Dublin's €70bn infrastructural upgrade: how it breaks down
M50
,
Luas
,
Dart
and the Port Tunnel,
Dublin
has outgrown its infrastructure and needs a €70 billion investment in housing, transport, water and energy (over 15 years) to catch up.
That's according to
KPMG
.
While the figure was used to showcase the consultancy's Dublin 2040 report, published on Wednesday, highlighting what Dublin-based businesses see as the city's strengths and challenges, it wasn't actually contained in the report.
KPMG's corporate finance partner Hazel Cryan, however, told The Irish Times that its €70 billion estimate accompanying the report was derived from an analysis of various Government strategies in housing, transport and other sectors.
READ MORE
[
Dublin needs €70bn investment in infrastructure by 2040
Opens in new window
]
'We've applied an extrapolation out to 2040 based on those reports and what the known big projects are...it's very much an estimate,' she said.
It breaks down as follows: €30 billion is needed to upgrade the city's transport network as per the Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy, which includes mega projects like the proposed MetroLink underground rail project.
A further €26 billion is earmarked for housing, mainly on the social and affordable projects and targets contained in current Housing for All strategy and beyond.
KPMG also reckons that a further €10 billion is needed to upgrade the city's water infrastructure (which is highlighted as a key block on housing development).
An additional €6 billion is also necessary to upgrade the city's energy infrastructure to meet the growing demand for electricity and to support the transition to a low-carbon economy, it says.
A further €500 million is also needed to upgrade the city's climate risk and flood defence system.
All in, a hefty outlay to get the city fit for purpose.
KPMG's Dublin 2040 report is based on a survey 300 Dublin-based businesses and what they see as the key priorities.
Unsurprisingly the survey found almost 9 in 10 (87 per cent) believe Dublin is doing poorly in the area of housing, reflecting what the report describes as 'the persistent and ubiquitous nature of the issue'.
Housing is flagged as the top concern with 60 per cent of businesses seeing affordable accommodation as a critical infrastructure issue ahead of healthcare (20 per cent), public transport (15 per cent) and technology (5 per cent).
'Dublin is beyond an inflection point in a number of critical areas,' said Ryan McCarthy, managing partner at KPMG in Ireland.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
Family that rejected six housing offers fails in court bid for emergency accommodation
A mother and their children, who turned down six offers of houses by Clare County Council, have failed in their High Court bid to force the council to provide them with emergency accommodation. Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger ruled that Clare County Council had lawfully discharged its statutory duties regarding the provision of emergency accommodation to the family, which includes seven children. The judge said the family members are not entitled to require the council to offer them emergency accommodation from housing stock earmarked for social housing. Martina Sherlock Mongans and her seven children, who are members of the Travelling community, sought to bring proceedings against Clare County Council, the Minister for Housing, the Attorney General and Ireland, claiming they should be allocated emergency accommodation in a three-bedroom unit that is part of the council's social housing stock. READ MORE The family now lives in a single room in a relative's house. 'Undoubtedly, the situation in which they are currently living in one room in a relation's house is appalling,' the judge said. However, she found that the council acted 'reasonably and lawfully' in making six separate offers of emergency accommodation to them. She, therefore, could not find the circumstances required to interfere in how the council exercised its discretion. The family was evicted from a rented council house in Lahinch, Co Clare, in July 2024 and deemed homeless by the local authority. Hotel accommodation was arranged for several weeks from July 31st, 2024. Setting out the background to the case, the judge said that, since August 2024, six different own-door accommodation options have been offered as emergency accommodation. She said each had been refused for various reasons, including concerns about safety, suitability and distance from the children's schools. The judge said it is surprising that this 'entirely unsatisfactory arrangement prevails in preference to the six houses offered to the family'. She said this is perhaps indicative of how strongly the family feels about the conditions and location of each of the houses offered. The judge said the family did not establish any cause of action or grounds for her to permit them to bring their case against the State parties. The judge said the family wanted accommodation in Ennistymon or Lahinch, largely because of one of their children's educational needs. The judge said she was satisfied Clare County Council assessed the particular needs of the family in a manner that was reasonable, rational and lawful when offering them six of the accommodations. The judge said that, in effect, the family asserted a right to emergency accommodation in a house that the council has earmarked for social housing on the basis of exceptional circumstances in which they are currently living. The family's refusal of six separate offers of reasonable own-door accommodation means the family is no longer homeless within the meaning of the Housing Act, the judge found. 'The family are living in extremely difficult circumstances and no one could be anything but sympathetic and concerned at that. However, they do not have rights over and above what is provided for in legislation or any enhanced rights to determine subjectively what is or is not a reasonable accommodation for them,' the judge said.
