In view of the fact that it has been suggested that this Bill be concluded at 1 p.m., may I ask that the debate be concluded by putting the question at 1 p.m. that the Bill be passed?
Derelict Sites Bill, 1989: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 15:
In page 16, subsection (7), line 34, after "to" where it first occurs, to insert "the remainder of".
—(Senator Costello.)
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are related and are being discussed together.
We had just started on amendment No. 15 the last day. Subsection (7) states:
Where urban land ceases to be derelict at any time during a local financial year, any amounts paid by way of derelict sites levy in relation to that year shall be refunded to the owner...
What I wish to insert is that in relation to the remainder of that year it shall be refunded to the owner. In other words, that you do not give back to the owner any money other than what he is owed.
One is not generous to somebody who has been a cause of dereliction. What is owed is refunded to the person in question. The subsection concludes: "any amounts due or owing in relation to that year shall be waived". One is not waiving any sum of money that is properly owed by the person who is responsible for the dereliction. I do not see any reason why we should hold out that carrot. I do not see any reason why we should be extra-generous to somebody who has committed a fault in the first place. That is not the way it operates in relation to the law, and particularly the criminal law, anywhere else. A person is not given a bonus because after a period of time he is doing what he should have done anyway. People are not rewarded, if they have committed an offence, by giving them that extra bonus of waiving a certain amount of what they owe. It would be appropriate if those two amendments were accepted. It would be a salutary lesson for anybody who is found guilty of bringing about dereliction.
I would have to concur with the sentiments expressed by Senator Costello, particularly in the light of the kind of developments that have been happening, and were happening no later than this week, along the Dublin quays. I would remind the Minister, through the Chair that there was a situation where one of the most valiant defenders of Dublin was arrested for taking a photograph of the illegal destruction of a building at the Linders site about this time last year. The person, who was protecting Dublin, was arrested for taking a photograph of an illegal activity. I believe that persons who engage in this kind of nefarious pursuit in search of profit and at the expense of the city of Dublin or other cities all over the country should be penalised. They should not get a reward from the efforts of other people in a time of their own dereliction. In other words, if a profit subsequently accrues, not as a result of the efforts of the owners, then I do not think they should benefit from it. I take it that that is the substance of Senator Costello's case. If it is, I will certainly support it.
I have considered this point during the last couple of days and again this morning in regard to what I would do about this matter. I am prepared to accept the substance of the amendments. In order to improve them from a technical point of view, I would prefer if both Senator Costello and Senator Norris would allow me to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to cover the matter. I would like to have it technically correct.
Acting Chairman
I understand the Minister will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage. Is that agreed?
Yes. I am delighted that the Minister has agreed to this. It was not my intention that the exact wording in my amendment would be accepted, but I am delighted that the Minister has accepted the basic principle. I accept his commitment to introduce it.
I would not like any Member in the House to think I am casting any reflection on the wording, but I want to make sure that it is satisfactory from technical and drafting points of view.
May I add that the Minister is being characteristically gracious this morning?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 16a:
In page 17, between lines 24 and 25, to insert a new subsection as follows:
(2) Subsection 1 shall not apply in any instance where the urban land consists of or includes a building listed for preservation by the local authority or deemed to be of national importance historically or aesthetically by the competent and relevant bodies such as the Office of Public Works.
In order to tease the matter out, I would like to suggest that the Minister might kindly give us his justification for this section, without my amendment, which I can then continue to argue for.
This amendment would prevent the making of bonding arrangements under section 25 in any case where a listed building or a building of national, historic importance was involved in the proposed scheme of development. The Senator proposing the amendment believed that this would improve the prospects of conserving and maintaining these buildings. The derelict sites levy has been designed as an efficiency tax to pressure owners into better use of their land. In keeping with the idea, section 23 (7) remits the levy in full where, within the relevant financial year, the urban land ceases to be derelict.
Generally speaking, it will be right for the derelict sites levy to apply to any dereliction which is continued for more than one year. There could, however, be situations in which this would be counterproductive. For example, it could be clear that site assembly for major redevelopment or refurbishment, together with the planning application process and possibly other preparatory works, are all likely to take longer than a year. In this case the prospect of having to pay a levy on a large number of properties could discourage a developer from undertaking a worthwhile major project.
It could even be, in this kind of case, that the derelict sites levy could be competing negatively with urban renewal incentives designed to stimulate redevelopment in a designated area. For this reason, section 25 gives local authorities discretion. It does not oblige them to enter into a bonding arrangement with a developer in certain circumstances. This will remit payment of the levy if the scheme of development is carried out before the end of the period. If the scheme is not carried out the bond will require payment of the levies in full.
