I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I reserve the right to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Michael McDowell.
This is the first major conservation Bill since the foundation of the State. Its purpose is to give proper protection in law to our built environment. The provisions of this Bill extend not only to buildings of particular architectural importance but also to buildings of historic, cultural an artistic significance. The Bill amends and extends the powers of local planning authorities. Armed with these new powers the local authorties will be required to act as custodians of our built environment. The Bill puts in place a package of planning controls on the one hand and recommends a range of tax relief type incentives on the other. We are confident this is the proper balance and will put a halt to the wilful dereliction and wanton demolitian of our rich architectural inheritance that is rampant in our cities, towns and villages. The house in which James Joyce set his hauntingly beautiful story, The Dead, at 15 Usher's Island was vandalised in recent weeks and is now stripped of its top storey. There is no law to require any developer to restore and repair that building. I could cite a dozen similar examples from this and other cities up and down the country. There is an urgent need to enact this legislation without delay. In that spirit I appeal to the Minister not to vote down the Bill but to seek to get all-party support for it before referring it to a committee where it can be improved upon, if that is deemed fit. Time is not on our side. I hope the Government will see its way to supporting this Bill.
Our built environment is a central part of our heritage and a significant segment of our cultural legacy. Down the ages man has always been inspired and awe-struck by fine craftsmanship and fine buildings and the human spirit has been demeaned by being required to live among dingy buildings. Fifty years ago the Northern Ireland poet, Louis MacNeice wrote the following poem, Dublin:
This was never my town. I was not born nor bred nor schooled here. She will not have me alive or dead but yet she holds my mind with her seedy elegance and all her ghosts that walk and all that hides behind her Georgian facade. Yet she holds my mind.
That is the grip that good architecture can have on the fine mind of a good poet. I wonder if MacNeice were alive and writing to Dublin today, would he write in that vein, in that tone or would he write at all? It is a fact that buildings define our values, demonstrate our appreciation of the past and declare our expectations of the future.
The conservation of interesting buildings and streetscapes is a well recognised precondition for a successful tourism trade. Despite all that, in the past 30 years there has been wanton and widescale destruction and despoliation of much of Dublin's Georgian heritage. In addition, buildings of unique historic significance and architectural merits have been razed to the ground. I could list the buildings but that would hold me here for a long time. I will mention but a few important buildings that ought to be still with us but no longer are. Among them I would mention the Weaver's Hall in the Coombe, the Peasants' Asylum in Camden Street, the Female Orphan's Home in North Circular Road, Woodhill House in Tivoli in Cork, the house where Sarah Curran held tryst with her romantic hero, Robert Emmet. A host of other fine buildings have been razed to the ground, among them the Talbot Lodge in Black-rock where Eamon de Valera spent his final days. This wilful dereliction and wanton destruction is going on under our very noses. The Hilton Hotel scheme for College Street proposes gross interference in an area that, above any urban area, ought to be designated as a conservation area. Under the proposal in question it is proposed to demolish no less than four list one buildings, two, list two buildings and three further buildings in the immediate area. That proposal further entails the unnecessary and complete demolition of three wide street commissioner's buildings on Westmoreland Street and of numbers 3 and 4, College Street. That is a loss that cannot be repaired. There is nothing in law to prevent that irreversible destruction from taking place. As well as that, there is a proposal to demolish the house at number 2, Millbourne Avenue, Drumcondra, a house where James Joyce lived. The house in question has been described by a nephew of James Joyce, Mr. Ken Monaghan, as "the most important of the Dublin houses of James Joyce". I mentioned already the Joyce house at 15 Usher's Island. I have been told that an application has been lodged for the demolition of another unlisted house in Philsboro, where Joyce spent an important part of his childhood. Where lies the logic in spending million of pounds of taxpayers' money in marketing this country as a tourism destination on the one hand and simultaneously destroying the very item tourists want to see? Surely of all items of importance in this city and of all cultural and tourism assets in this city among the most important have to be anything tangible to do with James Joyce. Houses associated with him ought not alone be preserved but promoted and jealously guarded. Can it be that we alone among civilised countries have such a poor appreciation of our built environment? I wonder why. These are those who might argue that the Irish people are capable of being passionate only about our poetry, our songs and our literature and if that was the case it would be to dismiss us as nothing more than a nation of word merchants, who are visual illiterates. We would not like if other people said that about us but they would have plenty of reason for so doing, considering our history in relation to our built environment. There are historical reasons for our lack of cultural affinity particularly with fine buildings and streetscapes that predate the foundation of the State.
