 2006 Indexation of 3.62% 2007 Indexation of 7.78% 2008 Indexation of 3.05% RATE PER RESIDENTIAL RATE RESIDENTIAL UNIT EXT/COMMERCIAL AREA 11, per square metre 12, , , , , Adopted 14 December No indexation applied 2012 No indexation applied 2013 January 12 May only No indexation applied th May 31 st December No indexation applied 2014 Introduction of Irish Water 15, , , , , , , The application of indexation between 2010 and 2015, as allowed for by the Scheme, would have increased rates by an additional 16%. Therefore, if there had been no reductions and indexation had been applied development contributions would be over 40% higher than is now the case (not including the Irish Water reduction). In addition the following changes have been made by the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 which further reduced costs: The Part V requirement was reduced from 20% to 10% and Part V exemption now applies to sites for 9 or fewer houses where previously it applied to sites of 4 or fewer houses. Recent measures to enhance supply by applying the more recent lower rates to unsold residential units and developments which had not commenced will further assist in the stimulation of development. All these factors have been adopted to stimulate activity. Further measures concerning the rebating of development contributions to developers in respect of future developments of 50 units or more have recently been announced by the Department of the Environment Community and Local Government and further details are awaited. 7

8 It should also be noted as set out in the report circulated to members in September that this Draft Development Contribution Scheme has not been prepared based on a full cost recovery and that funding for this infrastructure will have to be augmented from other sources. 4. Signage should be posted on sites identifying projects to be funded by Development Contribution Schemes. Projects are funded from a number of sources and it would be unworkable to include all such details on this signage. The erection of signage identifying projects funded by development contributions would add to visual clutter. 5. Financial institutions are unwilling to finance upfront costs e.g. levies, and there is a need for flexibility in the payment of Development Contributions. Development levies are not necessarily an upfront cost. In the majority of cases, the Planning Authority facilitates phased payments of development levies when requested, subject to an agreement with the developer. Flexible terms may also include in some circumstances, allowing the payment of contributions right up to the closing date of the sale 6. Costs and benefits associated with both the existing and anticipated new developments should be stripped out. The Scheme has been prepared in accordance with the Department of Environment Community and Local Government s Development Contribution Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2013). The Scheme has apportioned contributions on a per unit/square metre basis having regard to the Core Strategy and the Projects List under Appendix II of the Scheme which reflects the infrastructural requirements for the period 2016 to The Development Projects to be funded during the period of the Scheme must be realistic, appropriate and essential. The Projects included on the Projects List under Appendix II of the Scheme reflect the infrastructural requirements for the period 2016 to 2020 which are necessary and appropriate in order to facilitate the projected development. 8

9 8. A credit adjustment should be applicable for levies already applied and/or for cancelled or postponed projects. An anticipated credit balance as at 31 December 2015 was applied and deducted from the Gross Costs of Projects for the period 2016 to This is in accordance with the recommended methodology contained in the Development Contribution Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2013). 9. The Council should prepare and publish yearly progress reports regarding Infrastructure Projects funded from Development Contributions. A Capital Programme is submitted for the information of the Elected Members on an annual basis. 10. The charge proposed for the Sandyford Area is higher than the rest of the County. This is inequitable, unreasonable, a disincentive to development and is counterproductive to the aims for the Sandyford Urban Framework Plan (SUFP) Area as set out in the 2010 County Development Plan. The importance of Sandyford Business District as a key economic growth area not alone for this County but for the State is recognised. The levy provides for the area s continued growth and the delivery of key infrastructure to provide for this growth. The Sandyford Urban Framework Plan was adopted as a Variation to the County Development Plan. The Urban Framework Plan as prepared, provides clear guidance on the form and nature of the future growth in the Sandyford Business District and the infrastructure required to support this level of growth. This Plan was produced to address constraints on development that were occurring within the Business District due to serious infrastructural limitations that were having a negative impact on the surrounding communities and had the potential to undermine strategic infrastructure. The Sandyford Urban Framework Plan identified a number of key infrastructural requirements necessary to unlock the future growth potential of Sandyford Business District. These included open space provision for both future residents and employees and roads including the ESB Link Road, Bracken Road Extension, etc. In addition investment was required in surface water management. To facilitate the continued growth of Sandyford Business District this infrastructure in tandem with a greater move to public transport and cycling provided the capacity to ultimately support the growth of 350,000sq.m. of office floor space and circa an additional 1,500 residential units. The Sandyford Urban Framework Plan 2011 and the Draft County Development Plan have at all 9