The intention of section 25 is that the local authority should be able to judge on the merits of a particular case. Where immediate application of the levy would do more harm than good to the redevelopment of the derelict land, they will not, of course, be free to offer bonding at will. Section 25 will only permit this arrangement where a developer has obtained planning permission for a scheme of development of property, or where a planning application or appeal for this purpose is pending and has not been refused. The amendment would mean that this arrangement could not be operated in any case where a listed or similar building was involved.
I understand the concerns of Members in advancing this amendment. I accept that local authorities, in operating section 25, would do well to bear in mind some of the difficulties mentioned by the Senators. I am prepared to ensure that local authorities are briefed to this effect in the administrative guidance which will be issued to them in connection with the Bill.
I consider it would be too restrictive for us to legislate that section 25 should never be used for any scheme of development affecting a listed building. For example, a developer might actually have planning permission for the modification or refurbishment of a listed building. If he has planning permission for this, why should he be discouraged from implementing this permission by the withdrawal of the section 25 facilities? As I have said I consider that this amendment is unduly restrictive, I ask the Senator to have a look at that because I do not think there is need for that amendment in view of what I have outlined. The local authorities will be fully briefed on the action they need to take in all of that. As the Senator realises, in many of our urban areas the assembly of land can be quite drawn out with the legal implications and the planning delays. I do not want to make too tight a control on that but to leave it in the hands of the local authorities because they will be well briefed on all of this.
The Minister is most helpful and I am taking on board what he says. In particular, I am heartened by the statement that the local authorities will be briefed. Perhaps I could explain precisely the nature of my concern. It specifically relates to the question of buildings judged to be of prominent, historical, architectural and cultural merit. In other words, the kind of buildings that local authorities themselves list. I accept absolutely the Minister's good intentions and good will in this.
I am afraid I have to be parochial and speak about the city of Dublin, particularly the north side. It is a scandal that on the north side there is a phrase in current usage both by officials of the corporation who do not necessarily approve of it at all and certainly by property speculators and it is called "north side planning permissions". They go in and start assembling a site. There may very well be on that site, a building of the first significance artistically, historically and architecturally. They gradually undermine that building by allowing the buildings next to it to become derelict, by applying then, on foot of the dereliction, for which they are not directly responsible but responsible by neglect, for permission to demolish the adjoining buildings. The Minister, I am sure, knows that this has happened.
Of course, the property speculator, who is a very civilised man in a suit, smoking a cigar, driving a Rolls Royce and all the rest of it, is not directly personally responsible for the poor workmanship of his employees. If they happen to drive a bulldozer accidentally into the side wall of a listed building and then it becomes a bit more derelict, the process continues. Then the building has to be pulled down too. I am really looking for a reassurance that the Minister will be able to — I believe he has the intention — stop this process. My problem is that it says not even the planning permission for the redevelopment has been given. This is a hesitation I have.
Section 25 as it stands says that planning permission has not been refused. It does not actually say that it has been given, so we are depending on the absence of a refusal. In the process of the assembly of sites you have a situation where there is at the moment no refusal but there is also no obligation, that I can detect, that can be enforced and no penalty. Suppose the owner of the assembled site or the site in process of assembly conspires to, or collaborates in, the dereliction and ultimate destruction of buildings that are part of the national heritage. It is for that reason that very specifically we are trying to amend the section to make the levy continue to apply to those sites which contain buildings of considerable historical merit.
I fully understand the Senators' concern. With regard to the knocking of a building, if that is the word to use, the developer or the owner must get permission from the local authority to do that under law. The relevant Acts are there to do that. The Senator knows what took place in another part of the country, which I shall not name.
Slightly north of Dublin.
That would be correct. The Senator knows what happened there with the legal process involved. I cannot comment any further on that. When a person is assembling a site, let it be an historical building or any type of development, whatever the case may be, there is a long drawn-out process. When a planning permission goes in, right to ownership and so on, has to be taken into account. With the powers under this Bill and the new powers that the local authorites have, I am satisfied with the briefing they will get, the briefing under the Bill and with the regulations, they can take the necessary action where required to put these matters right.
I am also responsible for urban renewal. It is my main responsibility now. Thankfully, I must say that an enormous amount of work is taking place throughout the country, especially here in the Dublin area. Some may not like the design. That is a matter of how people feel about designs. I am extremely pleased, if I may elaborate a little on that, with improvements that are being carried out in many parts of Dublin especially. Millions of pounds are being spent on that. Everybody agrees that it is a vast improvement now.
The problem in the Dublin area in regard to assembly of land is title, the packaging of the land. All this development causes problems, legal and technical. I do not want to get into the legal field, but if one wanted to get into it, it could be quite complex. I want to give the authorities discretion to use their judgment. They will be well briefed on this. I would be very surprised if local authority officials, not alone here in Dublin but throughout the country are not competent and capable of dealing will all this.