In the early 1920s the Government of the fledgling Free State set about restoring the Four Courts, the Custom House and the GPO to their former grandeur at a time when Exchequer funding was scarce. It had, at least, a sufficient sense of their importance. O'Connell Street was also restored, as was Patrick Street in Cork. What has gone wrong in the meantime? Why was its good example not followed through? That is not to say that there have not been a number of remarkably successful conservation projects throughout the country since.
Kilkenny city is a model of good practice. Major restoration of houses has yielded significant success in my own city and county. These include Doneraile Court which has been magnificently restored, Barryscourt Castle, Queen Anne House in Pope's Quay where the leader of my party opened an architectural exhibition a number of years ago and Skiddy's Arms House in Shandon, to mention but a few.
With its splendid collection of 18th century houses, Kinsale, happily and deservedly in the news today having been voted the best kept town in Ireland, is a classic example of what can be done when an innovative county architect interacts successfully with a sophisticated and discerning local commercial community. This community has demonstrated without doubt that conservation pays handsomely in terms of economic return and has given fine example to the rest of the country. Other coastal towns in County Cork such as Clonakilty and Skibbereen, as well as Kenmare in County Kerry, are fine examples of good conservation and architectural practice.
We have much to learn from the building conservation policies pursued in Northern Ireland where since 1974 the Department of the Environment, with the advice of its Historic Buildings Council, has listed more than 7,000 buildings as being of special architectural or historic interest, 26 conservation areas have been designated and more than £20 million has been disbursed in support of conservation schemes. This policy has worked remarkably well there.
The city of Edinburgh has set a fine headline for the preservation of a Georgian heritage which in its case is still largely intact. A rolling programme of restoration has been under way for almost 20 years based on a partnership between the state, the local authority and conservation groups. There are, therefore, many models to which we can look for inspiration when framing legislation.
Some people have said to me that this Bill has come 30 years too late. In one sense it has when one considers the sheer scale of the fine buildings which have been lost in that time, but in another sense this is a Bill whose time has come. I set its demands in the context of the promise made by the Government to reform and revitalise local government. If the Minister's word means anything, local government will be reformed and revitalised, given proper functions and adequate finance sooner rather than later.
We believe that this work can best be done in a local setting where local people can be enthused and their support enlisted for the preservation of items worth preserving in their area. This is entirely consistent with the philosophy of the Progressive Democrats. We do not believe that every time there is a new idea a new body should be set up to put it into practice. That goes against everything we stand for. Responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of this legislation would rest with the newly revitalised and reformed local government. In that sense there could hardly be a better time to introduce legislation of this kind in terms of its implementation.
The objectives of this Bill would best be met if we had a system under which the mayors of cities were directly elected by the people, given executive functions and five years in which to achieve their objectives. The experience of other cities across Europe and America shows that where public opinion is led by a concerned and enlightened mayor good preservation and conservation policies are put in place and maintained. We see the two as coming together.
We see this Bill as an opportunity to give the art and science of architecture a proper lift. It saddened me greatly that architecture scarcely merited a mention in the arts plan, the bible for art development and funding over the next five years. That is indicative of the attitude at official level towards architecture and its importance in society.
The Bill would give a new range of responsibilities and powers to local authorities. Part I contains the definitions section which features a number of innovations. Part II deals with development plans and planning permission. Part III provides for new enforcement measures to ensure adequate day to day protection for the built environment. Part IV contains a number of important miscellaneous provisions.
One of the most important definitions in the Bill is the definition of what constitutes a building. It states that a building constitutes the exterior, the interior and the curtilage. If a building is to be conserved, it should be conserved in its natural historic setting. That is a new concept. Under existing law there is no requirement to conserve or preserve the interior of a listed building, only the exterior. That would change under this Bill.
We are also putting forward a new concept of the built heritage which is defined in the Bill. The detail will be provided later. Married to this in a single planning code is the concept of cultural importance. We rate them as being of equal importance. There is a further innovation with the inclusion of the concept of internal spatial arrangements in deference to the importance of retaining the exterior of a building.
A pointer as to what constitutes architectural or historic interest is included, namely, anything which dates from 1850 or earlier or is distinguished by the use of unusual or innovative technology, techniques or material, or is associated with a person or event of local, national or international importance. The definition of buildings is of key importance.
