Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators Mullen, Keogan and Boyhan for putting forward the amendments.

The primary objective of the levy is to act as a mechanism to incentivise the development of vacant and unutilised sites in urban areas for both the provision of housing and the development and renewal of land, thereby facilitating the most efficient use of such land and sites, and enabling them to be brought into beneficial use rather than allowing them to remain dormant or undeveloped. This amendment will allow both the exclusion of certain undeveloped sites from the vacant site register as well as the removal of existing sites from the register on the basis that permission was not sought in the past five years. Furthermore, I wish to highlight that under the current provisions, the granting of planning permission does not prohibit a site from being included on the vacant site register, as simply implying having planning permission alone is not to define an indicator that works can commence on a site. A site can only be removed from the register when works have commenced. The next element of this amendment proposes that the owner of the site should notify the planning authority that his or her site is vacant and that there should be a fine associated with not doing so, while also allowing the planning authority to enter the site on its own initiative. The Act provides that a planning authority is responsible for administering the levy, provisions for the functional areas by establishing and maintaining the vacant site register, identifying vacant sites consisting of residential and regeneration land on the basis of the criteria outlined in the Act and applying the levy charge as appropriate. It could not be expected, nor is it likely, that individual site owners would undertake the consideration of their own sites and determine whether they are vacant sites in accordance with the criteria set out in the Act. It is the planning authority or An Bord Pleanála on appeal that is in the best position to make the determination.

The final part of the amendment, to limit the timeframe for initiating and prosecuting offences under the Act, imposes offences on individuals who acted on behalf of a body corporate and imposes local authority costs for prosecuting an offence on the individual if he or she is found guilty of the offence. Offences under the Act are liable to a class A fine. The payment of any class A fine that a person may be liable for under the Act is a matter for the courts and is governed by the Fines Act 2010. It is appropriate that the Act to amend the manner in which the court fines are administered is done under different legislation.

I mention this because Senator Casey noted that the Department is reviewing this legislation in the Department. It would be more appropriate if this amendment were to form part of that review. Valuable points have been made in the debate in connection with the vacant site levy and vacancy across the system. There are large differences between how the 31 local authorities operate in their functional areas . The Law Reform Commission is also analysing and assessing compulsory purchase order, CPO, laws. Its report on the matter should be very interesting. Some local authorities are way ahead of others in the area of vacant properties. Louth County Council, for instance, has adopted a progressive role in this regard and other local authorities have fallen behind. County Waterford accounted for 45% of the total take-up of the repair and leasing scheme. There are, therefore, significant disparities.

We are working on the issue of vacant sites and putting together a strategy that may require amendments to change the current Act. We would prefer to take that approach, if that is agreeable to the Senator, than to accept an amendment right now. I assure the Senator that we will take into consideration the matters he and other Senators have raised in that context.