I understand the Senator's point. I understand the reservations he has but I am very confident it will be all right. The drafters of the Bill and the legal people in the Department also say it will, because local authorities will have to use their judgment. Today a person can make a planning application for a development, especially in the bigger urban areas, and it can take months and months to get through even a corporation or a local authority. Then there may be a third party objection and it is before An Bord Pleanála. I do not want to have it too restrictive so that it could, if you like to put it in broader language, deter a development. I fully respect any building on which there is a preservation order. I expect every local authority to respect all that as well. On the quays, where I was involved in a development with the National Building Agency — beside the Ormond Hotel — there is splendid architectural work, the design of which is in keeping with the whole area there. It was done extremely competently. I would like to see a lot of that type of work taking place.
I will not be pressing the amendment because I realise, first of all, that it would be totally futile, and I would not win. The Minister is a reasonable person. He has heard what I have to say on the matter. He is correct about certain aspects of the development on the quays. I imagine he may be referring to the development of the Scots Church on Ormond Quay. It is attractive and shows what can be done.
I would just like to express one or two small reservations before I formally withdraw the amendment. When the Minister says that the developers must get permission for the demolition of a building, technically that is true, and has been true for some time but, regrettably, it has not always happened. There have been instances in the past 12 months of people just going in and demolishing without being penalised. This has taken place along the quays. What the Minister has said, although very interesting and extremely helpful, has not entirely addressed the situation of people who deliberately allow buildings to become derelict, then seek a dangerous buildings order and demolish on foot of that order. That legalises a process they have initiated. At the end of the day, what they do is retrospectively covered by the law, but the intention is malign. I am very glad to hear the Minister saying that he is taking this on board.
I recognise also — and I will say this to the Minister — that perhaps the concerns I am expressing are not most appropriately expressed in this Bill, because this is a Bill concerning derelict sites so the emphasis is on dereliction. I am politically using this opportunity to sensitise the Minister — I will not say to soften him up because I doubt that would be likely and to suggest to him that we also need to look at the necessity to put teeth in the positive sides of legislation, in other words, the preservation side. This is coping with a negative situation. This is very important and it would be to the immense credit of the Government if they decided to go along the other parallel side, which is the positive preservation of buildings. Having said that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 25 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 16b:
In page 17, before section 26, to insert a new section as follows:
"26.—The local authority shall be liable to the levy for any occupied dwelling or land owned by a State authority or by the local authority in whose functional area the land is situated or land in relation to which—
(a) a compulsory purchase order (other than a vesting order under this Act) has become operative, or
(b) a development objective exists for the purpose of reserving the land for roads or parking places or for any of the purposes of reserving or preserving land indicated in Part IV of the Third Schedule to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963,
any such levy being abated to zero by virtue of the fact that payment of such levy would amount to a circular payment".
This again is not intended to be tendentious but it is an attempt to look once more at a problem that arose during previous discussions. The intention of the amendment is to adroitly remove the substance of the Minister's argument. I attempted to insert a similar amendment earlier on in the Bill, in other words, to destroy the special exemptions extended by the Bill to local authorities. As I recall it, the Minister's argument at that point, which certainly appeared to the House to be a valid one, was that this could not validly be passed by Seanad Éireann because it involved Exchequer expenditure, which we are prevented from imposing in this House.
I believe I have satisfied that legitimate concern of the Minister by a process with which local authorities will be very familiar. You charge a rent but that rent becomes notional and is abated. I am aware of this as a positive manoeuvre because I have been involved in attempts to preserve a number of notable buildings in Dublin. You extract them from the corporation and they have been very helpful sometimes in this regard, but they are required to seek payment. They charge a full commercial rent and abate it to zero so that the Minister's initial argument on this, I believe, has been met by my technical adjustment — at least I hope so.
This allows me, once more, to mention — I will not develop it at enormous length because I do not want to irritate the House by repetition — the fact that I am very concerned that this Bill should be as effective as the Minister wishes it to be. I am very worried that by allowing major exemptions for local authorities, on the one hand, and property speculators, on the other, the two principal sources of the devastation of our cities are left untouched by the provisions of the Bill. I say that without intending in any way to impugn the general standards or reputation of local authorities, it is perfectly clear to anybody who looks around this city that the two principal sources of dereliction are: (a) the local authorities with their road widening schemes; and, (b) the site assembly for property development. I began to make a point on a previous amendment with regard to the rights of the very class of people whom Fianna Fáil traditionally sought to represent, and represent very effectively, the small people.
And still do.
I am sure they still think they do.
There is no thinking about it.
I am sure they represent some of the ordinary small people of Ireland. In my own modest way, so do I, and many of my constituents do. May I remind the Minister that I involve myself in the local politics of Dublin quite extensively, particularly with things like the Clanbrassil Street development. Last night I was at a meeting called by local representatives and local community groups to deal with the eastern by-pass out in Marino. One of the concerns expressed is that the rights of ordinary small people are violated by developments involving the dereliction of sites.
