A couple of weeks ago we suggested that one possible use for the landbank being assembled by NAMA and the DEHLG would be to use it for the building of new schools and for other public infrastructure. The Irish Examiner reports today that the Department of Education is in consultation with NAMA to try and procure sites for up to 50 new schools, predominately in the east of the country given changes in the growth (increased birth rate and immigration) and distribution of the population over the past two decades. And the changes have been pronounced in and around Dublin, with between 1996-2006 a growth in households in Fingal of 68.5%, in Meath of 69.3%, in Kildare of 56.1%, in West Meath of 40.8%, in Wicklow of 37.1%, and in South Dublin of 30.5%, though growth in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown (11%) and Dublin City (10.3%) was relatively modest.
The Department of Education has long known about the school places crisis and has already committed to building 20 new schools this year, along with extending 32 others, to create 23,500 places (14,500 at the primary level, 9,000 post-primary) at a cost of €579m. It has also appointed design teams to another 51 projects. Clearly this programme needs to be stepped up if it is to cater for existing and upcoming demand. The capital programme will also provide a stimulus to the economy through construction activity. The Dept of Education should also engage in talks with the Dept of Environment given that they are now in possession of 2000+ hectares of land at 600 plus sites transferred to it by local authorities who’d originally purchased the land for social/affordable housing (see here).
50 sites three or four years ago, when land in Ireland was the most expensive in Europe (see here for comparison graph), would have cost the taxpayer an absolute fortune. We now have the opportunity to purchase them at a fraction of that cost given the 75-90% drop in development land prices. As per our last post, all government departments who are planning capital projects over the next few years should be talking to NAMA/DEHLG with regards to procuring suitable land at a reasonable price to ensure maximum value to the taxpayer. It would be a folly for NAMA to offload land to the private sector, which the state then has to purchase back from in the future for a premium, especially when it knows that it will in all likelihood need it. This is the whole rationale of state landbanking – to ensure long term planning can unfold in a coordinated way for the public good at a reasonable cost without being a hostage to the free market.
Rob Kitchin
Ireland after NAMA 
September 24, 2010 at 8:53 am
I wonder Rob if you place too much on the shoulders of NAMA. Already under huge pressure to at least break even must NAMA be burdened with making decisions on a social basis as well?
By the way, I think there was and is a need to co-ordinate NAMA within the context of our entire economy and society – I just think it’s unfair to foist undefined social objectives on NAMA.
September 24, 2010 at 9:42 am
Given the write-downs on land – and I’m assuming NAMA are writing this down sufficiently in line with market conditions – I would think that they could make a small profit and the state gets the land it requires as a reasonable cost. NAMA is employing, apparently, the brightest and the best, and they are well paid. It should not be beyond their abilities to be able to balance the social and the economic for the public good (which is their role – to act for the public good of the taxpayer by managing assets on its behalf without, hopefully, bankrupting us and in fact making some profit). If its makes it profit at the expense of the public (now or at a potential later date), then it will have failed in its role, I think. It has already stated that it will give local authorities or the state first option on some sites or buildings. As for undefined social objectives, I think some definitions can be put in place in pretty short order if needed. In my view, NAMA has to coordinate with state agencies and local authorities (re. local and county development plans, etc) if it is best to realise its potential.
September 24, 2010 at 9:39 am
it is important to identfy the potential use of NAMA and DEHLG landbanks. Whether or not NAMA should have a direct social policy role is a separate question.
with regard to the use of such landbanks for schools, location is critical. The appropiate location of primary schools close to new residential communities is critical to ensure accessiblity by means other than private car and to maximise the use of school buildings as mutlifunctional community centres outside of school hours.
Recent practice in Fingal (where by far the highest number of new schools have been built in recent years) has demonstrated the potential benefits of partnership between the Department of Education and the Local Authority in order to provide additional facilities for wider community use over and above the standard departmental specifications. Location continues to be a significant issue however with school sited on land that was of least value for private sector development (e.g. close to sewage treatment plants).
While the potential value of NAMA and DEHLG landbanks for social and community infrastructure provision should not be disregarded it is paramount that decisions are taken within a spatial planning framework that acknowedges the hidden social and environmental costs of spatially blind decision-making.
September 24, 2010 at 9:48 am
Cormac, agree fully. Should involve good planning, rather than be opportunistic and have other consequences. That said, it is easy enough to map existing schools, georeference NAMA/DEHLG land, plot in the demographics and other data, school catchments, etc and see where there is suitable convergence. Our geoprofiling and mapping module tools could do this easily, for example, to provide options that could then be explored further.
September 24, 2010 at 1:12 pm
In an ideal country this would be a good idea.
In modern Ireland I have to admit, I laughed out loud, sorry! This will not bail out developers who fund candidates, who become those who order and permit “planned” development. You are leaving out the most important layer! That is the one where public funds are diverted to private purposes and careers are made.
Your naievity is not merely touching, it is epically tragic.
What about all the houses and sites in flood plains? They are the ones that will be built first!
September 24, 2010 at 3:15 pm
It might seem epically tragic to you, but there is absolutely no doubt that we need new and more schools, NAMA/DEHLG has amassed a landbank, and that education is going to be route to getting ourselves out of this problem. There is nothing inevitable about bad planning or developer cronyism, and the solution is to try and intervene in this and put forward useful ideas. If your solution is to do nothing and let history repeat, or simply mock those that are trying to put forward alternative ideas, then we really are doomed.
September 24, 2010 at 5:15 pm
I’d be verging more towards the Nama Wine Lake side on this one but can be the potential for a mix of the two in certain situations.
Nama will be holding what are essentially islands of housing estates all across the country – particularly in the midlands – so building of schools etc beside such sites could in some way increase their value.
September 24, 2010 at 5:33 pm
acquiring, rather than building. Can’t imagine the development costs would be massive, percentage-wise.