Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1998 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Finucane

There has been much legislation over the years in relation to planning. People should be able to understand it. However, that is not always the case because it can be confusing. For example, the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1992, states:

On the nineteenth day of October 1992, the remaining provisions of the Act of 1992, except paragraph (g) of section 19(4) as respects paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of the section inserted in the Act of 1976 by the said paragraph (g), shall come into force.

People would not understand this complex legislation. Many Acts have been interpreted by the Judiciary in terms of understanding of the law.

The planning laws permeate many aspects of our lives. The Bill is most important because it shows an appreciation in terms of listing various types of buildings. Most local authorities are currently putting together their draft development plans and members have been presented with a list of buildings to which conservation notices have been applied. There have been various discussions on the merits of the conservation notices but in my area it is important to place preservation orders on thatched houses because they are part of our heritage.

In the area in which I live in west Limerick, there are many thatched cottages in Adare, which earned the title of Ireland's prettiest village some years ago. They are a focus for many of the people who visit the area. Tourists take photographs of them and the cottages are an important part of the town. The thatched house grant, which is still in operation, has helped to encourage people to replace thatching on houses. It is a good measure.

Regarding planning, the onus appears to be on developers to prove the merits of their applications. The major change with regard to the planning laws probably took place after the famous Hanrahan case in the late 1980s. Prior to this, a planning application was made for an oil refinery in Tarbert and only one objection was made. There was a big psychological change in the late 1980s, particularly regarding the interpretation of industries.

It is interesting to reconcile one pattern of planning law. Planning mainly relates to the environment and the Department of the Environment and Local Government in the main deals with the planning laws. Environmental considerations appear to be the dominant factor with regard to planning legislation. To what degree is there an emphasis on development in the planning laws? County enterprise boards and other mechanisms have been established to promote small industrial enterprises. How often do people who want to set up small businesses in sheds at the back of their property have to apply for planning permission when neighbours object, even when there is no intrusion or interference? How often do people who want to extend isolated buildings in the country have to seek approval by way of planning permission? How many industries which want to set up in this State are frightened off because of the hassles which permeate our planning laws? I am not advocating that we do away with these planning laws, but they should be couched to encourage these industries rather than impede them.

After the Hanrahan case there seemed to be an anti-chemical culture. We know the rigours chemical companies faced. Merill, which wanted to set up in County Cork, walked away because of the objections at local level. The incinerator of the local hospital would have a higher level of emissions and the local creamery would produce more effluent. Sometimes events are overtaken with objections.

I am a county councillor. We implement the planning laws – the planners make decisions with the support of the councillors – and we have never had a pattern of section 4s; the system has operated well. I have rarely seen a contravention of the draft development plan. If people come to me for help in expediting the planning process for planning on a main road, I tell them firmly they will not get planning permission. If they then ask me to move a section 4, I tell them I will not do it. They often then say they will go to a member of another party and I tell them to do that but that they will get the same answer.

In many cases section 4s have been the ruination of a good planning process. It is interesting that section 4s dominate in counties with high volumes of tourism. There is often collusion between councils with regard to section 4s. Our council had the proper attitude and it would have made for good planning if other councils had followed its example. Recently the number of section 4s has fallen. When I mentioned section 4s and the attitude of councils towards them in this Chamber previously, I was berated by a councillor from another county for raising the matter.

To a degree it is the planners who implement planning and they are stretched to the limit at present because of the buoyancy in the building industry. In that situation it is difficult for them to carry out even their normal workload. Local authorities are advertising for planning engineers who cannot be found.

Mr. P. Carey

I propose to share my time with Deputy McGuinness.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. P. Carey

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.

Ms Clune

This Bill has been widely welcomed in the Seanad and on both sides of the House. We have not given statutory protection to our built environment which forms an essential part of our landscape. Too often fine examples of architecture have been let go to rack and ruin or have been deliberately destroyed through ignorance, lack of appreciation or a "don't care" attitude. In some cases, sadly, the problem is due to a lack of funding or State support.

I am pleased to speak on this Bill. I am not an architect but I have worked in the industry and have enormous respect and admiration for architects and the works of art they have created. Many works of architectural genius can be seen around the country but too few are appreciated. It takes talent, vision and an understanding of natural materials to produce buildings from conception to end product. Some of our most beautiful buildings are works of art which have been taken for granted until now.

There are some magnificent buildings on the South Mall and the Grand Parade in Cork. These buildings are made from local limestone or sandstone and many have breathtaking interiors, including superbly detailed ceilings. Some of these buildings are owned by banks and have been meticulously maintained. However, I can quote examples where these institutions did not give other buildings they own the same degree of attention or respect.

The Bill gives recognition to buildings of historical, architectural, artistic, scientific, social or technical interest. These are worthwhile provisions. However, I am worried about the length of the list. I was saddened when Tomás MacCurtain's house in Blackpool was destroyed. He was a former Lord Mayor of Cork and this building was pulled down. It was an ordinary house built in the late 19th century but was of significant historical value – unfortunately others did not agree. Could we get to a stage where buildings would be deemed worthy of inclusion on the list by some but not by others? Who will make the decisions?

