When I was putting my thoughts together on this matter, I read two documents which came my way, a letter from the Irish Planning Institute which welcomed this legislation, and an article in The Irish Times by Philip Geohagan and Michael Smith of An Taisce which also welcomed the Bill. The Irish Planning Institute welcomed it but felt it was too restrictive in its provisions and An Taisce felt it was not restrictive enough. The Minister must have done something right.
I compliment the Minister on honouring the commitment in the programme for Government. This is good legislation which speaks volumes about how far we have come in discussing environmental matters. We in Dublin city have just completed discussions on the city development plan. For a number of months the public were actively engaged with the local authority in discussing the future development of the city. When I compare the process this time to previous occasions, there was a greater air of understanding of the objectives which ought to be realised by a good development plan.
The measures in this Bill ensure the protection and survival of our built heritage. I am glad it affords us an opportunity to look at things other than the Georgian squares, such as vernacular architecture which has much to contribute to the development of the State. The Bill has been produced in parallel with the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, which introduced a national inventory of architectural heritage. The two Bills will complement each other. Every generation carries with it the onus to preserve our heritage and culture for future generations and it is important that we mark what we see constructively. The Bill will ensure we live up to our responsibilities to protect that built heritage.
I remember the sad times when some very fine buildings in this city were indiscriminately demolished and replaced by dreadful 1960s architecture. Many of the buildings from that period leave a great deal to be desired and do not enhance the city's architectural heritage one whit.
This Bill will be workable and important because it is modern, robust and comprehensive, with financial resources dedicated to it. Also, employment of adequate expertise is envisaged. I read the September 1996 report of the interdepartmental working group on strengthening the protection of architectural heritage and I am satisfied the Minister has implemented its most significant findings in this Bill.
The Bill introduces a systematic approach to the protection of buildings. Local authorities have been criticised in the past for the divergent approaches they have taken to listing buildings for protection in their development plans. Even in our development plans, there was no commonality of approach – it depended on the chief planning officer and his architectural likes and dislikes. The Bill brings uniformity to the way buildings will be protected.
The Bill facilitates the establishment of a formal record. Standard records will now be kept, overcoming the divergence between local authorities. In Dublin there is a sophisticated system of listing, but in other local authorities there is either no listing process of a multitude of listings. The distinctions are being removed. Local authorities will continue to have an ongoing role in identifying buildings for protection independently of the inventory. In recent years, buildings which are significant in their own right have come to the notice of Dublin Corporation. I recall one such building in Capel Street a number of years ago which escaped our attention and we were unable to do much about it. I also remember a number of important buildings in Parnell Square in the early 1980s which were then occupied by the College of Marketing and Design and are now part of the Irish Writers' Centre. These were fine buildings but because of loopholes in the planning legislation at the time, it was not possible to do much in terms of preservation. I remember excellent fireplaces and other items being stolen from those buildings, some of which were recovered but the majority were not.
Another important aspect is the proposal to protect not only the interior and exterior of the buildings but also the curtilage. That is important when one considers the fine buildings at the Broadstone station in Phibsboro, a fine building in itself. Other important examples are Heuston Station and the railway works at Inchicore.
The Bill refers to making alterations to the decor of the building. It is important that the owner is made aware of any alteration, and the cost involved, and advised on complying with the provisions of the Bill. The provisions may be regarded as being onerous on the owners of protected buildings. In my experience the owners of protected buildings are caring people who are willing to take advice. If the expertise referred to in the Bill had been available to the people in some of the dilapidated buildings in Mountjoy Square, the level of dereliction would not have developed to the extent it did.
In regard to buildings that are allowed to become dilapidated due to the neglect of the owner-occupier, it is important that the local authority can take an initiative. In recent weeks, those of us who represent the Dublin north west area have had to deal with the issue of what was a fine church-type building in Finglas village but for a variety of reasons, some of which had to do with lack of clarity about the ownership of the building, the local authority had to use both the dangerous buildings regulations and the derelict sites Act to come to the rescue of the local community and preserve the building to a certain extent. If this legislation had been in place, we would have been in a position to intervene to protect that building.
