Ms Mary Hughes:

Deputy Dowds is correct when he suggests that we support the principle of the proactive management and stimulation of the development of vacant sites, particularly in town and city centres. As an institute, we have serious concerns about how effective a levy will be. We should consider the effectiveness of the vacant site levy in the context of the derelict site legislation. We should look at how effective or ineffective the 3% levy that is apportioned to derelict sites has been in terms of stimulating the development of derelict sites. We also need to look at the reasons these sites are not being developed. In many instances, although not all, there are issues of funding, of course, but also issues of land assembly and title. In that regard, the institute supports more proactive measures, such as the strengthening of the compulsory purchase powers of local authorities in terms of site assembly. Perhaps those powers could be broadened to facilitate things like residential developments, for which they have traditionally not been used simply because cases have not been made for their use. The compulsory purchase powers of local authorities need to be streamlined so that they become more effective. Consideration could be given to establishing a revolving fund that would be used to stimulate and incentivise the development of these sites, as opposed to proposing a levy which could hinder their potential development in the future.