Mr. Alan Baldwin:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak here today. I am a chartered and registered building surveyor and director of The Building Consultancy. I am chairperson of the SCSI building surveying professional group. I am joined by my colleague, Mr. Noel Larkin, who is also a chartered and registered building surveyor. He is principal of Noel Larkin and Associates and vice chairman of the building surveying professional group.

The Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland is the professional body representing more than 5,000 chartered surveyors in the property, land and construction sectors across a number of surveying disciplines in Ireland.

Our membership incorporates disciplines from building and quantity surveying to estate agents, planning surveyors, property and facility managers and geomatic surveying. The SCSI is a partner with the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, RICS, the global body for chartered surveyors, with more than 180,000 members and trainees around the world.

The SCSI welcomes, in principle, the Vacant Housing Refurbishment Bill 2017 as a step forward in reducing the timeframe required to seek necessary permits for redevelopment, especially of those vacant and underutilised properties in urban areas. More than half of our membership base is located outside Dublin and we are aware of the challenges facing towns and villages to breathe new life and vibrancy into urban centres. This year, the SCSI has placed the topic of the rejuvenation of our rural high street at the top of our policy and research agenda, and this will include highlighting the issues facing property owners when redeveloping their properties. Derelict, empty and underutilised buildings are a blight not just on rural towns but also on our cities, and we support practical and sensible measures that will improve vacancy rates, especially if they alleviate the housing supply crisis.

We also welcome the concept of a one-stop-shop where competing regulatory requirements such as accessibility and conservation, which can currently create contradictions that cannot be overcome in a practical and economic way, are dealt with in a holistic way. However, we have real concerns that any reduction in standards and processes does not come at any price to people's safety or deliver any unintended consequences elsewhere.

The SCSI is concerned about elements within the Bill's wording which we believe is very much open to interpretation, particularly relating to aspects of the replacement of the existing building control procedures with the works permit and the interpretations in Schedule 1. The building industry has come a long way in terms of improving building regulations and building control regulations, and it would be counterproductive if derogations are made available to undermine or deflect from the standards which are properly in place to protect a building's occupants. The timeframes envisaged by the Bill will be exceptionally difficult to implement without significant resourcing and a specific requirement for sufficiently detailed plans and drawings to assist the panel's assessment of compliance with regulatory requirements.

This Bill proposes a one-stop-shop to consider applications for renovation or change of use applications for existing properties, of which the majority is likely to be of considerable age and built during a time when building regulations were not in place. Any proposed structural changes to existing buildings impacting on a number of areas covered under the building regulations and already catered for by the existing building control amendment regulations, BCAR, procedures could be compromised due to the tight timeframe proposed and lead ultimately to structural failures. Consideration should be given to building or structural surveys of these buildings being carried out to ensure that the proposed alterations can facilitate the new loads or alterations proposed for the change of use or redevelopment. The SCSI is concerned that any general arrangement drawings used to consider an application would be in isolation of sufficient drawings and detail to demonstrate compliance with structure.

Resourcing of the proposed fast-track process to ensure that the proposed changes are workable solutions is unclear at this stage. The speedier turnaround process will increase the workloads placed on local authorities and therefore will require additional resources before a new expedited process is implemented. It is also important to ensure that a two-tier system will not develop for the standard of housing being delivered. The Bill is not clear on the definition of "relevant professionals" of the proposed "panel" and it also mentions the establishment of a register. There are already established registers for professionals in this area. The society is the registration body for buildings surveyors and the RIAI registers architects. We are unsure, therefore, of the need for an additional register. We are also unclear as to whether the authorised persons are local authority staff or private sector professionals. Following a recruitment embargo and the early retirement of many technical personnel, there must be real concern that many local authorities simply will not have the ability to provide this one-stop shop service and will be challenged to scale up to respond to what could be a deluge of applications. If non-local authority staff are required to undertake this activity, it is likely to place a higher risk of local authorities or indeed the State being held to account for future failures given the apparent light-touch nature of the interpretation of technical guidance contained in the amendments proposed in Schedule 1.

This proposed legislation appears to impinge on established third party rights to comment on or object to any proposed redevelopment. We are interested to hear how this process will work and what impact the proposal will have on the current statutory planning observation rights. We are not convinced that the legislation will have the impact that is intended on the creation of housing supply. With such a high demand for short-term accommodation in many urban areas, renovated properties may be utilised for Airbnb-type accommodation and, instead of being utilised ultimately to assist with the overall housing accommodation crisis, will fuel the short-term letting supply. The Bill does not appear to contain any restriction in terms of building or project size, nor does it contain any limitation on the number of permissible units to be created by subdivision or refurbishment. The implications of intensification of use which will impact on parking and local services, which are important planning considerations, may need to be considered in the overall impact study for this legislation.

While it is outside the scope of the Bill, legislators may also want to consider the potential legal and financial implications that these exemption provisions may create. Will banks provide finance for subdivided units created under these exemptions on the basis of a certificate of conformity? Will the legal profession view this type of certificate as sufficient for conveyance or other purpose? Will residential property tax be applied to such properties?

From reading the Bill, the SCSI is concerned that there is not sufficient distinction made between the planning process and building regulations and building control regulations. We feel that further consideration is needed to separate these two distinct processes and we look forward to working with the Department to ensure that the legislation, when adopted, is fair, fit for purpose and merges properly with the current processes and procedures for the delivery of the built environment.