Legislation is fine and we have a great record of enacting laws but of not sufficiently resourcing them. I am pleased the Government has a budget of £5 million per annum from 1999 onwards to ensure that the package of measures provided for in the Bill will be implemented. From that amount, approximately £4 million will be available for grant in aid for protected buildings.
An important, exciting and innovative measure is the one to enable local authorities to employ conservation expertise. I am open to correction on this, but as far as I am aware, Dublin Corporation is the only local authority which has a conservation officer. We have a city architect and archaeologist and it is important that we have a city conservation officer also because the level of expertise required to deal with conservation matters is not readily available in the planning, engineering and architectural disciplines. A certain degree of objectivity is required also, somebody who can see the broader picture, and the conservation officer will do that. The expectation of the Government that 15 to 20 conservation officers will be employed to carry out their functions is important and I commend it.
The role of Dúchas in providing advice to the conservation officers in local authorities is important. Although the name is relatively new, Dúchas has an expertise built up over the years through its excellent work with the Office of Public Works and in other areas including parks, monuments and the wildlife service. All of that experience can be brought to bear on its work.
Section 1 refers to protecting the interior of the protected structure including its fixtures and features and the land and structures immediately around it. That aspect of the Bill will prove extremely worthwhile when it comes to protecting a streetscape or a square.
I have had association for a number of years with the Castlepollard area of County Westmeath which has an excellent outdoor pursuits centre known as Cillure House, formally a dower house of Tullynally Castle. There are some magnificent stone buildings there lying semi-derelict, many of which were built in the early 1800s, but like many other buildings of their type they have been allowed to become progressively derelict. With this legislation and the resources available, buildings such as that can be enhanced and protected for future generations.
Section 2 refers to the record of structures of special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific, social and technical interest. We have a fund of that type of architecture which is crying out for protection and I welcome that provision.
The Bill refers to churches. There have been acts of vandalism to some churches which are not in use. Some of these have been in the ownership of the minority religions. A celebrated one here in Dublin was used as a paint and wallpaper shop at one stage. Another in Roscrea or Nenagh is being used as a restaurant. I am not certain that we crown ourselves in glory by allowing such buildings to be used in that fashion. I am impressed by the way the French, in particular, come to the rescue of church buildings of all denominations and ensure their features are preserved. Some years ago a church in Temple Street was developed as a multi-purpose arts and music centre.
With a little work that church could have reverted to liturgical uses. We ought to encourage such measures by way of legislation.
There is a need to tighten the provisions for protecting streetscapes. St. Alphonsus monastery on the north of the city is home to an enclosed order. The monastery has a fine oratory which has been protected. However, the surrounding walls and grounds are not protected and, despite my wishes, planning permission has been granted for an intensive, high density housing development. This measure is accepted by the local community but it will overpower the adjacent single-storey houses on St. Alphonsus Road.
I do not want to interfere with the planning appeal process. However, I find it difficult to understand that while we want to protect a fine, well-proportioned streetscape such as St. Alphonsus Road, including the monastery, at the same time we are allowing a major development of four or five storey blocks of apartments overlooking the monastery. I do not know if the Minister can include provisions in the Bill which would allow for a greater degree of sensitivity concerning such developments.
I am glad that there is a realistic penalty of £1 million. Other speakers have been critical of this provision. However, even the most determined and devil-may-care developer would look askance at such a penalty. Too often local authorities have allowed unsightly signage is appear on significant buildings. I welcome the provision in the Bill allowing them to insist that such signage is removed. However, no penalties can be levied if the signage is not regarded by the planning authority as unauthorised. That is one of the weaker aspects of the provision. It is a little wishy-washy and may merit revisiting at some stage.
I commend the Minister for introducing this excellent legislation and compliment him on listening carefully to Members' contributions.