Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 49 and 52 to 54, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This group of amendments relates to the vacant site levy provisions in the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015. As Members will be aware, the 2015 Act introduced the concept of the vacant site levy for the purpose of incentivising the development of vacant and underutilised sites and urban areas for housing and regeneration purposes. It was with the intention of bringing such sites back into beneficial use, ensuring a more efficient return on State investment in infrastructure and helping to counter urban sprawl.

Amendment No. 53 inserts a new section into the Bill to amend the 2015 Act by substituting a new section for the existing section 16 relating to the rate of the levy and provides for three key changes. An increase in the rate of levy was first signalled in budget 2018. It is proposed to increase the rate of the levy from 3% to 7% of the market valuation of the relevant sites from January 2020, reflecting sites included in the vacant register in 2019. The proposed increase aims to ensure the levy will be more aligned with the increase in house price inflation in recent years, thus having a more meaningful impact, while also helping to counter land hoarding. As the increase will not take effect until 2020 for sites on the register in 2019, the amendment also provides advance notice for site owners of the increased levy rate that will be applicable in 2020.

As mentioned, the 2015 Act provides for a reduced rate of the levy that can be applied in specific circumstances. These arrangements were introduced in different economic circumstances. In the light of the improved economic circumstances since the passage of the 2015 Act and for the purposes of further strengthening and tightening the vacant site levy provisions, the second key change is that it is proposed to remove the relevant reduced levy rate provisions in section 16 of the 2015 Act.

It is also proposed to provide that the Minister may, by regulations, vary the levy rate by a reduction or an increase, with the levy rate not to exceed the 7% set out in this legislation. In making such regulations it is proposed that the Minister be required to have regard to increases or decreases in property prices and relevant property related information as published by the Central Statistics Office.

Amendment No. 52 inserts a new provision into the Bill amending section 5 of the 2015 Act. Section 5 contains a definition of a vacant site – for residential and regeneration land, respectively - for the purposes of the application of the levy. The amendment proposed relates to the clarification of what constitutes "vacant and idle" lands for the purposes of the vacant site levy on residential land. This is to address the situation where developers or land speculators could hoard residentially zoned land and avoid the levy liability by leasing it or putting it to use for a non–residential purpose, for example, farming, by claiming that the land is not vacant or idle for the purposes of the levy. It is proposed that a site on residentially zoned land shall be regarded as vacant if it is "vacant or idle" or if it is not being used primarily for the purpose for which it has been zoned, that is, the provision of housing, where the most recent purchase of the land occurred after it was zoned residential, irrespective of when it was purchased. By differentiating between lands purchased following a zoning change to residential and lands long held and operated as farms, the amendment targets developers or speculators who are hoarding zoned, serviced lands purchased for residential use, while also allowing farmers who have operated their farm for a number of years prior to the rezoning from agricultural to residential to continue to operate the farm without liability to the levy on the basis that no purchase of residentially zoned land was involved. I consider that the amendment is balanced and proportionate and in line with the intention of the levy measure.

The other amendments related to the vacant site levy are of a general or minor nature. Amendment No. 49 inserts a new section into the Bill which is a standard definition provision. Amendment No. 54 inserts a section into the Bill which contains five minor, consequential or miscellaneous amendments to the vacant site levy provisions included in the 2015 Act.

Grace O'Sullivan (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government amendments implement the following changes which were first recommended in my Derelict and Vacant Sites Bill in February 2017 and the Green Party's Living Cities Bill 2017 which is currently part the lottery. There will be an increase in the vacant and derelict sites levy to 7%, the removal of the loophole that allows vacant sites in negative equity to hide from the levy and increased transparency in how and why vacant sites are added to the register. I warmly welcome the Government's change of heart on these issues after a long wait during which cities and town centres have been blighted by empty sites and derelict buildings fast becoming rubbish tips.

I point to the following changes recommended in the Green Party Bills that the Government is not implementing and would like to know why. In terms of process it is a pity that I am asking these questions on Report Stage. Why are vacant sites less than 0.05 ha still exempt from the vacant sites levy? That 0.05 ha measurement includes house sites the size of a basketball court, including adjoining gardens. Green Party Councillor Ciarán Cuffe has done a lot of work on sites of this size in the city of Dublin that could accommodate fantastic public housing projects.

Why is there a continued lack of public transparency in the process by which sites are entered into the derelict sites registers? We all know that the levy is not being applied by local authorities and the reasons need to be made public and questioned.

Why is there no incremental increase in the vacant sites levy as in the Derelict Sites Act? Why is the current local authority power to increase incrementally the derelict sites levy being restricted?

Does amendment No. 50 mean that the derelict sites levy will be reduced to 3% all across the country until 2020, even if it is higher in some local authority areas? We also ask why the increase from 3% to 7% is not being applied until 2020. We have waited too long already for these eyesores of derelict sites to be dealt with. Some derelict buildings have been standing for decades without the payment of levies. The changes being made at the eleventh hour could come back to haunt what overall is a move in a positive direction in dealing with vacant and derelict sites. I hope the Minister of State will give this issue some more time.

John O'Mahony (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me clarify a situation in respect of the vacant sites levy. There are different requirements in rural and urban Ireland. In my town of Ballaghaderreen people are receiving letters about vacant sites for which planning permission was never sought. They were used as farmland. When I inquired, I found that there were 352 vacant houses in Ballaghaderreen. Why is there a levy on land that is not needed? It would be totally off the wall if this land was to be developed because there would be no demand for it. Will there be clarity for local authorities or a circular sent to them to the effect that the vacant sites will be geared to meeting the needs of the area? Derelict sites are another issue. I know sites which have been derelict for the past 50 years adjacent to where I live and nothing has happened with them. There is a need for clarity. Legislation such as this should never be a revenue collecting measure. It should be to meet the needs of and enhance local areas, but that is not what the outcome will be, particularly in rural areas.

