Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. We might pose the question as to why we have the vacant site levy at all. This Bill is targeted at incentivising urban regeneration and the provision of housing in core areas of our cities and towns. We must start where infrastructure already exists. We all know cities and towns in this country that have sites in their centres which have public services on the footpaths outside them and which have been lying vacant for many years while pressure is coming on the suburbs of those same towns and cities for development. Pressure is being put on the taxpayer to provide infrastructure and services when we should be focused on regenerating and redeveloping the cores of our cities and towns.

In general, this Bill is adopting a carrot and stick approach. This is the stick element of it, where we are proposing, given due process, to introduce a vacant site levy to stimulate the development of these sites and to bring them back into beneficial use. Nobody could disagree with that rationale in the first instance. How do we go about it? Why are we now applying it to public bodies and local authorities as well as private bodies? If we look honestly at the property registers of many cities and towns, public bodies own substantial tracts of land there. With that ownership comes responsibilities. If a person who is proud of their community looks at a site, it should not matter to him or her who owns the site once it is put into use for the benefit of the citizens of that community. Local authorities have a responsibility, like everyone else, in this regard. For those reasons, they are being included.

At the very least, the proposal that a vacant site, whether publicly or privately owned, will be designated as vacant will stimulate debate in the local authority chamber where the elected members are being given a new power to identify and designate such sites according to the needs of their areas. Ultimately, the local authority will decide but it will be difficult for any local authority to target any particular site while neglecting sites in its ownership. It will incentivise the development of those sites. For that reason, we propose the amendment and I hope we will get support for it.