JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 1 Sep 2009

Derelict Listed Buildings: Discussion.

Chairman

We now come to No. 3 on our agenda, management of derelict buildings listed for preservation. Members will recall that at our meeting on 13 June 2009 we agreed to examine problems such as anti-social behaviour and so on arising at the many derelict and listed buildings throughout the State. I welcome officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and An Taisce. We are joined from the Department by Mr. Brian Lucas, principal officer, Mr. Martin Colreavy, chief architect, heritage policy and architectural planning, and Ms Gabrielle McKeown, senior adviser, planning inspectorate. From An Taisce we are joined by Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith, chairman, Mr. Ian Lumley, heritage officer, Mr. Kevin Mulligan, Meath Association and Ms Judy Osborne.

The format of our meeting will be presentations from the Department and from An Taisce following which we will have a questions and answers session. In the interests of fairness, the format of the questions and answers session will be a question from the Government side followed by a question from the Opposition and so on to ensure one side does not take up all the time.

Before inviting Mr. Lucas to make his presentation I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that while members of the Oireachtas committee have absolute privilege that same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are also reminded that civil servants, while giving evidence to a committee, may not question or express an opinion on the merits of Government policy objectives, or produce or send to the committee any document in which a civil servant or members of the Defence Forces or Garda Síochána questions or expresses an opinion on the merits of Government policy objectives. I now invite Mr. Lucas to make his presentation.

Mr. Brian Lucas

I thank the committee for the invitation to make this presentation. My colleague and I represent the heritage policy and architectural protection section of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. We are joined today by a colleague from the planning division of the Department.

By way of introduction I thought it might be useful if I briefly outlined to the committee the responsibilities of the heritage policy and architectural protection section which are, to develop, promote and implement policies and legislation for the protection of architectural heritage, and to promote best practice in modern architecture. This is done through the following: the national inventory of architectural heritage; advancing the centrality of built heritage in planning as statutory consultee on behalf of the Minister in the planning process; direct participation in the planning process to promote conservation; administration of capital payments; advice and guidance on best practice; overall responsibility for world heritage sites; and the publication of policy documentation.

We also have responsibility for Government policy on architecture 2009-15 recently approved by Cabinet. The presentation will focus on the legal and policy framework to protect architectural heritage, how these policies are being implemented at local government level through the planning system and the advisory and financial support roles of the Department in this area.

The conservation principles of care and protection of the architectural heritage were first introduced under planning legislation that facilitated the listing of significant buildings and the formation of policies and objectives relating to such structures. These provisions were superseded by the introduction of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1999 and by Part IV of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which sets out the principles of care and protection of our architectural heritage.

I will briefly outline the principles of care and protection. First, planning authorities should have a clear obligation to create a record of protected structures, often known as the RPS. This record forms part of a planning authority's development plan. The record of protected structures should include all structures or parts of structures in their functional areas which, in the opinion of the planning authorities, are of special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest.

Second, planning authorities are obliged to preserve the character of places and townscapes that are of special interest, and contribute to the appreciation of protected structures, by designating them as architectural conservation areas — ACAs — in their development plans. Third, development plans must include objectives for the protection of such structures and the preservation of the character of such areas in a manner that ensures proper and sustainable planning and development. Fourth, owners and occupiers of protected structures are responsible for maintaining them. Planning authorities have additional powers to ensure buildings are not in danger, whether directly or through neglect. Fifth, the owner or occupier of a protected structure may seek a declaration from the relevant planning authority to determine whether any works to the structure would materially affect its character and therefore require planning permission, or may be carried out as exempted development. Sixth, where a structure is protected, the protection includes the structure, its interior, the land within its curtilage and other structures within that curtilage. All works which would materially affect the character of a protected structure, or a proposed protected structure, require planning permission.

Under the 2000 Act, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government may make recommendations to a planning authority concerning the inclusion of particular structures in its record of protected structures. While a planning authority must have regard to such recommendations, the addition or deletion of structures from the record of protected structures is a matter for the authority itself. The Minister issues his recommendations based on the national inventory of architectural heritage survey for the relevant county, as compiled by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Planning authorities are required by the relevant regulation — Article 82(3) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 — to send notification to the Minister and other prescribed bodies when they receive development applications that would involve carrying out works to a protected structure or a proposed protected structure, or to the exterior of a structure that is located within an architectural conservation area, which might detract from the appearance of such a structure. This includes notification for all relevant works proposed by the local authorities.

I wish to speak about the legislative framework for derelict sites. The Derelict Sites Act 1990 is intended to provide effective arrangements for preventing and taking action against land dereliction. I will set out the main provisions of the 1990 Act. It provides a definition of a derelict site. It imposes a general duty on all owners and occupiers of land to ensure their lands are not or do not become derelict sites. It obliges local authorities to maintain a derelict sites register. The Act imposes a duty on local authorities to take all reasonable steps to ensure that land in their area does not become, or continue to be, a derelict site. It gives local authorities the power to take action against dereliction and to acquire a derelict site. It gives the Minister the power to require local authorities to take action against dereliction and to require statutory bodies to dispose of land in their possession that is derelict and not necessary for the performance of their statutory functions. The 1990 Act also provides for an annual levy, based on the market value of certain derelict land in urban areas, and for penalties for the contravention of certain sections of the Act. On the basis of the returns that were provided to the Department, some 1,297 derelict sites had been reported by city and county councils at the end of 2007. I ask my colleague, Mr. Martin Colreavy, to conclude our presentation.

Mr. Martin Colreavy

Like my colleague in his introductory remarks, I thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for inviting us to make a presentation today. As an introduction, I mention that the Department published architecture heritage protection guidelines for planning authorities in 2005. The contents of those guidelines do not purport to be a legal interpretation of the conventions, Acts, regulations or procedures mentioned in them. Their aim is to assist planners and others to understand the current guiding principles of conservation and restoration. The guidelines also set out clearly the Department's role or responsibility to develop, promote and implement policies and legislation for the protection of architectural heritage and to promote best practice in modern architecture. They are also a practical guide for planning authorities and of assistance to owners and occupiers of protected structures.

Part 1 of the guidelines sets out the relevant legislative and administrative provisions. Supplementary detailed guidance on when a protected structure is the subject of development proposals and when a declaration is sought regarding a protected structure is set out in Part 2. The Department has also published four advisory series booklets relating to the care of older buildings and the repair of historic windows, brickwork and ironwork. It has also organised and supported conferences relating to architectural heritage and provided ongoing advice to planning authorities.

To support owners and occupiers of protected structures the Department funds a broad range of conservation schemes, including the local authority conservation grant scheme, civic structures conservation grant scheme and significant places of public worship grant scheme. The Department also subvents the employment of conservation officers by local authorities.

In the context of these facts, and with particular reference to the State's continual commitment to and patronage for the funding of conservation, adaptation, restoration and protection of the historic and built environment, the Department, through local government funding, public grants initiatives and other funding such as to the Office of Public Works, has successfully championed the idea of the use of heritage buildings for new purposes.

In our collective experience, many lessons for the future are being learned in carrying out each project. Restoration should be moderated by a sense of what is reasonable in physical detail and cost and it is essential to set down a specific end use at the outset so that modern uses do not have to be facilitated through the undoing of restoration work. As part of this objective, through the Department's experience in funding and advising on various projects, considerable emphasis is placed on broader issues surrounding context and the promotion of restoration for use, where appropriate. Items such as the emphasis on urban design, public realm renewal and urban conservation of place require a specific contextual response to each proposal and, with that, the careful consideration of each modern assertion or new use which is required to be fit for purpose.

A large catalogue of international best practice on conservation by design supports the considered, appropriate and quantitative contemporary re-use of the historic and built environment. In supporting these objectives, we will ensure the sustainable use of our built heritage for generations to come. In this regard, the Department considers that the best methods of conserving an historic building is to keep it in active use. Every effort should be made to find a solution that will allow an historic building to be adapted to a new use without unacceptable damage to its character and special interest.

The Department has advised planning authorities on the conservation, adaptation and re-use of old buildings for many years. Successful urban schemes with which the Department has been involved include the regeneration of parts of the inner city of Cork, notably the Sheares Street project and the conversion of disused buildings in Waterford city. The Department is currently involved with Dublin City Council in advising on conservation, with grant assistance, of a rare surviving building from the 1660s on Aungier Street. In this context also, we have the continued involvement by Mayo County Council in the ongoing town and urban renewal of its heritage towns, in particular Westport which has developed an integrated approach to new development and the existing historic fabric of the town. This has been done through local governance, best practice in urban design and a partnership approach between local professional staff and respective landowners.

Bearing in mind what I have outlined, it is clear that the Department recognises that over the lifetime of a structure, it may be necessary to accommodate appropriate change or new uses for a variety of reasons. To ensure these changes have the minimum adverse impact on the architectural heritage, additional procedures and information are required as part of the planning process. For example, photographs and plans are required to show how the proposed development would affect the character of a protected structure. In its architectural heritage guidelines the Department provides guidance which may assist in assessing the acceptable standard of planning applications relating to the architectural heritage.

The Department had on average in excess of 11,000 development applications per annum referred to it on heritage grounds, that is, both built and natural heritage, by planning authorities in the period 2003 to 2008. This figure appears likely to be reduced by approximately one third for 2009 if the trend for the first eight months of the year continues. The Department only makes a recommendation to refuse a planning permission where it has real concerns and having regard to its statutory duty in the area of heritage.