Kevin Humphreys (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wholeheartedly support the vacant site levy and compliment the former Minister of State, Senator Paudie Coffey, and the former Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly for pressing the issue. Unfortunately, the Attorney General's opinion at the time was that we had to give people a window of opportunity. I certainly wanted the levy to start at a lot more than 3%, but we are beginning to move in the right direction. Especially in urban Ireland, in many town centres, property has been hoarded, not developed.I, therefore, welcome the provision.

Earlier a Senatortouched on the following matter. For five or six weeks prior to the referendum I spent every afternoon and evening knocking on doors canvassing as part of the Repeal the Eighth campaign. My companions and I used to play a game of counting derelict houses and the winner was the person with the greatest number. It was difficult to prove that a house was derelict because the roof and windows were intact, but, to us, it was plain to see that no one had lived in a house for many years. When we talked to neighbours on either side of a derelict house, they complained about it affecting their properties in various ways. Will the Minister of State consider including a definition of derelict house as part of the Derelict Sites Act? We have developed a register for vacant homes, some of which I hope will become available again. We need to keep the pressure on in dealing with this matter because there is a huge of number of vacant or derelict houses that could easily be brought back into the housing market. Such a solution will not resolve the housing crisis, but every step taken to reduce it is helpful.

On the vacant sites register, there is a very moderate estimate that Dublin City Council owns sites in the city worth over €64 million. If that figure is correct, we need to call in local authorities to meetings to discuss the matter. Dublin City Council has been very reluctant to publish and, in fact, was late in publishing its list of vacant sites. When one reads the register, one will see that the vast majority of properties are owned by Dublin City Council, the Department of Justice and Equality, Irish Rail, etc. These are lands that badly need to be developed. I have not had time to assess how much property is owned by Fingal County Council and other councils. However, from a quick perusal of their lists, there is a considerable number of vacant sites in local authority ownership. Since 2015, we have been stating we need to build on local authority lands. There must now be a sense of urgency. When one peruses the vacant site register, one can see the value of the sites owned. I have reached the stage of calling on the chief executive officers to get on with their job or that they will be sacked. In 2015 the then Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, now Senator Paudie Coffey, and the then Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, argued strongly in favour of the provision of additional staff in local authorities in order that staff could put together the sites for which planning permission had been granted. Unfortunately, nothing has happened. Excuses only last so long and we need action now. The vacant sites register highlights how much of the State's, or taxpayers', money is tied up in these sites, yet nothing has happened.

I will not oppose the amendment as it moves in the right direction, but I would prefer if it went much further. I have great confidence in the ability of the Minister of State and know that he will consider this matter, as we share the same views on housing. We know that people should stop talking about doing things and just build the bloody things. Clearly, the vacant sites register has highlighted the lack of urgency on the part of local authorities in resolving the matter.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support the point made by Senator John O'Mahony about the vacant site tax. I agree with him that in some towns there are lands that could be developed. Unfortunately, there is an oversupply of houses. Therefore, if there are lands that should be or could be developed, no bank manager in his or her right mind would give funds to develop them, given the oversupply of houses. Where does one draw the line? Let us say there is an oversupply of houses in a town and they cannot be sold owing to a lack of demand. At the same time, the local authority will issue invoices for the collection of the vacant site tax. It is a chicken and egg scenario, one which will recur every year.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The original charge was based on 0.1 of a hectare. As a result of an amendment tabled by Deputy Mick Wallace, it was increased to 0.5 of a hectare. However, the size can be examined again in the future when we will probably fight over what the figure should be.

The charge will kick in from 2019, but the money will only be collected from 2020. It is not the case that the introduction of the tax was delayed. It is simply a matter that we had to give people some time. We know what the Attorney General's advice is. We would all have liked to see the tax being introduced straightaway, but it could just not be done.

On sites not being needed, if there is no housing need, the levy cannot be charged. Housing need is part of the requirements one must show to charge a vacant site levy. Therefore, the levy will not be charged in the areas described. Also, if land has always been been used for farming and was purchased before the register was established, it will not be levied. The amendment clarifies the matter, on which guidance notes will be given to local authorities. However, it is a different story if land was purchased by local authorities for residential or development purposes. If someone is genuinely farming and has always been, he or she will be looked after.

Kevin Humphreys (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just de-zone the land.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is the option of getting land back.

On vacant houses, we totally and utterly want to do more in that space. Vacant office sites are being allocated to local authorities. A lot of work has been done in adopting a carrot and stick approach which works both ways. We need to strengthen the stick, something we are considering.

Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendment proposes to provide for an increase in the levy that can be applied by local authorities on the owners of sites included in the derelict sites registers kept by local authorities. In that connection, the amendment provides for the substitution of section 23(3) of the Derelict Sites Act 1990 with a revised section incorporating the proposed increased rate of levy, from 3%.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 51 has already been discussed with amendment No. 38.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 52 has already been discussed with amendment No. 49.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 53 has already been discussed with amendment No. 49.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 54 has already been discussed with amendment No. 49.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 55 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 56 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 57 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 58 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 59 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 60 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 61 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 62 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 63 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 64 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 65 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.