Part II of the Bill deals with the development plan and section 4 proposes to extend the duties of a planning authority when preparing a development plan. The compilation of the list of elements of built heritage will be mandatory under this Bill, rather than optional, as is the case at present. Furthermore, the planning authority is obliged to include all items of artistic, architectural, cultural or historical interest; this casts a new and much more comprehensive duty on local authorities.
The concept of the conservation area is placed on a statutory basis. Planning authorities will be required to establish conservation areas and to draw up plans for the preservation and enhancement of these areas. Applications for the development of these areas will be judged on the criteria of environmental improvement. A planning authority would be obliged to have regard to a list compiled by the heritage council of elements of built heritage or conservation areas within the authority's area. The planning authority must include anything on the heritage council's list or on its own list unless there is good reason for not so doing. If a local authority refuses to put an item recommended for inclusion by the heritage council on the list, the Minister may intervene and require the local authority to include that item on its list.
We have brought together the powers of the local authority and the heritage council. Initially we thought to give the Heritage Council the sole right of requiring the local authority to include an excluded item on its list but we thought better of it. It is better to reserve that power for the Minister and thus keep democratic accountability in place from the Minister to the local authority. We have given the Heritage Council largely an advisory and monitoring role in this Bill. In the interest of democracy it is better to give all the responsibility and power to local authorities. We have brought together in a very clever way the expertise of the Heritage Council and the authority of the local authorities.
A planning authority will be required to include a proposal for a scheme to establish a revolving fund to be used in the acquisition and refurbishment of elements of built heritage. The availability of such a fund is of key importance and has worked very well in other jurisdictions. All the other existing provisions of the planning code in respect of public participation in the making or variation of a development plan will be retained. References to dedicated bodies like An Taisce will continue to apply. The key element is that local authorities will be required to list buildings which will then be enshrined in the development plan.
Section 5 of the Bill, which is very short, has two features one of which I already mentioned. The interior of buildings has previously been exempt from planning permission. We removed this exemption and planning permission will also be required for the demolition of listed building or the demolition of any building, listed or unlisted, in a conservation area. A developer can no longer demolish a listed building or an unlisted building in a conservation area without first seeking planning permission.
Section 7 deals with planning permission and environmental improvements. The criteria usually applied to an application under existing law is the proper planning and development of the area of the planning authority. We propose, following in that vein, to institute a new step in the planning process as it applies to an element of the built heritage. A planning authority, before it considers the proper planning and development of the area, must be satisfied that the proposed development of the element of built heritage will confer an environmental improvement.
The proper planning and development of the area is not defined in the Principal Act and in the same way we have not attempted to define what is meant by the term "environmental improvement" in this Bill. However, it will have to be construed and applied efficiently by planning authorities so that a developer who wants to get permission to in any way change, build, rebuild, restore or repair a building in a conservation area or a listed building will have to demonstrate when seeking planning permission that such alteration will achieve an environmental improvement. This will have to be proven by the developer and the use of the words "be satisfied" rather than "is satisfied" places the onus on the developer to satisfy the planning authority as to the environmental improvement in question. This requirement is a feature of most progressive planning regimes in Europe.
Provision is also made in the Bill for the application for planning permission in circumstances in which there is not a list of elements of built heritage. It is also proposed — this is of fundamental importance — to give planning authorities a specific power when granting planning permission to attach conditions relating to preservation, protection, guarding or inspecting of an element of built heritage during the carrying out of the work authorised by the development. Thus, a planning authority could require a developer to take specified steps for guarding a building during its development. If this had been a requirement of law when planning permission was sought for the current development in Usher's Quay, the James Joyce house at 15 Usher's Quay would not have been destroyed, allowed to fall into dereliction or vandalised, as is now the case.
Part III of the Bill deals with the duty of owners. A duty is imposed on the owner or occupier of a listed element of built heritage to prevent it from becoming endangered. The provisions of the 1976 Act are extended to a material breach of the duty imposed by this legislation. The effect of this is that the planning authority or any person can apply for an injunction restraining the endangerment of an element of built heritage. It is envisaged that the Minister for the Environment will make regulations as to what steps must be taken in this regard when the Bill becomes law.