Over the six-year period from 2003 to 2008 the average annual number of recommendations from the Department to planning authorities to refuse planning permission was 100. Among these 100, of which 18 related to built heritage, an annual average of ten culminated with the Department lodging an appeal to An Bord Pleanála against the grant of planning permission.

Where a building is a protected structure, works which are normally exempt from the requirement of planning permission are not exempted development where they would materially affect the character of a protected structure. Section 57 of the 2000 Act allows the owner or occupier of a protected structure to make a written request to a planning authority for a declaration as to the type of works the authority considers would or would not materially affect the character of the protected structure. This can provide reassurance to an owner or occupier who wishes to proceed with minor works without having to obtain planning permission. From inquiries, 57 section 57 declarations have been issued by Meath County Council since 2001 and 32 declarations have been issued by Kilkenny County Council over the same period.

There are provisions in the Planning and Development Act 2000 to address the general situation of derelict sites and the relationship to protected structures. Section 58 places a duty on the owners and occupiers of protected structures to protect them from endangerment. Section 59 gives the planning authority powers to serve notice on each person who is an owner or occupier specifying the works it considers necessary to prevent the protected structure from becoming or continuing to be endangered, while section 60 concerns the serving of notices requiring the "restoration of character of protected structures and other places". Should notices under sections 59(1) and 60(2) not be complied with, the planning authority has powers under sections 69 and 70 to carry out the works itself and to recover its expenses. Section 71 gives the planning authority the power to acquire any protected structure by agreement or compulsorily if it is necessary to do so for the protection of that structure.

In summary, various international charters and conventions have informed and influenced Government policy and legislation for protecting architectural heritage to date, such as UNESCO's Convention concerning the Protection of World Culture and Natural Heritage, signed in 1972 and ratified by Ireland in 1991, and the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, signed in Granada in 1995 and ratified by Ireland in 1997. These were formulated mainly in the late 20th century and arise from a sustained attempt to articulate at international level principles that would inform decisions about how the cultural value of the built environment is to be treated. Implicit in these principles is a wider set of values and priorities relating to social, cultural and economic life.

I hope we have managed to provide committee members with an outline of the framework in place to protect the built heritage and for preventing and taking action against land dereliction, and of the role of the Department in the process. I thank the Chairman and the committee members for their time. We are happy to take any questions members might have.

Chairman

Thank you very much. At this stage, I call on Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith, chairperson of An Taisce, to make a presentation.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

An Taisce welcomes the opportunity to make a presentation to the committee, raise and discuss issues and explain its role as Ireland oldest environmental non-governmental organisation, NGO. We are affiliated with various national trusts and other environmental organisations across the world in promoting the enhancement of our international architectural and cultural heritage.

An Taisce was founded in 1948 to help the people of Ireland preserve the built and natural heritage of Ireland. Over the past 60 years, numerous hard-working volunteers and staff have done their best to do this in the face of what is normally extremely hostile self interest. Contrary to popular belief, An Taisce is not against development where that development is for the benefit of the whole community, including its people, businesses, farmers and so on, and where that development does not harm the natural environment which is recognised as being of major importance to people's well-being.

Over recent years, An Taisce has attempted to show the folly of developer-led zoning and development. Although we showed that much of this was contrary to planning law, much of it was built or partly built and much of it will never be more than the agricultural land it remains as currently. However, the massive implications of the property boom in recent years were ignored by the leaders of the country.

I refer to An Taisce's role in planning. An Taisce, simply, is one of the large numbers of bodies to which planning applications in particular categories are circulated for comment by planning authorities. It provides such comments and does not make decisions which are made by the relevant city, county or town council. When an individual case is the subject of an appeal to An Bord Pleanála, it is the latter which makes the decision. When An Taisce makes a submission on architectural heritage issues to either a local authority or An Bord Pleanála, it does so on the basis of the provisions of the Granada convention, the architectural heritage legislation in the Planning and Development Act 2000, associated Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government guidelines and the development provisions in local authorities' development plans. It also makes submissions on development plans or variations thereof. In so doing, we would include recommendations for the inclusion of sites as protected structures and designated areas as architectural conservation areas.

All this work is based on independent objective criteria applying international standards of conservation and heritage resource management. Again, An Taisce does not make decisions on the actual listing of the protected structures. It is only when a council has voted on the county development plan that the list of protective structures becomes effective. An Taisce's role in the statutory plan-making process is solely to seek the regulation of land use in accordance with the best principles of sustainable development for the common good and against individual investor interests, as well as for the protection and enhancement of our built and natural environment and scarce natural resources upon which our society and economy rely, the promotion of local communities, employment and a good quality of life and the efficient provision of and investment in publicly-financed infrastructure.

It has become clear that such principles have not been adhered to by many councils and planning authorities in the preparation of development plans and local area plans. This has led to over-zoning and an unstructured and scattered pattern of car-dependent urban sprawl, fractured communities and environmental degradation. This has contributed appreciably to the overheating of the property market, the loss of national competitiveness, the current economic morass and the wish or perhaps even the need to establish extremely controversial bodies such as NAMA. When looking at the future, there are huge opportunities. Villages and smaller towns that have been swamped as commuter belts for larger centres or which have lost their traditional retail base can once again become the hubs of the surrounding hinterlands by embracing the resilience provision of the transition towns network. The transition towns movement, which was founded in Kinsale is growing internationally. A key effect of this movement is to address how cities, towns and villages can respond to peak oil and climate change.

I will turn to protecting our architectural heritage. The primary reason we should maintain our heritage is not because it attracts tourists — which it does — or because it is an international legal obligation to which we have signed up but because it is part of the core of our national identity. Our towns and villages are the focal points of the surrounding hinterlands and the quality and character which create a local distinctiveness and identity that deserves to be cherished. We must protect these against a wholesale rash of destruction in towns across the country. In response to a 2006 survey on visitor attractions by Fáilte Ireland, approximately 55% of overseas visitors to Ireland stated historic towns and cities were a primary motivating factor when choosing Ireland as a holiday destination. It also is significant to examine any of the marketing or publicity brochures that publish feature articles on Ireland and which are circulated internationally. These feature attractive cities, towns and villages as much as spectacular coastal landscapes or scenic river valleys. Above all and in addition, we have an overriding legal obligation, in conjunction with other members of the Council of Europe. Ireland has ratified but not yet transposed properly the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, that is, the Granada convention of 1985. This provides the following: definitions of architectural heritage; methods to identify properties to be protected through the Department's national inventory of architectural heritage and development plans; statutory protection measures through Part VI of the Planning and Development Act 2000 which sets out procedures for the legal protection, prevention of disfigurement, dilapidation or demolition of protected structures; financial measures and supports for endangered buildings; protection of the settings of protected buildings; powers on infringements to protect architectural heritage, including a requirement to restore a protected structure to its former condition; and measures for co-operation between statutory bodies and cultural associations and the public to foster the development of non-profit making associations working in this field.

An Taisce asserts that there have been substantial failures, specifically in Kells and in many other places, to comply with the convention. We note from an article in The Irish Times today that the Kells heritage centre has closed. Even in these straitened times we question the long-term sense of that decision. With Kells about to be bypassed surely this is the time for the community, the local authority, the Department and ourselves to work together positively to recreate a Kells that is truly worthy of being Ireland’s heritage capital because at present it is very far from that.

Rather than attack An Taisce I suggest that, at a time when the public would like to know what allowed the developer-led property bubble to run out of control, members of this committee would be better engaged in helping, with ourselves, to ensure that the country's planning laws and guidelines are properly adhered to and enforced.

I have details of the Granada convention which I can discuss if committee members wish. A specific incident occurred in Kells where in a local newspaper we were accused of supporting the local drug addicts of Kells with regard to a protected structure. I have details on that which we can go into if required.

Deputy Johnny Brady

As the Chairman knows, I raised this issue at a previous meeting. I compliment Mr. Lucas and his colleagues for their presentation and Mr. Stanley-Smith from An Taisce. I am fully behind the protection of our heritage — I want to make that clear. In his report Mr. Stanley-Smith referred to numerous items and spoke about many structures in Kells. He referred to an application by Rudagh Developments, signed by Thomas and Andrew Brady. I want to make clear that they are no relations of mine; perhaps it was deliberately included in the presentation because my name is Brady. It would not surprise me if that was the reason for An Taisce including it.

I would like to correct An Taisce with regard to the photograph included of what was formerly McNally's in Maudlin Street. It is a great photograph showing the roof, chimneys, windows and doors intact. That must have been taken 20 years ago because in the past ten, 15 or 20 years the roof collapsed, the windows broke, the door was torn down and all that was left were the walls. In recent years, the bushes grew up through the house. Naturally enough, it was a haven for drink, drugs and parties, like many other developments in Maudlin Street and throughout Kells, and that was our concern.

Kells is a heritage town and I am very proud of my town. I was born and reared in that parish. We want to see progress. To say that the roof was intact for several years is totally untrue. There was a danger that the structure could collapse on passers-by or cars parked beside it because some of the back walls had fallen in. It was a health and safety problem and from that perspective I am relieved it has been demolished. I would rather it be demolished irrespective of its heritage than see people killed. A planning application was submitted for its redevelopment, along with the former butler's shop and residence, but unfortunately An Taisce objected.

