Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

As the son of a recently deceased builder, I feel the need to speak up for builders from time to time although I recall that it is not just in this House that there can be suspicion about builders. In "The Naked Gun", Jane asks a guy called Vincent Ludwig how he could have done something so vicious. Ludwig says: "It was easy, my dear. You forget I spent two years as a building contractor." Word seems to have got around.

The amendment I propose is an improved version of one I proposed on Committee Stage but which fell when the Bill was needlessly guillotined by the Government along with around 30 other amendments on 4 June last. I will not stop saying the Government needs to stop seeking the guillotining of legislation in these Houses, especially in this House and on Committee Stage. There is no excuse for it. I ask Government parties to stand up to whoever gives the orders and not let this happen. It is bringing our politics into disrepute. Given the scale of the housing crisis facing the State and its citizens, it strikes me that it would not have added to the problem to have allowed a few extra hours of debate. I will leave that aside.

This amendment is about the vacant site levy as it currently stands under the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015, as amended. Clearly, the levy is not working as intended. The main problems are that it is not raising significant revenue for local authorities and is not being applied uniformly across the country. In fact, there may even be a question as to whether it is even possible or realistic to try to apply the levy in a uniform way. That is a much greater question going beyond the scope of this proposed amendment. It is not at all clear that the levy is succeeding in its overall aim, which is to encourage the freeing up of development land so it may be used to develop housing and to address the issues of homelessness and the shortage of new homes, which we are all concerned about.I note in passing the significant progress that has been made in some of the more severe aspects of the housing crisis. That has to be acknowledged, but there is a need for more adventurous steps to address this national crisis.

Details released under the Freedom of Information Act show that there were 359 sites on the vacant sites register as of last December. These are spread across 22 local authorities. It is estimated that these vacant sites have the potential to hold between 18,000 and 21,000 residential units, with 4,700 potential units in Dublin city alone. There are about 65,000 households on the housing lists at present, so this puts into perspective the dent that could be made in the housing crisis by the development of vacant sites. Nine local authorities have no vacant sites registered, including the local authority in my own county of Galway.

Following an amendment which came into force in 2019, the rate of the vacant site levy is currently 7% of the market value of the land, but the amount of money being raised through the levy is still low. As I understand it, just €419,000 was collected by local authorities last year: €882,000 was received, but €463,000 of this was paid by Dublin City Council to itself because three sites on the register are owned by the council. Therefore, councils are only bringing in an average of €20,000 per annum from the levy, which is nothing to write home about and is certainly very little return for what is a very significant administrative burden on councils. There is €1.7 million in cumulative fees left unpaid across the 22 local authorities, even though the Act requires payment within two months of a demand being issued by a council. This raises huge questions. Why are councils not pursuing this money? An outstanding levy is a simple contract debt and its recovery can be pursued in the courts in the normal fashion.

Councils have consistently raised issues about the drafting of the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 and have said it is difficult to interpret. They feel they are understaffed and swamped by administration when trying to implement the levy. Many of the councils that have no sites registered have said there is an issue with how exactly they should assess whether there is a housing need in their functional areas. Others have not done so because of delays in formulating their county development plans. Several councils have said it is difficult to establish ownership of sites. Another problem is that An Bord Pleanála seems to apply a different interpretation of “housing need”, and how to assess it, from that of local authorities. This has led to over 200 sites being struck off the register on appeal in the last couple of years.

The Department has perhaps unfairly pointed the finger at councils and councillors. I know that one principal officer apparently commented in writing that his sense was that some local authorities would go soft on the vacant site levy "because they don’t want the blow-back from their councillors." I do not think this is a very fair reflection on the reality on the ground, because the problems with the operation of the levy are not the making of local authorities. Several councils which have registered sites, such as those in Donegal and Sligo, have expressed doubts about how realistic it is to expect development on those sites in future, on the grounds of demand both from developers and from prospective buyers. Again, this raises a question as to whether a uniform scheme across the country is realistic or appropriate.

The biggest question in my mind is the one that underlies this amendment. Are there large numbers of vacant sites out there which are not being captured by the levy, and which there is no incentive to develop at present? Are there landowners out there who know they own a vacant site, but are sitting on their hands and keeping schtum in the knowledge that the council does not have the means, the manpower or the inclination to place their property on the register? The cumulative problems faced by councils, and the very patchy application of the levy, seem to suggest that these problems exist.

I now turn to the amendment on the Order Paper. We need to know that the vacant site levy is based on residential land in areas where the council identifies a need for housing and where the land in question is suitable for housing. That is the basis on which councils add vacant sites to the register and the levy is taken. My amendment seeks to add an element of self-assessment by imposing on a property owner who has received planning permission for a development of three or more houses, thereby excluding any possible family developments, a duty in law to apply to the council for the registration of that vacant site if the development has not commenced within 12 months, mirroring what is already there in legislation.It would then be a matter for the council to levy on the basis of its test which includes that it is in an area of housing need and that the land is suitable for housing.

There is a slight discrepancy between the amendment as submitted and the amendment as it appears on the amendment list. It is simply the omission of the word "or". That could be easily cured if the Minister of State is minded to accept the amendment. It is not the case that the amendment would make it a requirement to be a vacant site that planning permission has been granted, it is and-or. If planning permission has been granted a person has a duty to seek to register that, in addition to the existing situation where the council can register properties where it has identified that it is in an area of housing need, it is residential land and is suitable for housing.

The amendment changes the definition of what qualifies as a vacant site to include any site which has been the subject of planning permission for a development of three or more houses at any time under its present ownership. Under the terms of the 2015 Act, such sites would qualify to be placed on the vacant site register after 12 months without development commencing. One-off family houses, or small family developments on family land, would not qualify here, since it will only apply to sites where permission had been granted for three or more houses.

The amendment introduces an element of self-assessment to the levy. Instead of relying solely on councils to identify and register vacant sites, it would place an onus on the landowners themselves who own the lands which have been subject to the grant of planning permission to self-assess, and declare their own vacant sites and apply for them to be added to the register. Only those sites which qualify as being in an area of housing need would then be subject to the levy , but the failure to properly register the land would be an offence, which could be prosecuted by the council. On conviction, this would attract a class A fine of up to €5,000.

Given that the vast majority of the population are law-abiding and civic-minded people who do not want to find themselves in court, this should lead to an increase in the number of sites overall being registered voluntarily. Most people will choose not to take the risk of not registering their vacant sites. The remainder of the operation of the vacant site levy under the 2015 Act would remain unchanged. Councils would retain the ability to place sites on the register on their own initiative, and it is important that we continue to expect them to do so. The explicit inclusion of planning permission as a factor in the analysis of what is and is not a vacant site is an important change, because it would penalise the hoarding of land which has been the subject of planning permission, with the intention of selling it on later at a greater profit. Because the vacant site levy appears not to be effective, revenue is being lost, land with potential for development is not being developed and there is a potentially inequitable situation where some people who have land that would be eligible for the levy not being hit by it simply because it has not been registered by the council where others are. There are many defects that require remedy. The amendment would allow councils to more easily identify vacant sites, since councils will know which properties in their functional area have been granted planning permission. Again, I think this would be a more logical approach and allow the levy to operate more smoothly, and to allow more vacant land to be identified.

I hope the Minister of State will find the amendment acceptable. It would make more effective the vacant site levy with which there are problems and would increase the amount of available land for housing. I urge the Minister of State to support the amendment and invite colleagues to do likewise.