Section 2 sets out the planning authority's duty. A duty is imposed on the planning authority to ensure that a listed element of built heritage does not become or continue to be endangered. A planning authority will be able to give grants to prevent a listed building from becoming or continuing to be endangered in certain very restricted circumstances. Section 12 deals with enforcement notices. A planning authority will not be restricted to seeking injunctions. It is proposed under the Bill that the planning authority will be able to serve a notice on the owner or occupier of an element of built heritage where the authority feels that it has become or is continuing to be endangered. Alternatively, the planning authority may be instructed by the Minister to serve notice in these circumstances. If the notice is not complied with within the specified time the planning authority may do the work specified therein and recover the costs from the owner, the occupier or the addressee of the notice.
It is proposed that elements of the built heritage which are dangerous structures within the meaning of the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act will be dealt with under this new Bill rather than under the 1974 Act, in other words that they will be preserved rather than demolished unless demolition is absolutely necessary. If there is one phrase that sums up the essence of this Bill it is that buildings, where at all possible, should be preserved rather than demolished. That is the central thought of this Bill.
Section 13 deals with the role of the Minister. This section empowers the Minister to order a planning authority to serve a notice under section 9. While a planning authority is confined to listed elements of built heritage, the Minister may order the planning authority to serve a notice in respect of lands on which any element of built heritage is situated, whether or not it is listed. The Heritage Council is empowered to advise the Minister in this regard.
Section 14 deals with compulsory acquisition and compensation. A planning authority will be able to compulsorily acquire any land in respect of which a notice under section 12 has been served and compensation will be payable, but important qualifications are introduced in this Bill in relation to compensation. Where expenditure is required either under the general duty imposed on an occupier or owner or under a notice issued by the planning authority to prevent an element of built heritage from becoming or remaining in danger, that expenditure is taken into account when assessing compensation. The amount of compensation payable in respect of a site which contains an element of built heritage which has been deliberately endangered in order to justify demolition and development of the site or an adjoining site shall be assessed on the assumption that planning permission for the development of the land or anything thereon would not be granted. That is an important provision because in the past developers have allowed buildings to become derelict or have hastened the dereliction deliberately in order to put themselves in a position where they would enhance its value and then apply for planning permission for the property. That cannot happen under this Bill. Compensation will now be assessed by the planning authority as if planning permission would not be granted. A local authority can move in if it wishes and carry out the work. If the planning authority has to carry out the work itself it can offset the cost against the owner or the occupier.
Part IV sets out a range of incentives which are essential if the objectives of this Bill are to be met. It is proposed to widen the definition of "buildings" in respect of which tax relief for repair, restoration or maintenance is given pursuant to section 19 of the Finance Act. Under the current wording of section 19 the owner or occupier of a building must apply to the Commissioner of Public Works for a determination that the building is "intrinsically of significant scientific, historical, architectural or aesthetic interest". It is proposed to amend that requirement and to establish a presumption that if a building is listed it comes with the definition and would qualify if all other conditions are met for section 19 type tax relief. That is the most efficient way to use incentives rather than giving direct grants, except in exceptional circumstances. Tax reliefs put a requirement on an owner or occupier to make an effort and to make a financial arrangement on, for example, a pound for pound basis. It is a joint venture between the Department of Finance and the owner of the building.
Bearing in mind that some important buildings are still in private ownership and are used as residential buildings they are not eligible for section 19 type tax relief because there is a requirement that the house be open to the public for 60 days. If we want to repair and restore houses of artistic merit, listed buildings that are currently used as residential properties, we will have to make some concessions to owners who are not in a position to carry out essential repairs and restoration work themselves. We would extend section 19 type tax relief concessions but only for repair and restoration, not for maintenance.
The remainder of the Bill is mainly a series of miscellaneous provisions and abolitions of certain compensations. The Bill is an attempt to put in place legislations that would give proper protection to elements of our built environment. In the course of preparing this Bill I put much time and thought into it. I conferred widely with people who have much expertise in this area, people who are concerned that our conservation programmes are not up to speed as opposed to other countries. From them I received support and advice which is incorporated in the Bill.
By any standards this is a good Bill. It meets the requirements of the time. It is carefully crafted and for the reason I appeal to the Minister not to vote it down. When one considers the number of buildings in this city which are in danger, time is of the essence. Every week there is some development in place in this city and in other cities throughout the country that is endangering buildings that ought to be preserved, buildings that are part of our heritage which we hold in trust for this and the next generation. There are those who would argue that this legislation is a luxury, that it is not terribly important to the economy, but that is a short-sighted way of looking at the assets that are our architectural heritage.
In a country that is so dependent on tourism for jobs and economic success one of our best assets is our built environment. It is short-term economic thinking not to put this legislation on to the Statute Book sooner rather than later.
I commend the Bill to the House.