What brought the issue home to me was an elderly lady who lived in a nice, normal house on Maudlin Street until she reached the stage where, unfortunately, she had to go into a nursing home. She had only one child who lived in Northern Ireland. She was put in a nursing home in Northern Ireland for a period of time but her money ran out. She tried to sell her house in good times but because it was a listed building nobody wanted to touch it. It was sad for the family that she could not sell her house. A large number of dwellings on Maudlin Street and in other parts of Kells were sold for redevelopment but went into decay because of objections and so forth. Unfortunately, they no longer have windows or doors and are now being used for drinking and drugs parties. It is sad. We all want to ensure our towns are developed properly.

On foot of the aforementioned newspaper article, I received a letter from a man who owns a small development company with three properties in Kells, on Kenlis Place, Carrick Street and Maudlin Street, which were purchased with a view to sensitive in-fill development in a structured town with great potential for investment. At every turn, he had to climb a bureaucratic hill or mountain created by the local authority or objectors. He believes that the last person considered is the one who funds the development. Kells, like many other towns, is slipping into decay. In this man's opinion, pro-development local authorities are needed. I have been critical of local authorities but I commend the members of Kells Town Council on highlighting my concerns regarding objections in and around the town.

I was also approached by members of the Dunleer community development board, who highlighted with me the difficulties they encountered. They had attempted to persuade the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, to speak to An Taisce about these difficulties. The board made representations on its ongoing campaign to have the mid-Louth train station in Dunleer reopened and its lack of success in meeting members of An Taisce to discuss constant submissions. They told me that out of courtesy they had made contact with Mr. Ian Lumley of An Taisce, as he had been the signatory of An Taisce's submissions to Louth County Council's local planning authority and to An Bord Pleanála concerning planning matters in Dunleer. This was brought to the attention of An Taisce's national council by a local member who was on that council. After what was believed to be a very good initial contact with Mr. Lumley, it became clear to my informants that they were being put on the long finger. After receiving a positive response from An Taisce, in the latter stages of their contact with that body they were told that the local member had recently been a member of An Taisce's national council and that they should direct their energies towards him as the council wished him to be its representative in the area. Despite having established contact, they were unsuccessful in receiving word about an agreed date to meet. These people told me that time after time they had approached various members of An Taisce, particularly the local member and Mr. Lumley, but the body failed to respond and to meet a small group of people with their local representatives.

It is sad to hear such stories. I could continue but I do not wish to delay other members. It is sad that many of our towns are going into decay because of the lack of development and because of objections to development. None of us wishes to see bad development. Everybody is in favour of and supports greenfield sites but by doing that we allow many of our beautiful buildings to go into decay. They are there but nobody wants to touch them with a 40-foot pole. Unfortunately, that is the situation.

I had something else to say to Mr Lumley, if I can find it. A report in a newspaper states that Ian Lumley, national heritage officer with An Taisce, said that the population decrease in parts of south Mayo has nothing to do with his organisation's objections to one-off housing being built in the rural landscape. Instead, he maintains that the population drop-off could be traced back to increased availability of contraception.

What knowledge does Mr. Lumley have of that? That is my final question. I think that comment is deplorable.

Chairman

We might take a response from Mr. Stanley-Smith.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

First, the photograph of Maudlin Street was taken in 2003 by Mr. Kevin Mulligan.

Deputy Johnny Brady

It was not taken in 2003. I have lived in my town all my life. Those photographs were taken much earlier and the witness should not try to cod me and the other members of this committee. I will not interrupt again.

Chairman

Are the two photographs the same? The one on the last sheet is from the national inventory of architectural heritage. It is hard to see it. It appears as if the bottom windows still have glass whereas the bigger one appears to have cement blocks on the bottom.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

The one with a "for sale" sign was taken by Mr. Mulligan. The other is a photograph included in the national inventory.

Chairman

The photograph from the national inventory would be the one which, if one went into the local authority office to ask about the site——

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

That is the photograph of the national inventory.

Chairman

When was that one taken?

Mr. Kevin Mulligan

We did the fieldwork for Kells and Meath in 2001 and 2002.

Chairman

Mr. Mulligan is saying that the bigger picture with the blocked up ground floor windows was taken in 2003. They are two different pictures.

Deputy Johnny Brady

It is a pity he did not take a photograph of it now, in latter years. It definitely was taken before 2003.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Mr. Mulligan, who is from County Meath, and the Meath association of An Taisce, would like to clarify some items concerning that building.

Mr. Kevin Mulligan

I was planning officer for the Meath association and was closely involved with these applications.

Chairman

Mr. Mulligan was the planning officer.

Mr. Kevin Mulligan

I was planning officer with the Meath association of An Taisce, so I dealt with——

Chairman

When Mr. Mulligan used the words "planning officer" I thought he was from the local authority.

Mr. Kevin Mulligan

It is An Taisce. I dealt with the referrals. I am a native of Kells. I was born in the town and I know it intimately. My family continues to live there and our family home abuts the property in question. I took the photograph before the committee in 2003 and I know the property quite well. The building was sold in 2000. I was in the building at that time. It had been inhabited by Mrs. McNally until its sale. The inventory photographs show the works in about 2001. I also have the photographic survey the developers made of the building. Far from being a building without a roof, it was a building of some merit and probably one of the finer buildings on Maudlin Street, in addition to the building across the road. The proposal was for its demolition. The national inventory accorded this building a rating of regional importance.

It was not a protected structure at the time Deputy Brady mentioned that the lady involved had difficulty selling it. It only subsequently became a proposed protected structure by virtue of the inventory and only became a statutory protected structure in 2007 when the development plan was adopted. Inclusion on the record of protected structures is the responsibility of the local authority, so the local authority voted it to be a protected structure. There were no submissions, as far as I am aware, to have it removed from the record of protected structures. I have looked through the council amendments. Other buildings were deleted but this building was not. I conclude from that, as any reasonable person would, that it was because of its architectural merit.

As a professional architectural historian, I consider it a significant building in terms of its substance and its contribution to the streetscape. It is a very good example of a mid-19th century house. However, it has additional significance because its location is within the architectural conservation area and that, obviously, is a designation that applies to the overall streetscape of Maudlin Street and in the town. Most of the historical town centre is designated an architectural conservation area. While buildings within that area do not have the same protection as protected structures, there is an obligation to allow the overall character to be maintained. In addition, the building lies within the zone of archaeological potential. The end wall of the adjacent building that Mr. Bailey mentioned, Mr. Cusack's proposed development, is on the line of the medieval town wall. Kells is deeply rich historically. The medieval town wall runs along that area so any proposed works there would require an archaeological assessment.

With regard to the applications for this property, we made submissions on two of the applications involved. The decision was ultimately made by the local authority to grant permission in part for the development, so there was planning permission for redevelopment rather than it being refused outright. Our concerns were for the integrity of the historical building and its setting. There was quite a fine garden and outbuildings which were proposed for demolition. The local authority granted permission and our appeal was raised because of concerns about the impact on both the ACA, the building itself and other implications. The planning inspector recommended outright refusal but the board decided to grant part permission. This involved basically retaining the building, with which we were more than happy, recognition that the outbuildings should be considered in any future development and a reduction in the overall development.

A subsequent planning permission application in 2007 for this site, which we were not involved with, was refused by the council. Unfortunately we were not in a position to make a submission at that time. I was no longer serving as planning officer. I reiterate that at each stage in our submissions we raised concerns about the condition of the building and the fact that it was lying exposed. We appealed to the local authority to use its powers to prevent endangerment. Of course, the owner or owners had prime responsibility to prevent endangerment. That is set out in the legislation. It is supported by legislation at local authority level. Local authority officials could have gone to the site, secured it and charged the owners for the works, but none of that happened. The building was demolished and on the basis of what we have established, no consents were obtained, which is a requirement. The Minister is required to be notified. A key building on one of the streets in Kells was demolished without planning permission. The site had planning permission for redevelopment contrary to what Deputy Brady said. I wanted to set out those facts regarding the building. As a person involved, I hope the committee appreciates that is direct evidence.

Chairman

I have absolutely no knowledge of the case. An Taisce is critical of whoever demolished the building without going through the section 79 procedure, but is the organisation also critical of the Meath local authority for not following through? It could have carried out improvement works and charged the owner. A local authority can post a notice on the door of a building, especially where it cannot establish ownership, which states the building will be taken over using a compulsory purchase order — I have seen this in practice. Can I take it An Taisce is critical of local authorities for not using the powers available to them, including the right to use a CPO? Have they ever proceeded on that basis?

Mr. Kevin Mulligan

From my understanding, no official procedures were followed. I could be corrected on that but we sought the information in requests to the local authority to indicate proper procedures were followed and none was forthcoming. As far as we know, there was only a derelict sites notice, which obliges the owner to carry out certain improvements, and there was nothing under the protected structure legislation.

With regard to the overall issue in Kells and derelict sites, as an ACA, any alterations, for example, to the exterior of a building such as replacement of windows or reroofing a building, require planning permission. Mr. Lumley will confirm that in Kells and other towns in Meath and elsewhere such works are carried out regularly without planning permission. In the case of Kells, we made complaints to the local authority and there was no follow through, therefore, no action was taken. Precedents have been established that undermine the ACA legislation, in particular, which virtually has no value or meaning in how it is applied. Great efforts are expended designating and explaining ACAs in the development plans but enforcement does not happen. I know of no instance where ACA enforcement has taken place and the position is similar regarding protected structures, demolitions and ineffective alterations. That may be down to costs and the issue of pursuing these issues legally, and that is for local authorities to decide.

