Committee Reports::Report - Building Land::05 May, 1985::Orders of Reference

Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations


Issues raised in submissions to the Joint Committee fall under four heads:—

ensuring the best use of land

the supply and cost of building land

distribution of gains from increases in land values

problems in related policy areas such as housing, urbanisation and construction.

Supply, cost and the distribution of gains are central to the Committee’s orders of reference. In adopting an approach to the wide range of issues raised, the Committee decided that

issues and problems connected with building land must be considered in their own right, separate from other policy areas. Achieving the objectives of policy in these other areas does not necessarily depend solely or even primarily on the supply and cost of building land

the analysis of problems and framing of recommendations must be placed firmly in the context of ensuring the best use of land in the community interest.

Land use is determined by the Planning system * and the land market. The objective of the Committee, within its orders of reference, is to enable both to operate in a manner likely to lead to best use of land.

Throughout the Report building land is sub-divided into three sectors: Publicly serviced land, around urban centres and smaller towns, Privately serviced land, usually more widely dispersed, and Urban land, inside built up areas.


About 6,500 acres of building land are used annually. Some 5,000 acres are used in housing and ancillary services (shops, community facilities, open space). Slightly more than half of this is privately serviced land for private single houses. The balance, 1,500 acres, is used by industry, public utilities and related activities.

Substantial progress has been made in the servicing of building land, particularly in the provision of water and sewerage. Although currently in severe recession, there was remarkable growth in building output in the past fifteen years. Nevertheless, there is now, according to a large number of local authorities, reasonably adequate supply of serviced land to meet needs arising for a number of years. The supply of privately serviced land in most cases responds readily to market demand except where the physical nature of the local terrain or proximity to main transport routes dictates otherwise.

Investment in sanitary services in 1983 was some four times the 1970 level, but investment in county and urban roads actually declined by a small amount. This compares with an increase in the same period of one quarter in total construction output and a doubling of new house completions.

A high level of investment must be maintained to improve existing services, to meet local deficiencies and to ensure that there is no fall back in the level of advance provision. Investment in county and urban roads, necessary to ensure that land can be developed, is and area needing particular attention.


The final price or cost of a developed site includes site works, transaction and holding costs, contributions and levies to local authorities and various other items. The price paid for raw land may only account for between 20 per cent and 50 per cent of the final cost of a developed site. Local Authority levies and contributions can account for between 10 and 20 per cent of the final cost.

The methods used by local authorities to set the level of development levies varies widely, as do the rates of levy and the uses to which receipts are put. Standard charges of up to £6,000 per acre are levied by some authorities while levies of between£250 and £500 are commonly charged for a single house where public water and sewerage services are available. Substantial charges may also be imposed in the form of contributions attached to planning permissions.

Local authority levies and contributions and other conditions attaching to planning permissions have become a major point of contention due to financial difficulties of local authorities and the market difficulties of builders and developers.


The “typical” price of an undeveloped house site in Dublin rose from £800 in 1971 to £3,500 in 1983, an increase of 340 per cent. Over some shorter periods prices increased by much more. Between 1971 and 1983 the average price of a new house rose from £6,000 to £38,000, an increase of 530 per cent; in the same period the consumer price index recorded an increase of 420 per cent.

Raw land prices are subject to periods of rapid increase and decline. The dominant influence has been the demand for construction output caused by pressures of general economic growth and expansion, demographic change and urbanisation.

The fluctuations in prices have been made more severe by a combination of short term influences, resulting in serious distortion in the price of land relative to its development potential, notably in 1972/73 and 1978/79. Price distortions do not persist but may take a number of years to peter out; in the meantime, they adversely affect the availability of land.

The wide range of prices paid per acre for building land illustrates the complexity of the land market. Any reference to a “typical” price must be treated with caution.

In Dublin in 1984, the prices for developed house sites ranged from £5,000 to £20,000. In other urban areas, county and smaller towns, developed site prices for private estate housing are generally in the range of £8,000 to £10,000. Fully serviced, partially serviced and unserviced sites for private single houses range from £3,000 to £20,000. Fully or partially serviced sites provided by local authorities for private housing range from £3,000 to £8,000; some of these are subsidised.

Market Operation

Within the guidelines and constraints laid down by the planning system, the market in building land is an important part of the overall system for deciding land use. The Committee’s approach is to treat the allocative role of the market as a separate issue from the question of who benefits from increases in land values; except where the benefits cause distortions in price behaviour. For the market to operate effectively, land prices should reflect the development potential of land.