10 times been clear and consistent that this infrastructure that provides capacity will have to be funded by this future growth. This is included in page 51 Policy SUFP13 of the Urban Framework Plan included in the County Development Plan, : It is policy of the Council that facilities and services that benefit the development of the area will be funded by way of a special levy under Section 49 or an additional Section 48 Levy Scheme as facilitated by the Planning and Development Act Objectives, Funding. This policy is also included in the Draft County Development Plan, , Appendix 15. While concerns are raised in respect to development contributions for Sandyford being higher than other parts of the County by SBDA, it should be noted that since the approval of the Sandyford Urban Framework Plan conditions requiring a contribution to infrastructure that facilitates the development within the Sandyford Urban Framework Plan Area have been attached to permissions by way of a 48(2)(c). These have been in addition to the standard County wide 48 Development Contribution. At pre planning s the issue of the cost of infrastructure has been raised. This has not deterred development, but Section 48 (2)(c) is not a secure mechanism for ensuring that funding is in place to deliver infrastructure. Neither does Section 48(2)(c) provide the market with certainty in respect of costs. To fund the delivery of open spaces and roads required to enable the capacity of Sandyford Business District as envisaged in the Urban Framework Plan to be delivered an additional levy is required for development that benefits from this infrastructure as proposed in the Draft Scheme. This money will be ring fenced for investment and in accordance with the Sandyford Urban Framework Plan. It is recommended that the Draft Scheme is amended to make the purpose of the additional development contribution clear. The issue of Sandyford paying a higher levy than Cherrywood does not reflect the fact that the Draft Contribution Scheme does not provide for the internal infrastructure for Cherrywood. See response below at No. 13. Recommendation: To insert the following sentence under the Sandyford Table : The Sandyford Urban Framework Plan element of the Development Contribution shall be used solely to fund infrastructure identified in the Plan, as listed in Appendix 2 Sandyford Urban Framework Plan Area Only. 11. Further consultation with the Stakeholders within the Sandyford Urban Framework Plan area should be held. A meeting scheduled during the consultation period with Sandyford Business District Association had to be postponed due to unforeseen circumstances. A meeting has now taken place between the Executive and representatives of SBDA at which the rationale for the levy was explained and the Development Plan Policy underpinning it was highlighted. The clarification that the element of the scheme specific to the Sandyford Urban Framework Plan area would be ring fenced for projects that delivered the infrastructure required for the future growth of Sandyford Business District was welcomed. Recommendation: Addressed by point 10 10

11 12. The Section 48 Development Contribution Scheme should include for an appropriate reduction in development contributions for developments which have commenced construction based on an older Planning Permission which attracted financial contributions in excess of the current rates. The Urban Regeneration and Housing Act, 2015, is clear in the application of reductions in development contributions. Where a commencement notice has not been lodged or a house has not been sold, the lower contributions shall be applied. In the particular circumstance cited, Central Park Block H, the commencement notice has been served and the development does not include housing. It is therefore not possible to include the reduction suggested as there is no legal provision for doing so. Furthermore, the debit arising from this development will form part of the funding for the Draft Scheme. 13. Submissions request a separate levy scheme for Cherrywood that would address the issue of the funding of internal common infrastructure and a contribution towards the Countywide Levy having regard to the significant cost involved in delivering Cherrywood. The submissions request that a separate levy be brought forward early Alternatively it is proposed that the internal common infrastructure required be included in the Appendix. The draft levy scheme includes funding for strategic infrastructure projects that serve Cherrywood and also benefit surrounding communities for example, the bus corridors to Dún Laoghaire, the road crossing the M50 and linking Cherrywood to Kilternan and Stepaside, and the Greenways and cycle paths that link Cherrywood to its surrounding area. The draft scheme does not include internal infrastructure, that is, infrastructure that is common to the internal land parcels which are under separate ownership and that are required to develop what is primarily a green field site. It is proposed in a number of submissions that a separate Section 48 levy scheme be prepared for Cherrywood. Future residents in Cherrywood will benefit from the County wide infrastructure and, therefore, it is considered that development in Cherrywood, similar to other parts of the County should contribute to County wide costs. The cost of bringing forward internal infrastructure in Cherrywood is linked to the cost of the land required to do so, as the majority of land in Cherrywood is greenfield served by what can be characterised as rural infrastructure, the level of infrastructure required to facilitate future development in Cherrywood is significant and was clearly set out in the Planning Scheme. It should be noted that land that is purchased through the CPO process reflects the potential land uses that it facilitates and therefore is a significant proportion of the costs for infrastructure projects. DLR is the Development Agency for the Planning Scheme and is working to progress this issue. To this end work is being done on estimating and distributing potential costs of infrastructure within Cherrywood across the full potential of the lands with the intent that this cost either be agreed independently by the landowners or that the costs are distributed in a similar manner to that proposed for Sandyford where development in Cherrywood would carry a County Wide levy and a Cherrywood specific levy. It is not possible at this time to complete this exercise. 11