In our role as advocates, we have concerns. As a native of Kells and someone who works in heritage, I have concerns. If I make a complaint about a building, the problem is that is where it ends.

Chairman

Do Mr. Smith and Mr. Lumley share the experience of local authorities ignoring or failing to use their powers relating to derelict sites or protected structures?

Mr. Ian Lumley

I am responsible for co-ordinating An Taisce's planning and monitoring role. That is the case on a national basis. Planning authorities do not properly and consistently schedule buildings on the record of protected structures and follow the ministerial recommendations in the national inventory of architectural heritage when buildings of national and regional importance are identified in the inventory. That has resulted in massive national non-compliance with the Granada convention. We already have it in almost every area of sustainable development and resource management protection where Ireland has signed up to a UN convention or declaration, EU directive or, in the case of architectural heritage, Council of Europe convention. They are not being properly implemented on a consistent national basis. The same applies to the designation of architectural conservation areas. That is outlined briefly in the appendix.

When designations are put in place for protected structures and architectural conservation areas, ACAs, there are major problems of enforcement, especially with regard to continued unauthorised alterations in architectural conservation areas. With regard to planning applications for the demolition of buildings in architectural conservation areas, a major problem is emerging of planning authorities not having regard to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government guidelines. The result of this is that many cases reach An Bord Pleanála. There are locations in Monasterevin in County Kildare and Carrick-on-Suir and Cashel in County Tipperary where we are appealing demolitions to An Bord Pleanála. This is resulting in local authorities overturning the original permissions by county or town councils on the basis that they did not comply with the guidelines.

The officials of the Department have explained the very carefully thought out provisions in the Act for the protection of protected structures from endangerment, which is also a requirement of the Granada convention. This is most effectively done at its earlier stages. One should not allow a building to become abandoned, broken into or used for anti-social behaviour, as has happened in Kells. Action should be taken at an early stage to prevent buildings from endangerment. Those powers are not being effectively used by planning authorities on a national basis. I can confirm this.

Chairman

That sounds like very serious criticism. Reports have been compiled and legislation passed but very little seems to be happening. I would like to hear the Department's view on the implementation of this legislation.

Deputy Johnny Brady

Mr. Mulligan referred to the house as the one which could not be sold. I was referring to another house further along on the right hand side. I simply wish to clarify that.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

It appears that another Book of Kells could be written about this incident. It is a remarkable story but, unfortunately, not an unusual one. Properties in State ownership can also suffer dereliction in this way. How did it happen that a house which was occupied when purchased was demolished? The house was occupied until the time of purchase.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

The house was occupied until it was sold in 2000. It then slowly declined through neglect.

Deputy Johnny Brady

The roof was gone in.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

The house must have been habitable until it was purchased in 2000. Over a period of time, despite a protection order, it was allowed to slip into a state of dereliction and was demolished without planning permission. That is a summary of the story. It is remarkable that the safeguarding mechanisms were not adhered to. Like the Chairman, I am keen to hear the Department's response to this.

Is there a legal distinction between a protected structure and a listed structure? Are they one and the same?

Mr. Martin Colreavy

The term "listed" was used until 1999. The 2000 Act refers to all listed buildings as protected buildings.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

The An Taisce report states that there are 1,297 protected structures in the State.

Chairman

I think that figure relates to derelict sites. Perhaps the witnesses will provide the committee with the number of protected structures in the State.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

How many of the listed protected sites are now derelict? I would like to speak of my bailiwick of Cork city and what happened in Sheares Street, which is remarkable. I worked across the road in Grattan Street during the period of reconstruction, which cost an arm and a leg, and it is a remarkable restoration of an inner city series of houses. However, not too far away from that is Our Lady's Hospital, now in the ownership of the State, through the HSE, which is now, possibly, the biggest derelict site in the country, stretching over a number of acres. It is, as far as I am aware, the biggest derelict site in County Cork and possibly the biggest in the whole of Ireland. That former hospital building is now in the possession of the Health Service Executive.

My question for the Department officials is do sections 58, 59 and 60 apply to the State sector as well as the private sector? The State has a responsibility for sites in its possession. I presume the building in which we are now is a protected building and that the State has in its possession a number of protected buildings. Does the Department have a list of protected buildings that are in danger of or are in a state of dereliction at this point? Under existing legislation, what action can the Department take to ensure the State is not facilitating a situation whereby further dereliction takes place resulting in demolition owing to the likely collapse of a building? I know from experience that there appears to be a strategy, regardless of whether it is deliberate, to allow buildings to become run down to such a state that it is necessary to demolish them. I do not know if that is what happened in Kells as I am not very familiar with the case. I am concerned, however, about what is happening in regard to Our Lady's Hospital, given that the State is in ownership of this asset. If that asset continues to depreciate one of two things will happen, it will be sold off cheaply owing to the poor state of the building or alternatively it will be demolished thus making the site attractive to a developer.

It is important to point out this evening that while we are in tough economic times we must ensure that protected buildings of heritage and other significant importance and the work done by the Department, An Taisce and other people down through the years in terms of putting in place a legislative framework to protect them are not put in danger. I am interested in hearing the Department's view on State-owned property. I am at a loss to understand how a house once lived in, in which a person once made a cup of tea and slept for many years, ended up derelict and was subsequently demolished by the local authority despite all the safeguards in place in this regard.

Chairman

Mr. Lucas will be aware of the concern on all sides and perhaps at this stage he will respond to members' comments.

Mr. Brian Lucas

As stated previously, in the first instance, the Department makes recommendations to planning authorities for inclusion in their record of protected structures. It is then the job of the planning authorities to establish their records of protected structures. The local authorities keep a record of protected structures and a derelict sites register. They set down the protected structures and derelict sites in their area. My colleague will elaborate on section 58 and endangerment, etc. The planning authorities are responsible for taking enforcement action. An Taisce has made the point that in certain cases the endangerment stage is not reached. If a local authority has a conservation officer, he or she will provide advice to the owner or occupier of a structure to prevent the development of circumstances in which endangerment might arise.

Other than in exceptional circumstances, the demolition of a protected structure should not take place. According to the Department, such circumstances arise when there are health and safety concerns about a dangerous structure, in the context of the development of strategic infrastructure, or if the structure has lost its character. If a building is completely ruined as a result of a fire and it is not possible to restore it in a manner that would retain the character that made it a protected structure in the first instance, its demolition might be permitted.

I am somewhat reluctant to speak about individual planning cases. It may be possible that such matters are about to go before An Bord Pleanála or a higher authority. With the permission of the Chairman, I would prefer not to get into particular cases.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

Do sections 58, 59 and 60 apply to properties that are in the possession of the State or do they relate only to privately owned properties?

Mr. Martin Colreavy

I will have to clarify that. As far as I know, they apply to all properties owned by a Department or another branch of the State. In a recent case, a Department needed to acquire consent from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. For the record, ministerial consent needs to be sought for any changes or works to protect a structure that is in the care of the State.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

I would like to draw the attention of the joint committee to the reference to section 58 in Mr. Colreavy's presentation. The presentation suggests that the section places a duty on the owners and occupiers of protected structures to protect them from endangerment. It mentions that section 59 gives the planning authority the power to serve notice on each person who is an owner or occupier, specifying the works it considers necessary to prevent the protected structure from becoming, or continuing to be, endangered. It also refers to section 60, which concerns the serving of notices requiring the restoration of the character of protected structures and other places. Now that it has been made clear that publicly owned buildings can be the subject of notices under sections 58, 59 and 60, can Mr. Colreavy tell the committee whether, to his knowledge, that has ever happened?

Mr. Martin Colreavy

Local authorities are responsible for implementing sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Therefore, local authorities are responsible for issuing notices in respect of State-owned properties in their local areas.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

Has that ever happened, as far as Mr. Colreavy is aware?

Mr. Martin Colreavy

I am not aware that it has happened to date.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

Does Mr. Colreavy think it would be in the Department's interest to find out whether local authorities are fulfilling their obligations, as set out in legislation that was produced by it? Local authorities are like bishops. Like dioceses, local authorities are managed differently in various parts of the country. The Department is responsible for ensuring that its scripture is adhered to evenly across the State. Does Mr. Colreavy think it would be in the interests of the heritage of this country if the Department were to monitor the extent to which sections 58, 59 and 60 are being implemented by local authorities? Surely statistics relating to publicly and privately owned buildings should be at the disposal of the Department. Do Mr. Colreavy and his colleagues have such statistics to hand?

Mr. Martin Colreavy

We do not have them at present.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch

Does the Department compile such figures?

Mr. Martin Colreavy

We do not ask local authorities to return such data. We do not have any means of doing that. We can examine whether it would be possible for us to fulfil such a role.