The Committee concluded that the market in privately serviced land works well. In general there is a fairly ready supply of sites available; the price paid for private single house sites reflects the value of the site to the final user and is generally a good indicator of land values.

The market for publicly serviced land operates reasonably well, but there are a number of imperfections arising from its interaction with the planning system, land availability and price distortions. Land prices in this sector of the market do not adjust smoothly, and are distorted by influences unrelated to building use. This means that the market price cannot ensure, in some cases, that land becomes available in an orderly fashion. Also, from time to time, prices do not reflect the development potential of publicly serviced land.

The availability of land for development after it has been serviced is important for efficient resource use and orderly development. There are problems with the availability of publicly serviced land both before and after it has been acquired by the building industry, even though sufficient land in aggregate has been serviced. The problems are due in some cases to original landowners being unwilling to sell their land (for a variety of reasons). In other cases, the problems are due to errors of judgement by builders and developers when making land purchase decisions, usually due to changes in the housing and other building markets contrary to their expectations. Arbitary changes by local authorities in development levies and contributions add to these problems.

Raw land prices, however, have not been a major influence on house price trends. Over the period reviewed in this Report, new house prices have not been made up solely of input costs.* All of the submissions and other evidence to the Committee agree that there has been a relatively high residual value to development land which accrues as windfall gain to the original landowner or to intermediaries (including builders and developers). The level of this windfall gain has been due primarily to the high level of demand.

The publicly and privately serviced subsectors of the building land market together account for over 90 per cent of annual usage of building land.

The Committee concluded that there is partial failure in the remaining sub-sector, the market for Urban land. The holding of land by public bodies, land holding by the private sector for asset purposes, and other reasons arising from the operation of the planning system, combine to restrict the supply and encourage overpricing of urban land. The price of urban land is consequently too high in relation to the risks and high costs of redevelopment and does not in general reflect its development potential. These factors are major causes of urban decay.

The use of land as a credit base for industry or source of investment gains has had undesirable effects on supply and price. The markets for urban land in particular, and publicly serviced land to some degree, are unduly affected by asset value to the point of contributing to market failure in the former case and short term price distortion in the latter.

Recommendations on the Land Market

At present the planning system looks after broad issues of land use and provision of main services. Land availability, transactions and development are looked after by the market. There is no policy area directly concerned with the operation of the land market, which is largely left to its own devices. This is undesirable because of the important role played by the market and the problems and imperfections which arise in its operation. The Committee recommends:-

development of policy to ensure effective operation of the land market. This policy should include measures to guide, regulate and supplement market behaviour, taking account of the more detailed recommendations below.


The individual speculative housebuilder is the key to the operation of the new private estate housing and land markets and policy should be geared towards ensuring that they operate most effectively.

The basis of builders’ decisions is extremely weak. There is almost no medium term outlook or assessment and yet the medium term (2-4 years) is by far the more important guide for builders’ decisions. In their approach to housing, the Industry and the State have not made sufficient distinction between need, which is the prime policy interest of the State, and demand, which is the dominant influence on the market. Confusion of these separate areas has resulted in lack of attention to market assessment. Both parties should put greater effort into improving information to guide the decisions of individual builders. The Committee recommends:-

that larger local authorities be required to publish an annual Development Report. This report should include, inter alia, a review of the position on serviced building land, land transactions and prices, building intentions (as indicated in planning permissions) and the position on unexercised planning permissions

that details of all transactions in building land be notifiable to local authorities (this should be an obligation on those engaged in the transaction), to ensure that this information is available for the Development Report.

that planning permission include a proposed development timescale. This is intended to assist in the preparation of the Development Report, in particular to indicate the supply position of the industry. It is not intended as a matter which should influence the granting of permission.

The Committee has noted, in this context, a recommendation of the Sectoral Consultative Committee on the Construction Industry that “an improved basis for forecasting construction output should be developed” which, if achieved, would also assist in guiding the land market.

The planning system has added to problems in the market by creating uncertainty about conditions attaching to planning permissions and by sudden changes in development levies and an arbitary approach towards contributions. The revision and extension of development levies appears to have been undertaken with no reference to other aspects of the land market or estate housing situation. Recommendations to deal with these problems are included below.


For effective market operation market power must not be in the hands of a small number of firms or individuals. There is no evidence that such power exists or that the market has been influenced in this manner. However, the information available is not conclusive. The Committee recommends:—

that local authorities introduce procedures for identifying the ownership of development land (this would be assisted by the notification of transactions recommended above). This information should be monitored and if there is any evidence of undue market influence, appropriate counter-measures should be devised in the interests of the common good.