Irish Times
7 hours ago
- Irish Times
Hotelier Noel O'Callaghan takes legal action against two sons
Hotelier Noel O'Callaghan claims in Commercial Court proceedings that two of his sons, who took over the running of his business in 2016, have excluded him and prevented him from exercising his right to retake control. Mr O'Callaghan (74) stepped back in 2016 from the business he built from scratch over 40 years. The first hotel his group acquired was the Mont Clare in Dublin in 1984. In addition to five hotels it operates, it also owns the 450-acre Mountarmstrong stud farm outside Cashel in Co Tipperary, along with around 100 rent apartments owned by Só Living. In his proceedings, Mr O'Callaghan claims he stepped down from the day-to-day management of the group to focus on Mountarmstrong and his bloodstock business, leaving the day-to-day running to his sons. READ MORE The transfer was done ahead of his 66th birthday in order that substantial capital gains tax relief would not be lost. It is claimed that, in agreeing the transfer of his shares in Saira Co Dublin Unlimited Company, in which he is a director along with his sons Paul and Charles who now run the group, he wanted a 'fallback position in the event of any future dispute' whereby he could retake control of Saira. Accordingly, Paul and Charles, along with his third son Bryan who was involved in the business until he departed in 2023, signed a form of proxy appointing their father to act as each of their proxy and vote on their behalf at meetings of the Saira board. The proxy is still extant and binding, it is claimed. As part of the 2016 agreement, Mr O'Callaghan snr was to be paid an annual salary of €500,000 for the rest of his natural life and to have his credit card expenses discharged along with the benefit and control of Mountarmstrong. After Bryan left in 2023, a new shareholders' agreement was made but, it is claimed, this did not replace the 2016 agreement. The stud farm, which comprises a large number of racehorses, was operated by Saira subsidiary, Sherborough Development Co Unlimited Company, and Noel O'Callaghan is the full or partial beneficial owner of the bloodstock, it is claimed. It is alleged that, since 2024, Paul and Charles have attempted to exercise control over the bloodstock with instructions for valuations and sales of some animals done without their father's consent. In 2024, Noel sold his interest in a commercial property called the Archers Building in Fenian Street, Dublin, to Saira. It is claimed that there was a failure to disclose KBC Bank was negotiating the surrender of its lease on the building, which was eventually done for €16.6 million, and this resulted in an undervaluation of the building at the time the father sold his interest. It constituted a material non-disclosure and secret profit, it is claimed. Noel O'Callaghan's relationship with Paul and Charles began to deteriorate in 2024 with the purchase of residential properties in Warrenpoint for their personal use, the withdrawal of instructions to prepare board packs for directors' meetings and the payment of a dividend of €3.2 million to the two sons. When Noel challenged these decisions, his sons began to 'freeze' him out by removing clerical support and the cancellation of payments to him by Saira, including health insurance. The proceedings by Noel are against Paul and Charles O'Callaghan, Saira and Sherborough. On Monday, the case was admitted on consent to the Commercial Court on the application of Martin Hayden SC who said, in reply to a question from Mr Justice Mark Sanfey, that mediation had been tried already. The judge said in cases involving close family members mediation was desirable. He approved agreed directions for the progress of the case and adjourned it to November.
Irish Times
8 hours ago
- Irish Times
McKillen jnr sues receivers over taking possession of three properties
Paddy McKillen junior is in a dispute with receivers who took possession of three valuable Dublin office properties, allegedly due to millions of euro in rent arrears on them. Perfect Stripe Ltd, trading as Grafter, is suing Ken Fennell and Brendan O'Reilly, of Interpath Advisory, who were appointed joint receivers over three companies which rented the properties at Stephen's Green, Leeson Street and Ely Place from Perfect Stripe. The three companies, Wonderbay Ltd, Crossville Properties Ltd and Discovery Dawn Ltd (all in receivership) were McKillen group-related firms. Perfect Stripe claims that on the morning of June 23rd, agents of the receivers broke into the properties having unlawfully purported to have forfeit the leases. The locks were changed and Perfect Stripe and its agents were prevented from gaining access. The claim of breaking in is denied. READ MORE The purchase of the buildings was funded largely through loans from RELM Loan Opportunities DAC, which appointed the receivers after calling in the loans. Perfect Stripe says the forfeiture happened despite discussions with the defendants about rent adjustments. It believed the parties were negotiating in good faith and that no steps would be taken towards any enforcement until those negotiations concluded. The defendants claimed the sums due on each of the properties in rent arrears at the time was some €2.7 million for Stephen's Green, around €321,000 for Ely Place and some €530,000 for Leeson Street. Perfect Stripe, in its statement of claim, says the defendants have unlawfully forfeited the properties 'under the guise of seeking inflated amounts in excess of the interest due' under the loan agreements. It also says they have 'misappropriated the plaintiff's business in order to achieve a higher sales price for the properties'. On Monday, Mr Fennell and Mr O'Reilly, in their capacity as receivers of the three defendant companies, applied to have the dispute admitted to the fast track Commercial Court. James Doherty SC, for the defendants. said the total debt now due in arrears was in excess of €4.1 million and the leases were forfeited and possession taken some five weeks ago. Counsel said there was mediation for a short time which was unsuccessful. The claim of misappropriation by the defendants of the business to themselves is 'wholly without foundation', he said. Counsel also disputed a claim by Marcus Dowling SC, for Perfect Stripe, that from his client's perspective, what had happened was the receivers agents breaking into the premises in the middle of the night. Mr Dowling said his side was neutral on the application to admit the case to the commercial list. Mr Justice Mark Sanfey said it was clearly a matter suitable for entry to the Commercial Court. He approved agreed directions and adjourned the matter to later this year.