Mr. Ian Lumley

I will speak about the need to identify properties in public or private ownership throughout the country that are endangered, which was one of the other specific issues to be raised by Deputy Lynch. Article 2 of the Granada convention explicitly requires its signatories to maintain an inventory of properties and, in the event of a threat to any of the properties in question, to prepare appropriate documentation at the earliest opportunity. There is a major lacuna in Ireland in this regard in so far as the requirement is not explicitly contained in our legislation. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is not carrying out this function on a national basis and local authorities are not doing it, either individually or collectively. An Taisce sought funding to establish such an inventory but was unable to secure it. Through our own resources, we have compiled an inventory on a computer database.

An Taisce is actively pursuing cases around the country by requesting local authorities to pursue endangerment. For instance, in Cork city and county, an area with which Deputy Lynch will be familiar, Vernon Mount located on the hill above the south of Cork is a prime example of an endangered building. The State and local authorities are failing to fulfil the explicit function of identifying the most important endangered buildings and pursuing their maintenance through concerted action. An Taisce is trying to grapple with this issue.

An Taisce is also concerned that the problem may be greater in the future. The collapse of the property market has resulted in buildings being left in a sort of legal limbo as property transactions have fallen through, planning applications that have been granted have not proceeded, contracts for work on buildings that has commenced have been abandoned and lease agreements have fallen through. Examples of such buildings can be found in prominent locations, even in Dublin city centre. I am reluctant to mention them as it would draw undesirable attention towards them. This problem highlights the need for even greater concerted action to ensure that during the current property difficulties we do not lose significant buildings through lack of security resulting in break-ins and fires, whether caused deliberately or otherwise, and dereliction. Greater action and vigilance are required at present.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I disagree with Mr. Colreavy's statement that the best method of conserving an historic building is to keep it in active use and that every effort should be made to find a solution which will allow an historic building to be adapted to a new use without unacceptable damage to its character and special interest. While I do not contend that buildings should never be adapted to another use, we have had too much of this type of thinking in recent decades. I reject the notion that when preserving a building one must secure the best option from an economic perspective and maximise savings by involving a private company or venture in the process. A castle in Lucan which was preserved as part of a shopping centre now houses an Indian takeaway. This should not be the case.

All over Ireland, we have cases of developers being brought in to deliver some community benefit. Our priority should be securing benefits for the community and preserving our heritage. Economic benefits might then follow. This summer, I visited France on holiday and stayed in a village which I used to joke sounded like the Strokestown of France. The buildings were preserved to perfection, as one finds throughout France. Although most of the buildings were not in use, they were preserved. Clearly the French Government has done its best through legislation and investment to ensure these buildings are preserved. The region in question benefits greatly from tourism because local shops get business from tourists from France and other countries who visit these villages and like the area because the character of its villages has been preserved.

Deputy Brady referred to the importance of development. While I agree development is necessary, we have placed too much emphasis on having developers provide services in the community as part of large development projects. The character of many of our towns and villages has been ruined by apartment blocks which are totally out of character. Our infrastructure, as Deputy Brady will agree, cannot cope and we have damaged our tourism industry because, unlike other countries, we have failed to preserve the character of our towns and villages. We need to do something about this problem.

I do not know the background to the building in Kells, but it seems that if something happens that looks wrong on the face of it, there should be an investigation. If the council does not investigate it and ensure that everything is done in accordance with the law, the Department and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should step in. I would appreciate comments on that.

I used to be a councillor in Dublin and we did not tend to have the same relationship with An Taisce as councillors outside Dublin because things were different. We had overrun developer-led planning over the years, but An Taisce and the councillors get into a kind of role playing. Mr. Stanley-Smith's statement refers to "what is normally extremely hostile self-interest". That comment is inappropriate because it is not normally hostile. Sometimes it is hostile and sometimes it is not. This is as bad as some councillors claiming that An Taisce is anti-development, which is not the case. An Taisce needs to work with councillors and a new type of relationship needs to be developed. An Taisce needs to come up with positive proposals. How do we stop a rural village from dying out? What kind of model could we have for housing in a rural area to encourage young people to stay there, yet preserve the character of the village? An Taisce needs to improve its role as well, with all due respect. I accept all the problems with developer-led planning and I accept that some councillors have not acted in the public interest, but most of them do their best in that regard.

What kind of change would An Taisce make to the planning laws to ensure that when developments take place in the future that are sensitive to heritage and archeology, the laws are improved so that the kind of mistake that was made with the M3 development is not made again?

Chairman

I will ask the officials from the Department to comment before An Taisce officials.

Mr. Martin Colreavy

The Deputy asked a question about the Department's architectural heritage protection guidelines of 2005. Traditionally built buildings are different from modern buildings and we find that keeping the building in use with heating and basic maintenance is key to keeping it at a particular level or standard of structural stability. We have a catalogue of experience in dealing with guidelines and provide guidance on appropriate intervention, because the key aspect of Government policy is to maintain the character and special interest of a protected structure or architectural conservation area. In that respect, the national inventory of architectural heritage and the architectural heritage advisory unit in the Department give advice to owner occupiers, local authorities and planning authorities. This has been set out in the presentation.

There is a three-pronged approach to the protection of the built heritage. There is obviously a legislative framework, which we discussed this morning and which has three parts. These are the Planning and Development Act 2000, which sets out obligations on owners and local authorities, the Derelict Sites Act 1990, which would be a last case scenario for us in dealing with an issue as we prefer to deal with things under the 2000 Act, and finally the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act 1964, which has been referred to as the dangerous buildings Act. If a situation arises that is a matter of health and safety or if fatalities have occurred, the building can be taken down if it is dangerous.

In our guidelines, a planning authority would not be inclined to readily grant the demolition of a protected structure. It is applicable in highly specific cases of which we have not had very many. There can be part demolition as, for example, the Deputy mentioned. In our experience, there are many types of derelict sites. There may be a derelict site which is a one-off house or there may be a town that was an industrial centre in the 18th or 19th centuries in which, because industry has moved away as the town modernised itself, warehouses and industrial buildings cannot be reused as readily as can residential buildings. Consequently, there is a specific contextual difference in that a protected structure may vary from being a country house to a Georgian terrace to an industrial warehouse in an inner city, all of which require different interventions and reuses. The other aspect of the three-pronged approach is the local development plan and the objectives for what we call developing and managing change. Obviously, there have been huge changes in the past ten years and managing change certainly is something with which the Department has been actively involved through the statutory consultee role. Most applications are referred to the Minister for comment through that process under section 52 of the 2000 Act and our unit and staff have commented on up to half of those 11,000 applications annually.

The final aspect of this approach pertains to dealing with endangerment, which has been raised at this meeting. There are different outcomes of endangerment and one can have direct or indirect infringement of endangerment. Indirect infringement can be when something falls into dereliction by no active making, that is, because it is out of use or is unoccupied. Direct issues for endangerment could be where internal aspects of a protected structure such as floors or a roof are removed, which, perhaps unknown to an owner, could have a detrimental effect on a protected structure. To return to the question on section 59 and the serving of notices, we consider that to be the last call in a situation and prefer to see active management by the local authority at the development plan process.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

Deputy Tuffy is correct and I apologise for being a bit over the top. There are numerous very good councillors nationwide who perform great work in this regard and perhaps that was a knee-jerk reaction on my part. As for helping rural communities, I live in one and am well aware of the problems of living in such communities, as well as the future problems of so doing. If peak oil is encountered in the near future, which I am sure will be the case, the whole of community life in rural areas will change dramatically. We are trying our best at present by starting a number of initiatives to ascertain how we can help people in local communities or areas to become involved in planning because it is their right to be so involved. Under the Aarhus Convention, people have a right to become involved in planning at all levels and we would like to see local people and communities being empowered to a much greater extent to become involved in the development plan arena because that is what sets their local community. It is where people have their say in how their local community can develop or operate for their own good, their lives and so on. At present, we are running a number of initiatives in that regard to help local people with their development plans, because such plans are for their benefit.

As for urban areas, An Taisce would like not to be obliged to spend its time objecting to things. Deputy Johnny Brady obviously has a love of Kells and we would like to be able to help Deputy Brady and the people of Kells. I visited Kells for the first time last week and it has the potential to be what it claims to be. While I will not talk about the merits of the M3 because that is for a different day, its development means that Kells will be bypassed. This creates many opportunities for people to work together to bring Kells to the stage at which it should be.

Deputy Johnny Brady

Mr. Stanley-Smith should be glad the M3 is there now to protect Kells.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

We will not go down that route.

Deputy Johnny Brady

No.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

We try to be positive but it is often difficult because potshots are taken at us.

The final question was on what changes we would like to see in planning. The major change we would like to see is the proper following of planning laws and guidelines and the enforcement thereof. Our heritage officer, Mr. Lumley, might have extra words on planning for the future.

Deputy Johnny Brady

Before Mr. Lumley comes in, I asked a question on why An Taisce would not meet the Dunleer community development board, members of which read what I raised at a previous meeting and requested to meet me. I met them as a member of this committee even though Dunleer is not in my constituency. On numerous occasions meetings were arranged but An Taisce seems to have failed to attend those private meetings with the local public representatives and the development board.

Mr. Ian Lumley

Although it is not relevant to architectural heritage, the issues in Dunleer were that planning applications were being lodged which were prejudicial to the development and reopening of the railway station in Dunleer which had closed in approximately 1970. It was empty and abandoned with a commuter rail service rushing through it and excessive over-scaled urban fringe development was happening in other locations in Dunleer. Everybody is now familiar with the situation that has arisen with regard to over-zoning and over-development of housing in peripheral towns and villages around the greater Dublin area without proper access to public transport.

