Why don't or why can't local authorities collect the Derelict Site Levy?

P

Protocol

Registered User
Messages
4,879
The Dereliction law is from 1990.
The central Govt set the levy at 7% of the market value.

I use Sligo as an example. Their register has 37 sites.

Derelict Sites

www.sligococo.ie

Sligo LA publish the list, with the names of owners, and the values of the sites.

Some sites were added as far back as 2007, 2008, 2010, etc.

The most valuable site was added this year: Swan Point apartment building, never occupied, in Sligo town centre.

After investigating further, I discovered that the LA has collected zero in levies.

In the middle of a housing crisis, with excessive vacancy and dereliction, the LA has collected zero revenue from this 7% levy.

The Sligo Housing Action Group asked the LA in Oct 2023 how much they had collected, and here is the answer:


https://x.com/SHAGsligo/status/1917846525545230579
"zero was collected prior to 2024"

In April 2025, the LA staff again confirmed that they have no collected any levies:

https://x.com/SHAGsligo/status/1917846533724402168/photo/1

Having looked at the values, but not added them up, I feel that 7% would be a not insignificant amount of revenue.

Does anybody have any idea why the LA aren't taking this more seriously and urgently collecting the revenues owed to them?
 
Last edited:
If there was a desire to collect, then they'd collect.

We've far too many politicans, be they councillors, TDs, or whatever, with a conflict, or potential conflict, of interest.
 

How are buildings designated as derelict?

Properties on the Derelict Sites Register are subject to a 7 per cent levy
www.irishtimes.com

"Properties on the Derelict Sites Register are subject to a 7 per cent levy, and interest on unpaid levies is at a rate of 1.25 per cent per month. Generally, local authorities only manage to recover the levies if the property is sold."
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the link to the article in the Irish Times.

It seems that non-collection of the annual 7% Levy is normal.
 
Dr Strangelove said:
Most local authorities basically are staffed by people who are not very good at their job.
Click to expand...
The derelict property section of the Sligo Co Co web site is an excellent example of a very poor job. How is it possible to mess up a simple table and a few indented lists for crying out loud.
 
It’s a question of willpower and motivation and is a tale of two parts. On the one hand is Limerick (City and County) Council who are using the legislation to good effect and achieving tangible results, and then there are the 30 other odd Councils who are sitting on their hands and achieving either nothing at all or pretty close to it. Limerick has more properties listed on its derelict sites register than the four Dublin authorities plus Cork city combined. Ten local authorities have never levied the owners of derelict sites; never; not once; ever. Here are some related articles:

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/...-brings-hundreds-of-properties-back-into-use/

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/...site-levy-issued-in-10-local-authority-areas/

https://www.thejournal.ie/derelict-sites-councils-cpo-ireland-6691731-May2025/

https://m.independent.ie/regionals/...s-refurbished-derelict-homes/a1490914191.html

This is just a sample. There are plenty of other similar articles if you search for them. There was an article last year (can’t put my finger on it right now) that had a comparison table by Local Authority and it was jaw dropping.

All sorts of excuses are quoted, lack of resources, legal staff otherwise occupied, etc., etc. Put simply if Limerick can do it it’s difficult to see a justifiable reason why the rest can’t follow suit.

If there was a scintilla of competence in the Dept of Housing they would be all over this.
 
Taxes targeted on the poor and the old are always brutally difficult to collect.

If these sites were easy and economic to restore, they would have been restored a long time ago.

Imposing taxes on their dereliction is pointless.
 
Purple said:
I agree, but this is a tax on wealth. Unused wealth but wealth nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Yeah. But the only way to enforce such a tax is to seize the wealth — the state takes over the land, auctions it, uses the auction proceeds to pay the outstanding tax liabilities and pay the costs of the proceedings and the auction, and then remits any balance to the former owner of the land. (This is what happens in the US if you don't pay your property tax.)

It's very unlikely that doing this at scale would be politically acceptable in Ireland.
 
T McGibney said:
If these sites were easy and economic to restore, they would have been restored a long time ago.
Click to expand...
My grandfather - for his peculiar reasons - sat on a small piece of wasteland for thirty years rejecting all monetary offers from neighbours to buy him out. It’s finally being sorted by his heirs nearly a decade after his death.

I know a small but significant tax on his behaviour would have led him to act differently.
 
Dr Strangelove said:
I know a small but significant tax on his behaviour would have led him to act differently.
Click to expand...
Not if the tax was allowed to accumulate and was only collected when the property was sold, as appears to be the case with the derelict sites levy. If anything, that would have incentivized him even more strongly not to sell, no?

This looks to me like a textbook case of not thinking policy through before legislating. When the DSL was first suggested, somebody should have noticed that if the existing land taxes, LPT and VHT, are not paid when due they generally accumulate until the property is sold. Either there are no other effective collection mechanisms or there are systemic, social or political barriers to using those mechanism. So if you introduce a DSL with the same suite of collection mechanisms, the same outcome will result and, once arrears start to accumulate, the DSL will disincentivise the sale of the land for development, which is the opposite of the policy objective.
 
I can't comment on every council but there may be valid reasons why the levy has not been collected. For example, there may be an ownership dispute, the owners may have gone into bankruptcy or liquidation or simply can't be found in the case of an issue with a will. What I found interesting in the case of where I live is the amount of property listed as being "removed" from the list suggesting that the owners have received the required notice and done something with the property.

I know in my own town as well, the council have been quite ruthless when it comes to CPO's and a number of properties on that list have or are being acquired by the council in that manner.
 
I agree with you. Unfortunately we don't have the political will in this country to tax the rich. Instead we impose high levels of tax those on moderate incomes.
 
Purple said:
I agree with you. Unfortunately we don't have the political will in this country to tax the rich. Instead we impose high levels of tax those on moderate incomes.
Click to expand...
A lot of people who own derelict sites affected by the DSL are not particularly rich, in income terms. If we did have a policy of enforcing by seizure and sale, the great bulk of those who would actually have their land seized would be owners who didn't have the cashflow to avert this by paying the levy — i.e. they don't have much income and, often, they wouldn't have much in the way of other assets apart from this site.

A more politically acceptable approach might be for the authorities to CPO derelict sites suitable for residential development and develop the sites themselves — i.e. the focus would be on building more houses, rather than on recovering more tax. This would make the seizure more politically defensible, I think.
 
The basic problem right now is that speculative property development is generally uneconomic, risky and difficult to finance.

20 and even 30 years ago, owners of derelict sites would often find themselves approached by prospective developers who would agree to buy the property subject to planning permission and proceed with the development once permission was granted. That model collapsed around 2009 and its resuscitation has been blocked ever since by a whole array of factors, most under the control of the State.
 
TomEdison said:
A lot of people who own derelict sites affected by the DSL are not particularly rich, in income terms.
Click to expand...
Income is not a measure of wealth. The ownership of capital is a measure of wealth. I think what you mean to say is that many wealthy people have low incomes and choose to hold their wealth in illiquid assets.
 
T McGibney said:
The basic problem right now is that speculative property development is generally uneconomic, risky and difficult to finance.
Click to expand...
Yep, I think that is the main problem. The State is legislating around the edges of the problem because it is the problem and it is unable and unwilling to fix itself.
 
Last edited:
Purple said:
The State is legislating around the edges of the problem because it is the problem and is unable and unwilling to fix itself.
Click to expand...

Have you ever tried to perform a complex surgical procedure on yourself? (I once gingerly removed my own stitches following some hand surgery as I couldn't face going back to an overcrowded A&E unit, and promptly had an attack of the vapours. Fortunately, Mr. Hennessy came to my rescue!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register