The asset attractions of land to non-building interests has had undesirable effects on supply and price. The Committee recommends:—

that the Minister for the Environment initiate an examination of legislative and fiscal measures with a view to excluding or discouraging involvement by non-building interest in the land market.

Other recommendations discussed below will also assist in discouraging this activity, particularly the revisions to the compulsory purchase code.

Supplementary Role

In some cases the land market cannot ensure availability of publicly serviced and urban land at prices related to its development potential. Fiscal or legislative approaches designed to guide or regulate the market are likely to be ineffective and it is the Committee’s view that compulsory purchase is the appropriate mechanism for dealing with the main problems of land availability. Particular attention must be drawn to the implications of price distortion or market failure. Market price is fundamental to the operation of both the compulsory purchase and compensation procedures. If the land market or sub-markets are not operating effectively, then the basis on which these procedures stand is invalid.

There is a separate issue of urban land held by public authorities or agencies which may contribute to dereliction and decay. The Committee recommends:—

that the Government initiate a review of urban land holdings by public authorities and agencies to establish the scale of this problem, with a view towards ensuring release and development of land where appropriate.

The Local Authority Framework

The planning system has the wider role of ensuring orderly development and counterbalancing the individual interests in the market with the community interest. Issues of planning policy do not come within the Committee’s orders of reference. The Committee has examined how the implementation of planning affects, and is affected by, the supply and cost of building land.

Local authorities have considerable difficulty in implementing development plans resulting in out of phase development, sprawl, encroachment of development into amenity areas and problems of transitional decay. These problems are, in part, directly connected with the supply and cost of building land. They fall under two main headings:—

Costs of implementing plans, including costs of compensation, land acquisition (by agreement or CPO) and provision of services. The implementation in full of development plans would require a significant increase in the financial resources available to local authorities or measures to reduce the costs incurred by them. If planning is to be effective, these problems which are at the root of the uncertainty in the system will have to be removed.

Procedural or legislative problems in implementation, including the complexity and timescale of compulsory purchase, pressures for premature or excessive zoning of land and the right of connection by private landowners to public main services.

On the basis of its overall analysis of building land problems the Committee does not favour implementation of the Kenny Report. The Committee is of the view that there are alternative ways of dealing with land problems which would be effective, more wide ranging than Kenny and would not require Constitutional amendment. The Committee does not favour proceeding with the Local Government (Building Land) Bill, 1982, for the same reasons.


Refusal of planning permission can entail a liability for compensation at the development value of land. This frustrates amenity and open space objectives in development plans. However, there is considerable scope within public policy for supporting the decisions of local authorities as to the proper planning and development of their areas. The Committee recommends:—

that subsidies or incentives for housing and industrial development be restricted to development which is in accord with the planning policies of local authorities, as indicated in zoning or granting of planning permissions.

This would largely eliminate development value on land which planning authorities do not wish to see developed and significantly reduce compensation liabilities. It is the Committee’s view that whilst public policy may not deprive property owners of their entitlements, it is under no obligation to confer entitlements and should not do so where these frustrate other policy objectives.

Compulsory Purchase

The effective implementation of planning requires that local authorities have effective, speedy and efficient compulsory purchase powers. Reform and streamlining of the CPO procedures is therefore essential.

Central to this reform is modification of the interpretation of the principle of market value which is the basis of the compensation/CPO code. An effective market in development land is one in which the price reflects the value of land for building purposes and guides land use accordingly. The Committee is of the view that the market value principle in the CPO code is open to substantial criticism in cases of market failure or price distortion.

In cases of market failure or price distortion, there is either no basis for assessing market value or the basis in unacceptable because of its implications for the effective operation of the land market. It should not be a feature of an equitable compensation system that it can contribute to distortion of land values.

Furthermore, in the case of market failure there is an inconsistency between the value which may be attributed to an individual parcel of land taken on its own and the aggregate valuation of all parcels taken together. Any individual parcel of urban land might be used for office development; all parcels together could not because there would be simply no demand for that quantity of office space. The present method of assessing compensation for refusal of permission or in the case of compulsory purchase does not take account of this inconsistency.