I was in constant telephone contact with the members of the Dunleer community association. Not being from that constituency, Deputy Brady may not have been aware that in four major cases decisions made by Louth County Council were overturned as a result of appeals by An Taisce; two with regard to the prejudicing of the opening of the railway station and others with regard to inappropriate or excessive development, one of which affected an archaeological site. An Taisce has been fully active in exercising its planning consultation function and ensuring the proper and appropriate development of Dunleer. For family reasons — I have to care for a family member — often it is not possible for me to get time to attend meetings at will.

With regard to the specific point mentioned on County Mayo, the remark was taken completely out of context. It seems to relate to a discussion on Mayo local radio on population figures which was based on very detailed consideration of census return figures in Mayo from the 1960s until the early 2000s. With regard to depopulation in rural areas, which has been a particular concern in Leitrim and parts of Mayo, when the census returns were examined it was discovered that the reason for the depopulation was smaller family sizes. Between the 1960s and the early 2000s the average family size was significantly smaller and that in turn had an effect and was a contributing factor to the closure of many smaller national schools, in particular one-teacher national schools. There was a discussion on the reasons for that.

The real basis of the discussion was sustaining and supporting rural communities with rural enterprise; that is why An Taisce promotes rural enterprises and reviving rural communities through rural tourism and the processing of farm produce in rural areas to get added value and employment. The wider context of that discussion was dealing with rural population in those areas. It is very important that matters are not taken out of context. It was based on a serious analysis of census returns.

In regard to the final issue, our non-compliance with strategic planning, we have shot ourselves in the foot by failing to comply with the planning guidelines for the greater Dublin area which were put in place by the former Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, in 1999. These guidelines included the principle that development would be oriented along public transport corridors so that significant new developments would contribute to the cost of provision and enhancement of public transport. The failure to observe these guidelines, particularly in counties Meath and Kildare, is to the detriment of the entire country. Inappropriately zoned land and empty buildings, unsaleable houses and business units will remain a financial burden for the next decade. This failure has also seriously undermined the viability of the metro schemes for Dublin because much development in the greater Dublin area has taken place in the wrong places.

Deputy James Bannon

I welcome the representatives from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and An Taisce. As previous speakers have noted, heritage forms an important part of the environment. By protecting our heritage, we can preserve a quality of life which is irreplaceable. Our heritage is not a renewable resource and when destroyed it is lost forever.

One of my greatest achievements in my 19 years as a member of Longford County Council was the preservation of the courthouse in the middle of Longford town. During the mid-1990s, officials and others within the local authority proposed a plan to demolish this building which was described in local newspapers as a ball and chain job. I canvassed a simple majority of local authority members to move a motion on conserving the building. I was very disappointed at the time with the support I received form the Heritage Council and An Taisce regarding its preservation. My council colleague and good friend, Seamus Finnan, employed an architect from Cavan, Maura Shaffrey, to produce a comprehensive report on the building. We were up against everybody who wanted to demolish the building, including the Bar Council of Ireland. Thankfully, however, it has been saved as a landmark in the centre of Longford town. Since its refurbishment, it has been admired by many people.

Mr. Stanley-Smith stated: "The primary reason we should maintain our heritage is not because it attracts tourists — which it does — or because it is an international legal obligation." Deputy Tuffy noted that we have not been as active as other EU countries in preserving our heritage.

Is the undertaking of unauthorised work on listed buildings a criminal offence in this country? We hear of people being caught with listed buildings. New purchasers can find themselves in a nightmare in this regard. There should be an obligation on auctioneers and solicitors to flag the protected status of a building when it goes on sale. The Department and An Taisce should ensure this is the case sooner rather than later.

Concerning the protected status of other buildings, there should be an obligation on either the auctioneer or the solicitor to flag the status of a protected structure, which would help. The nightmare of people being caught with a listed building without knowing its status comes up time and again. If such a building is for sale, the seller usually does not want to declare its status and there should be an obligation in that regard. Perhaps the local authority should also have a role in this area.

Another significant challenge to emerge regarding protected buildings is the new energy rating guidelines set out in recent times by the Minister, Deputy Gormley. Each building will be required to have a eco-label setting out its carbon footprint. This is to be welcomed in modern buildings because it will improve performance but there is a great worry that the scheme will not be modified or tailored to the needs of older properties. Are there guidelines on this in the Department? Perhaps the committee might be updated on energy ratings with regard to older buildings.

We know it can be very expensive to refurbish a building. There is not sufficient grant assistance in place for the refurbishment of old or protected buildings and this must be examined. I live in a very old building dating to the 18th century and I know what it costs me any time I undertake refurbishment. One does not know what obstacles and hidden costs one will come upon during refurbishment. What obligations are on the owners and occupiers to ensure the preservation and protection of the structure? I understand there are such obligations but there are many contradictions in this area. When a person starts a refurbishment project there can be untold obstacles with the local authority regarding planning and preservation. There is a need for clearcut guidelines with regard to refurbishment of older buildings. We are told there is an obligation to protect the buildings but when one goes about that job one is almost told to leave the building as it was. These questions deserve answers.

Chairman

Is there any response to these comments?

Mr. Brian Lucas

I will start and my colleagues can come in. On the protected status of a building, the guidelines are set out in the record of protected structures. If somebody buys a house the record is available and he or she can see what is listed in the record of protected structures.

Deputy James Bannon

At present there is no obligation on a solicitor or auctioneer to flag the status of a building.

Mr. Brian Lucas

A person who is considering buying a protected structure can look at the record of protected structures to see if the building is included.

Deputy James Bannon

Everyone does not do that. The obligation should be more localised.

Mr. Brian Lucas

We can look at that. With regard to the energy efficiency of older buildings Mr. Colreavy will discuss the matter further. We organised a conference with the Irish Georgian Society earlier this year on that topic.

Concerning obligations to protect protected structures and what one can and cannot do, the first port of call would be with the conservation officer of the local authority who would be able to give good advice regarding what can be done and what should not be done to protect the structure.

Chairman

Is there a conservation officer in every local authority?

Mr. Brian Lucas

Not necessarily.

Chairman

When the Department refers to the conservation officer in the local authority anybody would assume that every authority has one. In my experience, that is not the case. We are talking about something that does not exist there.

Mr. Brian Lucas

The Department would encourage local authorities to employ conservation officers. As outlined in our presentation, we give financial support towards the employment of conservation officers. We have published several advisory booklets on conservation and we intend to publish more such booklets this year and next year. Mr. Martin Colreavy might talk further about energy efficiency and unauthorised development as a criminal offence. Perhaps Ms Gabrielle McKeown can take that up as well.

Mr. Martin Colreavy

To deal with the Deputy's question, regardless of whether it is a protected structure or otherwise, any unauthorised development without planning permission is a criminal offence that is subject to a prosecution or a fine. With a protected structure, in particular, works which are normally exempt from the requirement for planning permission are not exempted development with regard to a protected structure. In those cases, owner occupiers can seek a section 57 declaration from the local authority. In other words, if one is the owner of a protected structure and one is not sure whether one needs planning permission to change the windows, doors or a roof, one can seek advice from the local authority as to whether it is required. With regard to guidance, the Department's architectural heritage advisory unit has taken and does take calls from the public. In the case of areas that do not have conservation officers, in particular, my staff respond to calls and general queries from the public. It is ultimately the responsibility of the local authority but we have a support role in those cases.

The protected structures are exempt from the building energy rating because they are protected structures. We had a conference in March 2009 to consider the potential issue of guidelines on energy efficiency in historical buildings. We are due to launch them at the end of this year.

Chairman

You say protected structures are exempt from building energy rating regulations. If that is what the Department has done, I consider it a sweeping statement. Some buildings are protected because of who lived in them, not because of their physical character. A building might be protected because, for example, it was an old school and not because of its architecture. There is a variety of reasons for a building being protected and those reasons should not be used as an excuse to exempt the building from the building energy requirements when it is subject to sale. I can understand that an old historical building that is protected because of the construction method and its architectural features might have difficulty meeting BER requirements and that it might damage the character of the structure to meet them. However, many buildings that are protected structures because somebody's famous grandfather or a poet once lived there could meet BER requirements. Was the Department not a little sweeping in its approach?

Mr. Martin Colreavy

The 2000 Act, which is the main Act we work under, is the primary legislation that protects the built environment. The majority of cases we deal with are post-1700 structures. We have not carried out the national inventory for architectural heritage in Dublin city but there are 8,000 to 9,000 protected structures of a particular age in Dublin. With regard to the BER rating, it applies to new build at present. For existing buildings that is not the case. Obviously, if one is doing anything to a protected structure, we advise that the person seek proper professional advice because it is a different type of structure. The structure performs differently over time and is built differently. Dry lining, for example, is often probably detrimental to that structure because it must breathe naturally as a fabric. If it is a Georgian building or a Victorian terrace, sometimes the modern methods of insulating and upgrading can do harm to the building. That is why we have guidelines, which are nearing fruition for launch at the end of the year. In March we had an international conference with speakers from the UK, Germany and the US talking about best practice methods for upgrading protected structures in other countries. We hope to have those available at the end of the year.

