Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am opposing amendment No. 4, which proposes the removal of the requirement for a vacant site on residential land to be "in an area in which there is a need for housing". This proposal would weaken the criteria to be used by a planning authority when determining whether a site is a vacant site in the case of such land. Amendment No. 5 proposes the removal of the requirement for a vacant site on residential land to be "suitable for the provision of housing". Amendment No. 8 proposes the removal of the requirement that a vacant site, by virtue of "being vacant or idle has adverse effects on existing amenities or reduces the amenity [and] character of the area". I am opposing amendments Nos 5 and 8 for the same reason that I am opposing amendment No. 4. These proposals would weaken the criteria to be used in determining whether a site is a vacant site in the case of residential or regeneration land. The criteria in section 5 set out the principles and policies underpinning the terms "residential" and "regeneration" land. The proposed amendments would remove essential elements of the criteria to be applied in determining what is and is not a vacant site. In the absence of such criteria, there is no justification for designating which sites in residential and regeneration land should be targeted for the application of the levy. This is an important point.

These are important justifications that underpin the vacant site levy measure in order to incentivise the development of suitable vacant sites in central urban areas for housing and regeneration purposes. The legislation is lacking without them.

The purpose of the criteria outlined in the Bill in this regard is to focus on the appropriate range of sites to be potentially subject to the levy with a view to strengthening the public interest and common good justification of the levy. That point should be emphasised. It is not appropriate that any site should be designated a vacant site with a levy applying to it. We are trying to approach this in a targeted way in areas of high demand, mainly urban areas that have strong housing demand and where there are obvious vacant sites in the hearts of those towns and cities. I reiterate the logic behind this. Why would we spend vast amounts of public expenditure on developing new infrastructure on greenfield sites when there are already sites available that are serviced by public infrastructure paid for by the taxpayer? In fact, it would bring regeneration and renewed footfall to the centres of our towns and cities. These criteria underpin the Bill and give teeth to the local authorities to categorise, identify and, following due process, designate a vacant site. I oppose the amendments on that basis.

We also oppose amendments Nos. 6 and 7. Section 5(1)(a)(iii) and (b)(i) provide that one element of the criteria used by a planning authority, both in respect of housing land and regeneration land, to determine if a site is vacant is that the site or the majority of the site is vacant or idle. The amendment proposes to change this so an area of any site greater than 0.05 hectare must be vacant. The proposed amendment lacks clarity and confuses the criteria of the area of a site that must be vacant, which is not welcome in this instance. The wording of the Bill is straightforward, clear and easily understood, and there is no need to amend it. I therefore oppose the amendments.

See this speech in context