Local authorities have an insidious practice of buying up a scatter of strategic sites along the line of a new road development. They will buy a corner site, they will buy a pub, they will buy a house — about 4 per cent of the entire area ultimately to be acquired. They allow them to go derelict over a period of 20 to 30 years. It has been 30 years in the Clanbrassil Street-Patrick Street case. The value of the property is then diminished by virtue of the dereliction. The local authority know this and they realise that the increasing dereliction creates political pressure from the residents. Once it gets bad enough they start campaigning to have the road plan implemented. I would like this kind of thing stopped if possible. For that reason I want the local authorities brought in.
I know it may be argued — it would be impertinent, of course, for me to anticipate the Minister's subtlety of mind — that this is purposeless. What is the point in having the right to fine people and then abate it to zero? The purpose is very simple. Because there are not only financial penalties available, there is the penalty of public exposure and humiliation. I believe that in some small way, by taking this course of lateral thinking, by retaining the penalty for local authorities, by refusing to exempt them because they are a principal source of dereliction, you leave in the possibility that if they engage in this kind of thing unscrupulously it can all be exposed in the papers and people will know what is happening. They will be shamed, they will be reproved by public opinion and at the next election those persons on the local authority, who have collaborated in this kind of process, may find it rather more difficult to get back than they supposed. Far from being an impractical suggestion, I believe it is practical.
We have had a very long discussion on this point in dealing with section 2. I would like to make a few brief comments on the amendment. It would always involve circular payments since what it is advocating is under a number of different headings, that the local authorities should pay the levy to themselves. This kind of arrangement is artificial and is obviously wasteful from an administrative point of view. I do not know about the merit of this amendment. I will put forward how I see it. It would more clearly highlight the existence of derelict sites, which are owned by the local authorities, or the State, which result from local authority CPOs or land reservations. My answer to this point is that the existence of these derelict sites will be fully highlighted by the requirement of section 8, that they enter derelict sites on the register. In addition, section 8 requires that in the case of derelict local authority land, the register should set out particulars of the use, if any, being made of it and any purpose for which the land is intended to be used.
Section 13 gives power to the Minister to require local authorities to sell off this type of land. I will try to be helpful on what I would be prepared to do. If it will allay the Senator's concern, I would be prepared to give an assurance here and now that details regarding land reservations affected by CPO or planning will be required to be entered by local authorities in the register. This can be done in the context of the regulations which will have to be made to prescribe the form and detail of the register. I can do it that way. I hope the Senators will accept my point of view on that.
The Minister has been most helpful. I accept that he has gone a certain distance of the road with me. I thank him for his willingness to accept the spirit of my amendment, if not the form, and incorporate it in the regulations.
I listened with interest to the debate on the amendment. I was not sure that the amendment would meet the wishes of the Senator but as he has said, the Minister has gone some way to meet him. Will the Minister continue to keep an eye on this and improve the situation if possible? Even section 8 will not prevent local authorities from achieving their long-term aim of acquiring an area, for example, some of the areas mentioned in the city of Dublin. This has been going on for 30 years now. It does not prevent a local authority from moving in and buying business in an area, closing a shop — that in itself immediately commences the decay — and buying a second shop.
That happened in the areas that have already been mentioned here and in other areas of the city where there were long-term plans for road development. The local authority moved in and having purchased one or two businesses on that street, they then controlled the market because nobody else was interested in going in and purchasing businesses. The people who live in those areas are now caught in a trap. Their premises are not marketable except to one customer. It is time that this was brought to an end. There are a lot of people caught in the Clanbrassil Street and, indeed, in the Parnell Street case where the local authority moved in, bought premises and made their plans known. Having closed a business or two, or every fifth or seventh business along the street, they created this decay and many business people and others are caught in this trap. I would like the Minister to keep an eye on that and to see if he can bring in legislation to prevent this kind of thing happening. I do not know how he can prevent the local authority from doing it.
I accept what the Senator is saying. If a person purchases housing or a business, that person will be duty bound, under this Bill, to keep that property in proper repair. All the relevant Acts provide that. We will give the necessary powers to the local authority to do that. I respect the Senator's view on this and I will see what I can do in the regulations to make sure that the views of many of the Members are kept in mind and will be acted upon.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 26 and 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Amendment Nos. 17 to 20 inclusive, not moved.
Section 28 agreed to.
SECTION 29.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
Section 29 agreed to.
Sections 30 and 31 agreed to.
SECTION 32.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 19, line 40, to delete "in the prescribed manner".
This amendment corrects a drafting error. It would be inappropriate for the Minister for the Environment to prescribe the manner of application to the District Court for an order under section 32. The matter would be governed in the normal way by rules of the court. It is a technical drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 32, as amended, agreed to.
Section 33 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.