The Committee recommends:—

that the market value principle in Rule 2 of the compensation and compulsory purchase code be modified to provide:—

that any development value attributed to land must be established by reference to specified development, which would be completed within a reasonable timescale and for which a market demand has been established taking account of alternative sources of supply for similar development.

that other transaction prices adduced for comparability purposes be admissible only where they are shown to be related to similar development and provided that there is no evidence that such prices are distorted.

that arbitrators’ awards to broken down into the main headings of the award

that the CPO procedure be streamlined by a general consolidation of the law, reduction in the period for serving notice to treat and other modifications to time limits as may be appropriate, and by measures to enable local authorities to enter or gain possession of land with the minimum delay

that the powers of compulsory purchase be specifically related to the Planning Acts. (This is to eliminate any uncertainty that might exist as to the relationship between them).

Connections to Public Main Services

Owners and occupiers of land are at present entitled to connect to public main services. These rights can conflict with the proper planning and development of an area. The Committee recommends:—

that the right of connection to public main services be restricted to development which is in accord with the proper planning and development of the area. Local authorities should be specifically empowered to reserve capacity as they consider desirable.

Costs of Services

Local authorities incur heavy costs in providing services and discharging other responsibilities in relation to building land. Heavy demands on services are likely to continue. The Committee recommends:—

that high levels of investment in services be maintained. Particular attention needs to be devoted to ensuring adequate finance for investment in related road networks

that the feasibility be examined of allocating all tax revenue from transactions in building land to local authorities for use in land acquisition and development.

Development Levies and Contributions

Development levies and contributions are a method of recovering costs incurred by the local authorities. The Committee accepts the principle of development levies and, under its orders of reference, has considered a number of issues related to their implementation. These include, the impact of levies on the cost of housing and other forms of development and the method of assessment and implementation.

The impact on final costs depends on circumstances in the market in question. New house prices are determined by supply and demand in the housing market as a whole not just by the costs (including normal profit) of building houses. If the all-in cost of building new houses is lower than the general level of house prices, builders will make larger profits. If prices are lower, builders will make a loss or cease building. (There is a direct comparision here with recent experience in the commercial office market where oversupply of space has resulted in prices below the costs of new building).

Over the period reviewed in this Report, there has generally been a level of windfall gain in transactions in publicly serviced building land. There is also no evidence of monopoly type influence on land availability. Windfall gain, therefore, is a result of the general demand and supply situation, it has not caused prices in the building or land markets to be at the levels prevailing. At the same time, servicing costs incurred by local authorities have not been charged to development. Therefore, although the potential for windfall gain has been due to overall demand and supply, the size or level of gains has been due, in part, to the fact that local authorities have not included the full cost of providing services in development levies.

The Committee is of the view that development levies are an appropriate method of recouping costs of providing main services. However, the appropriate level of levies is a matter for consideration by the Government and local authorities in the context of housing and other policy areas, for example, to consider whether house purchasers should be subsidised in this way or some other manner.

The Committee however is very critical of the way in which development levies have been implemented. It recommends:—

that local authorities be required to publish the basis of assessing levies and contributions. The Minister for the Environment should ensure that consistent and appropriate procedures are followed in establishing levies.

that changes in levies be notified well in advance of implementation.

that levies should not amount to a tax on development

that standard levies be utilised as much as possible (though they may differ by area). Variable conditions attaching to planning permissions, which affect development costs, should only arise in exceptional circumstances

that the seven year limitation on admissible costs, for the purposes of assessing levies and contributions, be removed. (To ensure that costs of services can be spread to all development.)

Planning and the Market

A range of problems arise at the interface between the planning and market systems. In some cases these can have a significant impact on the cost or viability of proposed development. The problems differ in origin, ranging from natural conflict between requirements as perceived by each system, weakness of structure and organisation, an approach to planning which is not geared towards implementation via the market and an emphasis on control over initiative. There are particular weaknesses in the development chain with regard to land availability.

The planning system through development control is, in a sense, part of a wider set of building controls. The combined effect of these is to create a complex and fragmented set of requirements which are intimidating and time consuming for individual builders/developers.

The practice in some local authorities does not appear to be geared towards handling development proposals in a unified and speedy manner. For example, one third of the development plans are over five years old and require to be revised. This can create problems for development in rapidly growing areas, because planning permission is more difficult to obtain when the greater part of zoned building land is already committed to specific proposals.

