Ms Orla Hegarty:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to contribute during this session. Existing buildings are the most readily available, cheapest, quickest and most sustainable source of housing supply in the short term. In addition to the estimated 183,000 vacant dwellings recorded in Census 2016, there were more than 28,000 vacant commercial addresses in mid-2017, a national vacancy rate of 13.5%. Upper floors of buildings in cities and towns were traditionally used for housing. These buildings exist, do not require infrastructure, have connections to utilities and drainage, and are close to shops, services and public transport. They are ideally suited to one to three-person households, which is the demographic of highest demand. Providing housing in existing communities, particularly for people who live alone, gives immediate access to services, generates commercial activity, reduces urban sprawl, supports sustainable transport, consolidates urban regeneration and reduces social isolation.

As an aside, and so that members can envisage the scale of building that could occur under this process, the Bill's 500 sq. m limit is approximately the size of two pairs of semi-detached houses.

A study by UCC in Cork city centre indicated that North Main Street had 388 residents, with the potential to treble its population within the existing building stock. Other studies by Dublin City Council and Space Engagers confirm a vast untapped potential in city areas and regional towns where there is high demand. The UCC study found that, contrary to "what is sometimes suggested, planning is not the problem here". It goes on to read "discussion with property owners and the local authority indicates clearly that the problem is actually a mix of bureaucracy (the complex/expensive building control regulation regime) and viability (the difficulty for building owners in securing credit)." This is confirmed by the limited impact of the previous living-over-the-shop schemes. Currently, the living city initiative provides tax relief for owners of residential and commercial buildings, but these schemes are largely concerned with financial incentives and do not deal with the most significant barriers, those being, regulatory cost, complexity and uncertainty.

I will give an example to demonstrate the problem in respect of this type of small building. If an owner of a shop with vacant upper floors that may have been used previously as a solicitor's office or a hairdresser's decides to convert the space to two small apartments, there are three separate regulatory approval processes to do so compliantly: planning, fire safety certificate and disability access certificate. The three go to different parts of the local authority, have different submission requirements, technical reports and drawings, have separate fees and operate on different timescales. The owner makes a substantial outlay to prepare these drawings and reports but carries the risk that, if any one of the three is refused, the project cannot go ahead. The conditions set by a fire officer or conservation officer could be in direct conflict with each other. There is no formal mechanism to get all of the people together to agree a workable and safe solution and no TGDs for interpreting the regulations for this type of work.

If the owner is successful in all three applications, a planning development levy is due. The owner then engages, and pays fees to, four separate statutory appointments: a design certifier and an assigned certifier under building control, a project supervisor for the design process and another project supervisor for the construction stage under the health and safety heading. Statutory notices are made to the Health and Safety Authority and the building control authority. A substantial amount of technical and regulatory information is uploaded to the building control management system, BCMS, for record keeping rather than verification or technical checks. At completion of the work, another submission of site records, certificates and technical documents are uploaded with a certificate of compliance. Separately, a statutory safety file is assembled for the owner by the project supervisor.

All of these procedures can be triggered by something as simple as changing the use from office to residential, subdividing a room, extending a bathroom or reconfiguring a staircase. Importantly, the checking of design and inspection of construction is done by certifiers appointed by the owner and who act for the owner, not the State. There is no independent inspection.

The regulatory system has, therefore, become a barrier to compliance. In the absence of active enforcement, there are widespread problems of illegal and unsafe conversions. "Slum landlords" have little fear of sanction and openly advertise on reputable letting websites. In one case that was highlighted by RTÉ, 40 tenants were accommodated in ten bedrooms. Overcrowding, illegal conversions and shoddy construction are putting lives at risk. Limited resources are available for enforcement.

The Vacant Housing Refurbishment Bill addresses the shortcomings in previous schemes.

It gives certainty and reduced cost for owners; safer buildings for occupants; and a workable system of approval, control and enforcement for the local authorities.

In summary, there are four stakeholders in this process: the owner; the local authority; the architect or professional adviser; and the future tenant or resident of the building. The current does not work for any of them. This system would give the owner one-stop-shop approval, take uncertainty out of the process and allow him or her to have an expedited start on site. The local authority can streamline its administrative systems, generate flexibility for staffing and on-call expertise. Importantly, the system gives local authorities consistency and trust in the inspection regime and allows them have preventative controls so that premises are inspected before they are occupied and not afterwards.

Importantly, from the professional point of view, the system allows more collaboration, sharing and upskilling. Finally, for the future resident or tenant, the system gives the transparency of a national system that works across all of the various safety inspections. The resident or tenant is not the party that must take enforcement. A third party, prior to occupation, will carry out enforcement, which is reassuring. There is also a possible alignment of the various branches of inspection that takes place at the moment. Again, that will streamline the system and make it more efficient.