Pat Casey (Wicklow, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for their presentations. I will make a general comment before I focus on the presentation by Engineers Ireland.

I wish to stress that the purpose of this Bill is never to minimise fire or disability standards and I stress this every time I speak on the Bill. The purpose of the one stop shop is to try to harmonise three different processes into one. The fire and disability standards remain exactly the same as they are under the Building Control Regulations today. There is no deviation in standards but we are trying to harmonise planning exemptions, fire certification and disability certification into a one stop shop process where one can go into the local authority and get the whole thing done and dusted rather than going through three separate processes, the way it happens at present. At no stage are the fire and disability certification standards being put at risk. The current building control regulation applies to this work, the very same as it applies to SI 9.

On the issue of the local authority not having time to seek the time extensions, we are looking at existing building and from a planning process perspective, there is no public consultation. We are not looking at redesigning the exterior of the building, we are literally talking about the reconfiguration of the interior of the building. In relation to the planning process and third party appeal process, we have to start looking at realistic ways of how we get these buildings back into use. We do not think there is a need for that. Equally now the Government has come along with SI 30, which is almost identical to what this Bill is proposing, which removes most of this from the planning process also.

On the local authority trying to seek additional or further information, let us look at what we have done for the development of 100 houses. They must go through a pre-planning process with An Bord Pleanála and it is during that process that the detail is thrashed out. Then once one submits the application there is no further information or anything else after that, but the board must make a decision in a set period. It is in the pre-consultation period that all the work must be done. There is an indication coming from that process that the pre-planning process does work in the development of 100 houses. We might need to tweak this as we go forward, but the intention is to try to get this done and dusted.

On the issue of the "authorised person" and the qualification of such persons, we can take some information back on this. Equally we look at the building control regulation and the qualification that applies to the signed certification process and how to those people qualify. The come from different backgrounds and they can qualify to sign off on certification. We are looking at the same type of person here. We are not trying to deviate from it. We may have to work on that aspect of it. On the point that the public sector does not have the resources, that is correct. That is why we said that a framework agreement could be entered into where people who have these skills are engaged by the local authority through a framework agreement.

On the cost to the Exchequer, an assigned certifier costs money, an authorised person costs money so we would see a similar fee would apply. It is up to the Minister to decide on that. That would not be a cost on the Exchequer, the developer would have to pay for the certification process.

I think they are the main points.

In the submission from the County and City Management Association, CCMA, the CCMA raised the issue of the different functions in respect of planning and development and building control. The functions are different but they are carried out by the one local authority and the personnel in that local authority. I do not see why there should be an issue with joining those two functions together as one function in the future, in the interest of trying to streamline the process.

Section 4 of the Building Control Act allows the building control authority to grant dispensation or relaxation of the requirements of building regulations. This Bill acknowledges that, but equally it is seeking technical guidance documents to be produced by the Department to address this issue. At present, we have 32 local authorities, each with its own interpretation of the dispensation or relaxation in respect of fire or disability certification.

This Bill is asking the Government to produce a technical guidance document to facilitate the refurbishment of existing buildings into habitable dwellings.

In terms of the executive function, I have no problem if there was to be a requirement that the chief executive has to sign off on this. We all know, from our work with the local authority, that the planner or fire officer makes the decision and that the chief executive only signs a document that is presented to him at the end of the day. If there is a feeling that this Bill is weaker because the signature of the chief executive is not required, I have no problem with addressing that.

The point was made that the developer is exposed at the end of the day if the authorised person will not sign a works permit. That is no different from what is happening under building control at the moment if the assigned certifier will not sign a certificate of compliance on completion. They are the very same processes. I believe the building control regulations, BCAR, are weak in this respect. Disability and fire planning all has to be agreed before builders go to site. Currently, under BCAR, if I am converting my building I can send a seven day notice, and even if I have no fire certificate or disability certification I can start providing I have applied for those certificates. We are dealing with old buildings here, so once work commences the first certification, or the disability certification, might not arrive for two months. The work might be completed, and it is possible that none of it is compliant with BCAR. I believe the system we are proposing is better because all of these issues are dealt with upfront, before builders go on site. At the moment there is a weakness in BCAR in that builders can go to site and commence construction without having a fire certification or a disability certification. We are dealing with older buildings, which are more dangerous and more complex in terms of both of those items. Fianna Fáil's Bill is much stronger on that issue. Since this Bill was introduced the Minister has signed off on statutory instrument No. 30 in February, so the whole planning process has been exempted from both of these situations.

There is a question of liability here, and an additional piece of work on this might be required, but we would see this as being very similar to how BCAR operates at the moment, where the public liability lies with the assigned certifier, or in our case the approved person. They are the professionals and they sign off on that. In my time in the Dáil I have continually pushed for independent inspection. I believe that the country needs to go in that direction. I can ask a local authority what percentage of buildings it is inspecting. The system in place at the moment relies on self-regulation, where the builder is paying the assigned certifier to sign off on his own work. This Bill seeks to move towards independent inspection. We strongly believe that this is the way it should be for everything, not just in this respect.