Ms Gabrielle McKeown

Generally, planning authorities follow the normal enforcement process when dealing with protected structures and it would take off from that.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

I apologise to Deputy Bannon that An Taisce was unable to help him in Longford. Unfortunately, we are a voluntary organisation. We have many volunteers around the country. We are stronger in some areas than in others. I live in north Tipperary and we were able to help the local bar association to put pressure on the Courts Service to do a fine job on Nenagh courthouse. In areas we help and in areas we do not, because simply we are not everywhere.

Next week we are organising an international conference where national trusts from all over the world will come to Dublin Castle. It is a significant conference themed on climate change. One of the papers to be delivered shows it is much better from a climate change perspective to renovate and restore existing houses than to build new ones. This brings us to the BER issue. We also note the Government has in place different ways and means of grant aiding insulation of houses but we would call for that to be expanded on a national basis. Unfortunately, at the end of the building boom, many young people and builders are out of work but they could do good work for the country. If our housing stock was properly insulated, it would be cost negative to us in the future. It is a way, therefore, to help to employ young people while benefiting the country. Houses built from the 1960s up until recent times have poor insulation values. I know we are in straitened times. If a house that is not insulated properly is dealt with under such a scheme and the difference in the cost of the electricity bill between now and when it is properly insulated is used as a contribution to the Exchequer for the next ten years, for example, it would provide a means for the Government to recoup money to pay for the scheme. It can be done in a revenue neutral way to benefit the country in the context of employment and climate change.

Deputy James Bannon

Which is the lesser of the two evils in protecting a listed building or an historical ruin? Is it better to use a block of concrete on top of the wall of an historical ruin, or a concrete base to protect it from natural aging, water penetration or vegetation? If that is not done, the building would collapse. Many of those buildings are on lands that nobody cares about, so that when a community attempts to protect such a building, the building is focussed on and is left alone. However, I saw buildings which have since been demolished, where there was a concerted effort by the local community to preserve the structure. When the heavies came in the local community abandoned hope of preserving the buildings.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

I am not an expert in this area. Mr. Kevin Mulligan may answer. I agree with Deputy Bannon.

Deputy James Bannon

The building eventually becomes dangerous and is demolished.

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

In the village where I live there is a 13th century building. It is called a castle now but would have been known as a house in those days. Due to a lack of anything being done over many years, even though the local people would like to do something about it, it is going to suffer. I am not an expert in this area so maybe Mr. Mulligan could help.

Mr. Kevin Mulligan

One of the difficulties with protected structures is that they are many and varied, as are our reasons for wanting to protect them. We may designate a structure as protected because of its association with an individual or because of some technical interest. The first approach should always be conservation-led and should recognise the individual characteristics of the building. Deputy Bannon mentioned concrete. In most cases concrete is completely incompatible with traditional building skills.

Deputy James Bannon

It is useful for preservation.

Mr. Kevin Mulligan

All it requires is the right approach. It may be that what is being done is more detrimental than leaving the building alone. The principles of conservation argue for minimum intervention. For example, using concrete where lime has been used can cause greater damage to the structure and undoing that damage can cause even greater damage. It is important to understand the building. Professional advice should be obtained so that the construction method of the building is understood. Different materials are used in different areas and the constituents of lime vary from one area to another. This is a very specialised and technical subject. Local authorities which do not have a conservation officer often call on the skills of the heritage officer or some other official. That is not adequate to deal with the complexities of the issues.

Let us compare architectural heritage with archaeology, which is probably one of the greatest industries of the last ten years. The level of expertise and technical knowledge called upon by developers and Government in their approach to archaeology is enormous. The same approach is required for historic buildings.

Deputy James Bannon

Those people can be extremely expensive for a small voluntary group. That is where the problem lies.

Mr. Kevin Mulligan

That is where problems emerge with funding. When Heritage Council funding is applied for, much of the grant is often needed for the expertise. This is why we need to promote greater awareness of the issues. There are guidance documents and even the Architectural Heritage Protection — Guidelines for Planning Authorities contains much useful information. It is a very usable document and is not just for local authorities. Anyone using it will gain valuable experience and will be led in the right direction. The Irish Georgian Society's register of traditional skills introduces people to practitioners in different areas. Many areas have people with experience of buildings. It is matter of pooling that. The Irish Georgian Society, for example, has a traditional skills register. If certain works need to be done the people on the register can be accessed. Cost is always an issue. That is where grant assistance from local authorities and the Heritage Council comes into play. If it were greater, the impact for all of us would be reduced.

Senator Paudie Coffey

I have some experience of the background of this issue. I come from Portlaw, which is an industrial planned town in County Waterford. Some of the witnesses may know it. There must be a reason to protect a structure. One must raise community awareness to make people realise that they have something worth protecting. It is very remiss of a local authority, public representative or organisation to protect a structure without engaging with the community. I believe some of the witnesses referred to this matter. This is part of the disconnect which exists.

There is a general belief that owning a protected structure is a negative. That needs to change and we all have a role to play in doing that, including An Taisce, elected representatives, the Department and local authorities. That is our biggest challenge. A number of protected structures in my locality have literally disintegrated during my lifetime, including houses built by a Quaker family who also built the town, including a cotton mill and streetscapes. In early 2000 I was involved in the preparation of the first conservation plan for the town. However, it is only a plan and it has not, unfortunately, progressed much in the intervening years owing to a lack of resources within the local authority to drive it and implement many of the recommendations contained therein. One of its few recommendations was the renovation of an old building which was carried out by a local heritage community group through volunteer work. Local authority owned premises on the same streetscape remain vacant and derelict, which is totally unacceptable.

What is important is the messages we send to communities. We can dictate about legislation and the importance of protection but, in my experience, unless we engage with the living communities in these areas, we can forget about it. I would question the role of local authorities, the elected members of which have a huge role to play. I was an elected member in my town. It is frustrating to see buildings disintegrating knowing their full history. However, while many officials in local authorities are genuinely trying to help, they do not have the support or resources they need to do what they want to do to progress their conservation plans. There are huge challenges facing us.

As a councillor, I refused recommendations to add particular structures to the protected list, even though I had a strong interest in heritage issues. I refused because I knew I would be only adding them to a list that the local authority probably did not have the resources to properly manage. It is unfair on inhabitants, many of whom are elderly and whom elected representatives may know personally, to have buildings recommended for protection as they may not have the resources to conserve them and which may result in local authority officials coming with the heavy hand. On the other hand, as Deputy Lynch pointed out, the HSE could own a 30-acre site and the local authority may not place the same emphasis on addressing problems in that regard. I have instanced the case of the old cotton mill which was causing environmental problems. However, because the problem was too big the local authority and the Department turned a blind eye to the problem, yet in respect of small householders, they come the heavy on them and are prescriptive in regard to the knobs used, windows and window sills installed.

There is a general awareness of the practicalities involved in preservation which we all need to realise before we can progress the issue. I will give an example to show what happens in dealing with a protected structure. Mayfield House, the headquarters of Irish tanners on the cotton mill site — I recall it being in perfect condition up to the late 1980s — is now literally a shell because the company went bust, the building was left vacant and the commercial vultures went in and stripped all the granite sills and steps, following which the building literally disintegrated before our eyes. The local authority, knowing it had obligations, did not have the resources to deal with it. Those are the challenges we are facing.

In late 1999 the then Department of the Marine decided, in order to allow salmon swim up the River Clodagh, to bypass an old cotton mill, its curtilage of mill races and the canal from which the mill was taking its supply. I understand the heritage of the salmon and the need for it to get up river and a simple solution was provided. A funnel was created which provided a unique fish pass by the mill. It was beautiful to see when in action with the water running down the fish ladder and the salmon going up. However, the funnel was broken and rather than fix it and manage the mill, the fisheries board decided to bypass it by digging a trench, thus returning the river to its original course taking the mill, the mill race, which in its heyday in the 1850s and 1860s had the potential to produce 300 kilowatts of power, out of action. In those days they were real engineers. Today engineers get rid of a problem by creating another.

We have to consider such problems and challenges when we talk about preservation. Much of it boils down to cost. There are all kinds of trusts in place in other countries. The National Trust in the United Kingdom works very well. The equivalent organisation in Ireland is very weak — unfortunately, it does not have the financial clout to support local projects in the community. Protected structures tend to be abandoned before becoming derelict. As others have said, in many cases they are ultimately demolished. Many have contacted me to say they can see a similar progression in other areas. It is sad to see.

There needs to be more integration between local authorities, the Department, An Taisce, elected representatives and the community. We need to help the owners of small houses on the side of the street to preserve them properly, if they are worth preserving. If they are not, they may be of significance nonetheless. In such cases a record of their significance should be taken, perhaps in the form of a photograph. The history of these buildings should be written before they are demolished, if they need to be demolished. At least we should have a record of each building. The existing legislation is not sufficiently practical. It does not provide a means of managing the change mentioned.

I disagree with Deputy Tuffy, in so far as I believe old buildings need modern uses if they are to survive. There is no point in retaining a building for the sake of it. Those who show passion and succeed in preserving buildings will move on. The building will eventually fall into the wrong hands and disintegrate. One must give a building a reason to survive. That reason often pertains to its past and potential for regeneration and a different use in the future.