It has been suggested that there is a case for a Land Authority to operate between the planning and market systems. It is suggested that such an authority would be better placed to deal effectively with problems arising in this area. The Committee accepts many of the problems which have been identified, but is not in a position to engage in the detailed organisational assessment which would establish the reasons for the failure of Section 77 of the 1963 Act, or the appropriate organisational response to dealing with this failure. It is a matter, however, which should be addressed separately and urgently to establish the most effective policy response. To deal with problems arising between the planning and market systems, the Committee recommends:—

that the Minister for the Environment undertake an examination of land availability to ascertain whether organisational changes within the planning system or an independent body, such as a land authority, would provide the most effective policy response.

that the planning criteria adopted by different planning authorities be mutually consistent where the authorities’ areas are part of a wider development region

that the use of compulsory purchase procedures to assist in site assembly by private or partnership (public/private) development be encouraged

that the advice and guidelines issued by the Minister for the Environment be adopted by local authorities

that local authorities ensure that all of their activities connected with development are fully in line with the development plan.


The question of equity is concerned with the distribution of benefits from increases in land values. The Committee’s primary concern is with the question of windfall gain in building land transactions. This question is often connected with proposals for reducing land prices, but in the Committee’s view these are largely separate issues. Measures for dealing with land prices are necessary where prices do not reflect the development potential of land. If prices reflect development potential then an artificial reduction will transfer wealth to the purchaser; there is no general case for benefiting sections of the community in this way.

The Committee is of the view that community action in relation to the distribution of gain should be based on three principles:—

the right to recover the communities own contribution (in provision of services),

the need to eliminate distortions and pressures, arising from windfall gain, which are contrary to optimum development,

the need to ensure public acceptance that the distribution of realised gains is fair and reasonable. This should take account of the fact that the overall operation of the planning system influences which landowners will benefit from development, and recognise that windfall gain is concentrated, in some cases, on a relatively small number of landowners.

The Committee is of the view that a substantial part of the increase in land values should be acquired by the community, subject to minimising any consequential effects on supply, availability and price.

The Level of Windfall Gain

There are major difficulties in estimating wind fall gain, which is the difference between the price obtained for land and its value in use to the landowner (excluding expectations of capital gain). Rough estimates of financial gain (i.e. making only a crude allowance for value in use) range in round figures from £50m. to over £100m. Urban land used for commercial and industrial purposes is not included.

It is clear, however, that the bulk of financial gain, possibly up to two thirds, accrues to original landowners (mostly farmers). This includes virtually all sales of sites for single houses and some proportion of the finance for transactions in industrial, local authority and estate housing land. Also the bulk of this gain (somewhat more than half) is unlikely to incur tax liability, because of personal exemption and relief applying to transactions under £15,000. Whether or not it can all be described as windfall gain is open to question.

The balance, which may be between £15m. and £40m. accrues to the industry (developers and builders), other property interests and speculators. All of this would incur liability for tax (capital gains, corporation profits or income tax).

The potential for windfall gain varies with market circumstances as is clearly demonstrated by the recent history of price fluctuations in building land.

The State shares in the windfall gains from building land in a number of ways. Through the advance acquisition by local authorities and industrial promotion agencies, it taps in directly to the increase in value though there is no indication as to the size of this type of benefit. It is clearly important, however, to the financial cost of such programmes.

Tax on the Disposals of Development Land

The bulk of transactions in building land (other than those affected by exemptions and reliefs) would be liable for income or corporation profits tax rather than capital gains tax. Information provided to the Committee from the Revenue Commissioners indicates that returns from capital gains tax on development land in 1983 are expected to amount to £5m. Income from corporation profits and income taxes may amount to as much as £15m. for the same year. However, the information provided is inadequate for making any assessment of the effectiveness of taxation for recouping gains from dealings in land. The Minister for Finance informed the Committee that more precise information could not be extracted. It is unsatisfactory that the type of information necessary for assessing such an important policy area is not available.

The taxes discussed above are not the only source of State revenue from land transactions and development. Returns to the State are generated by a wide range of general and specific taxes, duties and charges for services. The total potential returns to the State from all of these sources could amount to some 35 per cent of the final price in estate housing and to 25 per cent in the case of private single houses.

Recoupment for the Community of Gains from increases in Land Values

In relations to the first two principles set out above, for community action towards the distribution of gain, the Committee is of the view:—

that development levies are the appropriate method for recovering costs of services,

that the recommendations made in regard to compensation and compulsory purchase, and other recommendations, will substantially reduce distortions and pressures related to windfall gain.

In relation to the third principle, the Committee is of the view that a taxation approach is the appropriate method of recoupment. This takes account of the variability of windfall gain and the range of measures in this Report which will affect the returns to land.

