Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

We oppose amendment No. 9. This amendment, which was also brought forward on Report Stage in the Dáil, seeks to amend the provisions in section 14 of the Bill which provides the criteria by which the planning authority or the tribunal may deem that a vacant site has a zero market value. The amendment proposes to delete the following criterion: "the site is situated on contaminated lands and the estimated costs of remedial works necessary in order to use or develop the site exceed the market value of the site itself".

This Bill is drafted in such a way as to ensure the levy provisions are fair, as outlined earlier, proportionate and reasonable. Here, the provision takes into account the difficult circumstances faced by certain individuals who may be the owners of such sites. In line with my previous opposition to this amendment, I consider that this provision of the Bill is needed for fairness and clarity. I, therefore, oppose it again.

I also oppose amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which amend section 16 by removing the provisions that a reduced or zero rate of the levy would apply in certain circumstances by inserting provisions that the levy be increased incrementally each year. As mentioned earlier, there has been extensive engagement between officials from my Department and the Attorney General's office in developing the proposals for the vacant site levy.The Bill provides that the levy be applied at a flat rate of 3% of the market value of a site with no subsequent yearly increases. This is to ensure that all site owners are treated equally and to ensure that the rate of levy applied is regarded as proportionate to the objectives of the measure. In certain circumstances, a reduced or zero rate of the levy will apply. These specific provisions were included to help alleviate the financial burden faced by owners of vacant sites which are subject to a site loan or where the loan is greater than the market value of the site and also where the site loan is greater than 50% of the market value of the site. Those site owners who purchase sites at peak prices in the boom years and which have since reduced in value, arising from the property crash, are examples of those likely to be particularly affected.

The intention of the provisions in section 16 in relation to the application of reduced or zero rates of levy is to ensure that the levy provisions are as fair and reasonable and proportionate as possible, taking account of the difficult circumstances faced by certain individuals who might have purchased the sites at very high prices.

I am satisfied that these provisions are appropriate to the application of the levy and I therefore oppose the amendments as they would diminish the fairness arrangements that have been incorporated into the Bill.