I would like to make a point to the representatives of An Taisce. I agree with what Deputy Tuffy said about the reference to "hostile self-interest" in the opening paragraph of An Taisce's presentation. Having served as a councillor, I have had differences of opinion with An Taisce. However, I agree with much of what it does. However, we do not have to agree with everything its representatives say. We should be allowed to have a proper debate on all aspects of our heritage which belongs to everyone, not just An Taisce. The heritage of a local area is owned by the local community, the people in which might be happy to see that heritage change during the years. I have mentioned the cotton mill in my home town. It was taken over by Irish Tanners Limited. Tanning was a dirty industry and in time it became part of our heritage. Now the town is no more than a dormitory town. That is part of our heritage too.

An Taisce has often been accused of being comprised of faceless officials. I know the people in question are aware of this. I am glad to see they are not faceless — they are happy to engage and debate with elected representatives and communities on the ground. I encourage them to do more of this. An Taisce is often pigeonholed as an agency of objection. I do not necessarily agree that is the case, as its officials have some genuine interests at heart. However, they will not change that view, unless they engage with communities and elected representatives. They would achieve much more if they were to do so. However, I do not mean to lecture them; I am only giving advice. An Taisce will achieve much more if it brings people onside, rather than dictating to them. My experience has been that one needs to bring them along with one.

I wish to ask the departmental officials a question about the inconsistencies at local authority level. Are statistics available for the levies or penalties being collected in local authority areas? Are they being collected? Does the Department have a handle on the matter? I would also like to ask about the number of compulsory purchase orders that have been progressed to their full conclusion in local authority areas, as a consequence of the lack of action on protected structures or derelict sites. I suspect that very few such orders have been pursued. Are there any statistics available in that regard?

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith

I have admitted that my remarks in the paragraph referred to by Senator Coffey are over the top. Many good people have been working very hard.

I would like to pick up on something the Senator said at the start of his contribution. He touched on an absolutely important issue which is at the heart of this debate. He was dead right to ask how we could work together to turn heritage properties into a positive, rather than a negative. If we can turn them into a positive, people will be proud to own heritage properties and the whole game will become totally different. We would like to work with whoever we can to achieve this. The Senator was dead right to say that was the kernel of the matter.

Mr. Brian Lucas

The Senator has hit the nail on the head to some extent. It is important that we all try to make people aware of the value of a protected structure, its important role and heritage. We hold specific launches for the national inventory of architectural heritage to which we invite public representatives and owners of protected structures. We make copies of the booklets available to those who attend to enable them to see what work is done in this area and what protected structures are located in their area. We publish the full results of the survey on our buildings of Ireland website which features a large number of protected structures and allows people to see their value.

Any owner of a building would find the architectural heritage guidelines produced by the Department readable. One does not have to be a planning or conservation expert to get from them an understanding of what is required in terms of protected structures. We published two advice series earlier this year on brickwork and ironwork. We also invite people to the launches of each such publication and provide copies for those who attend.

Deputy Bannon referred to the grants provided by the Department. Tax relief is also available, albeit perhaps not at the level people would like.

Senator Coffey asked for some statistics. The information available to the Department shows that under the Derelict Sites Act, approximately €2 million was collected in derelict sites levies in 2007.

Senator Paudie Coffey

Does the figure refer to the entire country?

Mr. Brian Lucas

Yes, according to the information received from local authorities, the national figure is approximately €2 million.

Senator Paudie Coffey

Is information available on sites which may have been subject to a compulsory purchase order arising from the expiration of a derelict site notice or the failure to take action on a protected structure? Do local authorities require approval from the Department to issue a compulsory purchase order on a site?

Mr. Brian Lucas

I do not have that information to hand and I am not certain the Department collects such information. We may need to contact each local authority to obtain it.

Chairman

We have had a long discussion on many issues. I will ask a number of concluding questions. I also seek specific information from the Department in writing. How many protected structures are there in Ireland? Mr. Lucas has stated the national inventory of architectural heritage has been launched. Is this done on a local authority basis? Mr. Lucas has also indicated the Department needs to do some work in Dublin. I assume the position varies from area to area.

Mr. Brian Lucas

Mr. Colreavy can provide the details the Chairman seeks.

Mr. Martin Colreavy

Most of the country has been covered by the inventory. Fieldwork has started in counties Mayo and Donegal, with publication scheduled for 2011. We are editing and publishing inventories for counties and areas where fieldwork has been completed in 2009, namely, west Cork, Limerick and Galway. Once work in the five areas I have mentioned has been completed, the only areas on which work will have to be completed will be Dublin city, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, Cavan and Monaghan and Cork outer city. All relevant information is available on our buildings of Ireland website.

We have done substantial work since starting the inventory in 2001. The United Kingdom has been working on its inventory for about 30 years and has not yet finished it. We have, therefore, made good progress in the past eight years.

Chairman

As Mr. Colreavy indicated, the project has not been completed. Based on current information, how many protected structures are there in each local authority area? I am sure this information can be gleaned from the various development plans. The Department must also have been notified of the number of derelict sites in each local authority area.

Many have an issue with the poor quality of the research carried out before protected structures were included in the inventory of architectural heritage. I know of cases where listed structures consist of nothing more than a sheet of plywood. Someone drove down a street, saw what appeared to be a shop front, decided it was 200 years old and attached a preservation order to it. In truth, however, the structure amounted to no more than a sheet of painted plywood erected one year previously. Maybe the witnesses think it should be protected, but I cannot fathom the logic in something like that.

Can the Department supply us with a list of the local authorities that have a conservation officer and those that have a heritage officer? I am sure it has that information. I also want the Department officials to give the details of the grant for protected structures for 2008 and 2009. That is pretty minimal. We know that for some local authorities, the grant would not put a roof on a single building. I know the total grant for the whole county in my local authority, but I have not seen the general figures in recent times. Can the officials give us the number of notices that were issued under the various sections of the planning Acts to which we referred?

The officials were here at the beginning of the meeting, and they will have heard me read out a list of 49 different circulars that have been issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to each local authority around the country. I am sure the officials were as amazed as we were. I would be very happy if they could issue circular No. 50. These circulars went out to local authorities over recent months on a great range of issues, and it would be worthwhile if the witnesses' section could issue a circular to obtain that type of information.

We all understand that great work has been put into An Taisce's green schools initiative, and it always gets missed in a debate like this. It is being well promoted and people who have a gripe with An Taisce do not think of this initiative. The problem people have with An Taisce is that when it puts in an objection to a local authority or An Bord Pleanála, the public think An Taisce refused the planning permission. An Taisce is merely the objector. If the objection is correct, then the local authority should have seen it. If the objection does not hold muster, then it does not hold muster. Some people have the view that it is An Taisce that refuses planning permission, yet An Taisce makes a submission like any member of the public is entitled to do. I am speaking in An Taisce's defence, and it not always popular to do that.

I received a letter this morning about heritage sites around the country, such as those castles in Meath where Braveheart was filmed, while another film was made recently in my county. A tremendous amount of work was done on the historic site, and there was great disruption in the area due to the filming. All the paths to the site were covered with different structures, which were later taken off the paths. The ultimate purpose of all this was to make money for the person making the film. I asked how much the State got for providing what is an outstanding site free of charge, and I was told that there was no fee for films deemed to be of tourism or educational interest. There was a facility fee of €1,500 to pay for the extra security. Is that the normal experience? I received that letter this morning from the chairman of the OPW, and I was surprised that the State offered valuable sites free of charge. I went there one day and there were diggers all over the site. I am sure it was put back in as good a condition as possible, but is the Department happy with that practice? The letter I read referred to the Department giving the permission to do it, even though I know the OPW's local man kept an eye on it during the filming. Are the representatives from the Department familiar with the issue to which I refer? I do not mean the specific example.

Mr. Brian Lucas

If I have understood the Chairman correctly, in respect of a national monument, it may be a consent.

Chairman

Yes, I refer to the use of national monuments for films.

Mr. Brian Lucas

There are general requirements from the Department and permission must be sought from the Minister regarding works at national monuments and so on. I am unsure whether the case outlined by the Chairman came into that category. From what the Chairman said, the permission appears to have come from the Department. Obviously however, in such a case the Department must be satisfied that the works would not do any damage to the monument in question.

Chairman

The letter from the Department with the instructions was one page long. It simply stated the applicant required public liability insurance and must reimburse the Department for any loss. Although the letter contained less text than does the document I have to hand, people were being allowed to trample over a national monument at length and to bring in machines and heavy equipment. While one may hope that everything will be perfect, I was surprised by the casual nature of the manner in which the issue was being dealt with. Moreover, the letter from the Chairman of the Office of Public Works cited several other national monuments that were provided for other films in a similar manner. I was surprised by the casual approach to the entire issue.

Mr. Brian Lucas

In terms of its responsibility for consent, the Department would want to ensure that what is done would not do any damage. However, if the Chairman wishes, I can make some inquires.

Chairman

Mr. Lucas should provide the joint committee with a note on the issue.

Mr. Brian Lucas

I will be happy to so do.

Chairman

I will be satisfied with that. I know this was not the scheduled topic, but that letter arrived on my desk this morning before I left and I thought it might be of interest.

Everyone who still is present at this late stage will agree that the joint committee has had a highly useful and productive discussion on an issue that people are willing to discuss in this forum. I thank all the witnesses and members for their attendance and this concludes the meeting.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.50 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 22 September 2009.