12 To this end and to address the issues raised in the submissions, it is proposed to clearly identify the area of Cherrywood within the Draft Countywide Levy Scheme and the contribution that development in Cherrywood is estimated to contribute over the 5 year life of the Scheme and to provide for this to be incorporated into a revised Cherrywood 48 levy Scheme, if required during the life of this Scheme. Any such revised Scheme would be subject to public consultation and the approval of the Council. Recommendation: (A) The following table is to be inserted following the Sandyford table: Cherrywood Planning Scheme (Comprising Countywide only) Class of Public Infrastructural Development Class 1: Community & Parks facilities & amenities Class 2: Roads infrastructure & facilities Class 3: Surface Water Infrastructure Total of Contributions Payable per unit of Residential Development per square metre of Domestic Extensions in excess of 40 sq.m per square metre of Industrial/ Commercial class of Development 3, , , Drawing No. PL shows the Cherrywood Planning Scheme Area In the preparation of the Draft Development Contribution Scheme it is anticipated that 2,000 residential units and 45,000 square metres of industrial /commercial development will be constructed during the life of the Scheme. (B) Drawing No. PL to be included as reference to the Cherrywood Planning Scheme Area above Amend Note 3 page 5 of Draft Development Contribution Scheme as follows Note 3: Should a particular geographical area require a higher level of financing for new services and infrastructure than is envisaged within this Development Contribution Scheme, then Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council reserves the right to prepare and adopt a separate Section 48 Development Contribution Scheme for that particular area. This will be in addition to the Countywide levy. This may, in particular, apply to the Cherrywood Planning Scheme Area. 12

13 14. The changes to the levy for car parking proposed within the draft scheme were welcomed, but it was considered that greater clarity should be provided as to how this would be applied. Chief Executive s Response : Having reviewed the draft document a revised wording is recommended that does not materially change the draft scheme but brings together the car parking elements in a manner that is clearer. In respect to surface car parking it is proposed to assess the amount of the levy on the basis of each car parking space being 12 sqm. Recommendation : To delete the following from the draft scheme Page 5 note 2 Note 2: With the exception of ancillary non residential surface carparking, the floor area of proposed development shall be calculated as the gross floor area. This means the gross floor area determined from the internal dimensions of the proposed buildings, including the gross floor area of each floor including mezzanine floors. In the case of ancillary non residential surface carparking the gross floor area will be determined from the gross area of the carpark. Page 6 bullet points inclusive Carparking in residential developments. Car parking in commercial developments which provides for basement car parking within the footprint of the commercial development. Non ancillary commercial car park is excluded from this exemption. (Note: This exemption does not include Park and Ride.) Car parking provision in commercial developments (excluding the above exemption) where a reduced rate of 25% will apply to ancillary non residential surface carparking. Insert the following exemptions for clarification: Car Parking Car parking in residential developments. Car parking integrated within a structure is exempt when ancillary to the commercial use of the structure. When not exempt, i.e. when use is non-ancillary, it will be measured on the basis of the gross floor area. Ancillary car parking is car parking that accord with the County Development Plan Car Parking Standards. 13

14 Surface car parking is leviable at 25% of the County wide rate. It will be assessed on the basis of each car parking space being 12 square metres. 15. The main reason for these taxes (levies) is to pay the wages, salaries, pensions and expenses of Council Staff. Development contribution levies are solely for the delivery of capital projects only. Recommendation : No Change to Draft Scheme. Part 4 Conclusion and Recommendation The adoption of the Scheme is a reserved function of the Council. This Scheme as submitted, varied or modified must be adopted within six (6) weeks of the Council receiving the Chief Executive s Report. It is recommended that the Draft Development Contribution Scheme attached herewith, which will cover the period 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2020 be adopted by the Council, subject to the recommended modifications in RED. Resolution: It is hereby resolved that this Council, in accordance with Section 48 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, (as amended) formally adopts the Draft Development Contribution Scheme as set out in the attached document titled Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council Draft Development Contribution Scheme subject to the modifications in RED. 14