The effectiveness of present taxation measures is a major source of contention in the approach to dealing with windfall gain. The basis exists for much more conclusive assessment of this question and the Committee considers it most unsatisfactory that it has not, so far, been developed. The Committee recommends:—

that an examination be undertaken of the liabilities incurred and of tax receipts from transactions in building land to establish a basis for evaluating effectiveness of taxes

that the lower rate of capital gains tax applying to compulsory acquisitions of land be abolished (to eliminate an existing bias towards CPO rather than straightforward sale of land)

that stamp duty be made a liability of the vendor rather than the purchaser.

Orduithe Tagartha

Orders of Reference

1. That a Select Committee consisting of 13 members of Dáil Éireann be appointed to be joined with a Select Committee to be appointed by Seanad Éireann to form a Joint Committee of both Houses of the Oireachtas (which shall be called the Joint Committee on Building Land)—

(a)to consider and make recommendations regarding possible legislative and other measures to deal, in the interests of the common good, with the supply and cost of building land (including land within and adjacent to urban areas), having regard, in particular, to:

(i)the Constitution and judgements of the Superior Courts in regard to the relevant articles thereof;

(ii)the Report of the Committee on the Price of Building Land (Prl. 3632);

(iii)tax legislation in relation to profits or gains from dealings in, disposals of, or development of, land;

(iv)the operation of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1982;

(v)the Local Government (Building Land) Bill, 1982; and

(b)to report on the merits and demerits of any measures considered, with particular reference to:

(i)their constitutionality;

(ii)legal and administrative practicality;

(iii)financial and economic implications;

(iv)likely effects on the cost of housing and on other forms of development.

2. That the Joint Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records and,* subject to the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, the Joint Committee shall have power to engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge to assist it.

3. That the Joint Committee, previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its members to be Chairman, who shall have only one vote.

4. That all questions in the Joint Committee shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting and in the event of there being an equality of votes the question shall be decided in the negative.

5. That every report which the Joint Committee proposes to make shall, on adoption by the Joint Committee, be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas forthwith whereupon the Joint Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such report together with such related documents as it thinks fit.

6. That 7 members of the Joint Committee shall form a quorum of whom at least 3 shall be members of Dáil Éireann and at least 2 shall be members of Seanad Éireann.

7. That the Joint Committee report before 31st December, 1983.

Order made by Dáil Éireann — 3 March, 1983.

Order made by Seanad Éireann — 9 March, 1983.

First extension of Reporting-Back Date:

That the period for reporting back of the Joint Committee on Building Land be extended to 31st March, 1984.

Agreed to by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann, 14 December, 1983.

Second Extension of Reporting-Back Date:

That the period for reporting back of the Joint Committee on Building Land be extended to 31st December, 1984.

Agreed to by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann, 28 March, 1984.

Third Extension of Reporting-Back Date:

That the period for reporting back of the Joint Committee on Building Land be extended to 30 June, 1985.

Agreed to by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann, 13 December, 1984.

Members of the Committee



Begley, Michael

Bulbulia, Katharine

Coveney, Hugh

Cregan, Denis

Doyle, Avril

Durcan, Patrick

Fitzsimons, Jim

Fallon, Sean

Keating, Michael

Ferris, Michael

MacSharry, Ray

Fitzsimons, Jack

Molloy, Robert

Ryan, Brendan

Quinn, Ruairi, Minister of State at the Department of the Environment

Appointed: 24 March, 1983.

Reynolds, Albert


Shatter, Alan


Skelly, Liam


Walsh, Sean


Wyse, Pearse


Appointed 23 March, 1983.


Deputies M. Begley and Ruairi Quinn discharged, and Deputies Fergus O’Brien (Minister of State at the Department of the Environment) and Frank McLoughlin appointed in substitution for them.

1 February, 1984.

Deputy Michael Keating discharged and Deputy Michael Begley appointed in substitution for him.

5 July, 1984

Deputy Ray MacSharry discharged and Deputy Sean Calleary appointed in substitution for him.

14 December, 1984.

Deputy Jim Fitzsimons discharged and Deputy Denis Foley appointed in substitution for him.

24 April, 1985.

Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Joint Committee

The Joint Committee at its meeting on 24 March, 1983, elected Deputy Robert Molloy as Chairman and Senator Michael Ferris as Vice-Chairman.

* The term used throughout this report for the operations of Local Authorities under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1982.

*Excluding returns to land above its supply price in agricultural use.

* Orders of Reference amended in Dáil Éireann — 8th

March, 1984; in Seanad Éireann — 29 February, 1984