The Bill allows the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, in consultation with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, to issue guidelines to planning authorities to assist them in carrying out their functions and to ensure that a consistent approach to protecting the built heritage is adopted nationwide. It provides for discretion on the part of local authorities and integration and implementation of the guidelines in their development plans. However, it does not provide for a body to advise the Minister and the planning authorities.

I agree with Deputy Dukes's suggestion that all structures and buildings built prior to 1870 should be listed and protected under the legislation until it is agreed that they be delisted. This would ensure that our history and social fabric is protected. This suggestion is worthy of merit as, once gone, these buildings and structures can never be replaced. Many of the buildings and structures built before 1870 were made of natural stone and natural products and can never be replaced. It is worth considering that everything built prior to 1870 should be protected. We can then look at each building and structure and delist them as necessary.

I am glad that structures of scientific importance are to be included in the list. Too often we do not give enough recognition to science and its contribution to our success as a nation. Last weekend I was driving around the coast and, on seeing a lighthouse, it occurred to me that lighthouses are also part of our heritage. Will they be protected? They should be because they play a part in our history and folklore. The list could be endless when one considers the structures it might be possible to include. Should every 18th century farmhouse in the country be included? Perhaps, but each case must be judged on its merits.

However, this could give rise to many spurious objections to planning developments and applications. Already many cases which should not arise are taken to An Bord Pleanála. It worries me a little that the list will be too open and that there is not an advisory committee to decide what structures should and should not be included.

Our nation has a wonderful and varied history and our traditions have deep roots. Sometimes we take them for granted. It is worthwhile to take this step in respecting our history and the society which preceded us. These times cannot be reclaimed but we should do all we can to preserve our heritage. It is our duty to preserve it and the culture and history which are the foundations of our civilisation for the sake of our children and their children.

American visitors to this country are often obsessed with the quest to trace their relatives, roots and history. They do not have the same sense of culture or history as we have. We, like many Europeans, live with it daily and one can see that the Americans envy us that. They are forever chasing something they do not have, trying to find their roots in this and other European countries. We already have those roots but we do not give them enough attention. I hope this legislation will make us pay more attention to our culture. It is something we cannot replace.

Many groups and organisations will welcome this Bill. However, they are worried that its aims will not be matched by funding. The Government announced an allocation of £3.9 million for grant aid for the conservation of buildings. Nobody, however, has quantified how much money will be necessary. My limited experience in this field as a result of my involvement in a number of projects indicates that £3.9 million will not go far. The restoration of Barryscourt Castle near Midleton, County Cork, could alone have legitimately absorbed that amount.

Unfortunately, restoration and the art work involved is highly skilled and labour intensive. As a result, it is enormously expensive. Take the National Gallery as an example. It was the subject of a recent decision by An Bord Pleanála. The building on the site was not listed by Dublin Corporation yet when the application by the National Gallery came before An Bord Pleanála it was noted that the building contained a ballroom which was worthy of protection. The board rejected the plans of the National Gallery which meant they had to be redrawn. There is now a scaled down version of the original plan but the original cost has increased by £1 million. The board's decision cost the National Gallery £1 million. This is just one type of problem which might be encountered when one considers the buildings and structure which might be included in the list under this legislation.

I also mention the case of a tennis court which is the subject of an appeal to An Bord Pleanála at present. It was donated to the State for use as an indoor tennis court but now it is being taken over to be a concert hall for the National Symphony Orchestra. That is a worthy cause but when buildings and structures are being preserved, they should be maintained for their original use. Too often one sees old churches used as restaurants and home furnishing stores or turned into concert halls. Buildings should be restored and maintained for their original purpose.

I cannot reconcile the amount of money allocated for the appointment of conservation officers with the proposed number of 17. Fewer than that will be appointed. It is good to see a Bill which provides for the appointment of personnel to implement its provisions. When the Litter Act was passed, for example, sufficient personnel were not provided for, which is why we see few results from that legislation. I welcome that the issue of conservation officers has been addressed but I query the number mentioned. Considering the potential number of buildings and structures which could be included in the list, I am sure the officers will be inundated with work.

I welcome the interiors of structures, including their fixtures, features and curtilages, are covered by the legislation. These features will be automatically protected and will no longer require specific listing. Too often one sees only the frontage of a building being preserved. The character of a building is dictated by its interior structure. Its function reflects its character so I am delighted that the provisions extend to the interiors of buildings. It is inside buildings where one sees beautiful artwork and wonderful fixtures and features. When buildings are demolished their beautiful fireplaces, doors and other internal fixtures disappear, usually to be used in other houses. They are usually works of art in them selves and part of our culture, heritage and history.

Section 8 provides that works which would affect the character of a protected structure or a proposed structure or any element of that structure will require planning permission even when they would normally have been exempted under section 4 of the Planning Act. This requirement will cover works to the interior and exterior of a protected or proposed protected structure. It is extremely important to extend protection to the character of a building. The character of the building is part of our heritage and culture and it reflects the usage of the building and a certain time in history.

There are excellent provisions in the Bill but my worry is about the financial commitments given by the Government.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 30 Mar 1999