Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will first address some of the points the Senator rightly makes about the unsustainable development we have seen in the past. Much of that has to do with the zoning decisions that were made, causing urban sprawl and development in areas where there was no demand. It contributed to a property bubble that was never going to last. That is why we in Government have revised how sustainable planning is done. We have engaged a new independent agency, called the Housing Agency, which looks at the demographics of the country. It deeply analyses and researches where demand is rising and the information it brings forward is being utilised by my Department to inform policy in terms of sustainable planning and development. That is an important area of work. In addition, the national planning framework, which we are developing at the moment, will inform county and city development plans.

We are trying to learn from the past and bring development back to the core. Rather than having doughnut development and urban sprawl, we want to start utilising the assets we already have. A great deal of work is going into that. We do have to learn from the mistakes of the past and we certainly cannot go back to the boom-bust cycle, but at the moment we have a housing demand that needs to be met. It will not be met in any one way, which is why we are bringing forward this legislation as well as a number of other measures, like the social housing strategy, that will increase the supply of houses.

We are opposing amendment No. 6 because measures such as the vacant site levy must be introduced in line with the principles of fair procedures, administration and due process, as I have already outlined. Therefore, it is important for any process that a clear appeals mechanism is in place, because that strengthens the legislation. It makes it more robust and more able to stand up to potential legal challenges. This amendment seeks to remove the provision in the appeals mechanism whereby a site will not be entered on the register until the appeal is resolved. This provision is very important in terms of transparency and fairness to the site owner and the due process of the appeal. Weakening the appeals process would reduce the effectiveness of the Bill.

Regarding amendment No. 15, the amendment proposes that section 18 of the Bill would include a subsection allowing for a penalty to be applied to the owner of a site in the event that they appeal against the demand for the payment of a levy to An Bord Pleanála and lose the appeal. In this case, section 18 provides that at the time a planning authority makes a demand for the payment of the levy, the owner may appeal this demand to the board on two grounds: first, the site was no longer vacant on 1 January of the year concerned, and second, the amount of the levy has been incorrectly calculated by the planning authority. Again, this is a fundamental provision of a fair appeals process in respect of the payment of the levy and it would be contrary to the principles of fairness and transparency, the very reason an appeals mechanism is put in place. Therefore, we oppose this amendment.