Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion and note the progress the Government has made as a result of the planning related recommendations which emanated from the Mahon report. I also note that the Planning and Development (No. 2) Bill 2015 will provide for the establishment of the office of planning regulator. It is no harm for us to be reminded of the sins of the fathers or those who went before us in regard to not just issues around zoning, but to issues regarding the quality and suitability of buildings in certain areas. We have been dealing with fall-out from such planning and standards issues since.

I take this opportunity to express the more serious concerns I have about the Planning and Development (No. 1) Bill 2014. In many ways, the No. 2 Bill looks back to this Bill, but we should look forward and try to implement lessons we have learned from what went on in the past and from the findings of the tribunal. I applaud two of the objectives of the Planning and Development (No. 1) Bill 2014, namely, the objective of securing additional housing units to address the current severe housing shortage, particularly in large urban centres and commuter belts, and to increase productivity and jobs in the construction sector.

However, I have a particular concern in regard to the vacant site levy, which it is proposed will apply to towns with a population of over 3,000. This would see local authorities having an entitlement to apply a charge on vacant or under utilised sites in towns of this size. This proposal is made in order to address the issues of land hoarding and supply. While detailed legislation is not available yet, the general scheme published by the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, suggests further consideration needs to be given to the issues. Otherwise, many owners of vacant sites will be unfairly penalised. Not all parts of the country are affected by a severe housing shortage. Many market towns around the country, such as towns in my county like Ballina, Castlebar and Westport, have empty houses in private housing estates and even if one is on the council waiting list in these areas, private rented accommodation is available. Therefore, the urgency or requirement for emergency measures does not exist in these areas.

Of course, we must plan for the future, particularly for social housing. I welcome some of the projects announced by the Minister recently, but we need more, including in my county where we have approximately 1,500 on the council housing list. Often the owners of vacant sites in these areas are far from being property hoarders and find there is no real market for their property, whether as a would-be housing site or a commercial property. Often it is not commercially viable for them to develop the site or make it functional and they may not even be able to get finance from a bank. How fair is it on these property owners to be boxed in by a law that we might introduce when they have no option for development or sale of a site? They face having a vacant site levy placed on them by a local authority. These property owners are already subject to the Derelict Sites Act, which can force them to keep the site or building in a reasonable condition so as not to diminish unduly the amenity of surrounding property.

I have one other bone to pick in regard to this particular legislation. I find it highly ironic that the vacant site levy will not apply to State owned property or to property owned by councils. Some of the biggest offenders in regard to vacant sites are the local authorities, which have vacant sites and houses that need to be developed. Sometimes they do not have the money for this, but I am sure many property owners with vacant sites they can do nothing with would find it highly offensive if local authorities could levy them while not being compelled themselves to do up their properties. In my county, if local authorities did up their vacant properties, this would go a long way towards a solution to providing housing for people on the housing list.

My concern is that the vacant site levy is an attempt to address a problem, but it is not a problem that is experienced in the same way throughout the country. We must plan for the future. We are a growing economy and have a growing population. Our plans are to disperse growth throughout the country, not just in the urban centres. What is happening in Dublin and major urban centres is not happening where I am living. I ask that the vacant site levy be reconsidered and made more nuanced and not simply applied on the basis of what the local authority will decide for areas with a population in excess of 3,000.

See this speech in context