John Cummins (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their attendance this afternoon. It is much appreciated. This is important legislation, which I broadly support. It seeks to provide legal protections for newly discovered archaeological sites, to establish a single register of monuments, to provide a clear statutory basis for the Commissioner of Public Works or relevant local authorities to manage monuments and to establish a clear basis for the Minister for the local authority for legal title and ownership for the guardianship of monuments. As currently drafted, the legislation allows for things to fall between two stools and for ambiguity. This is important, encompassing legislation.

I come from a very archaeologically rich city, Waterford. I understand the need to protect, record, report and display our rich archaeological heritage. There are fantastic examples of this in my own city. The Medieval Museum encases undercrofts within a modern structure, but this was done in such a sensitive way by the local authority that it has future-proofed the security of that for many generations to come. However, a balance has always to be struck. In many cases, there is a perceived lack of a pragmatic approach, in particular, to buildings, whereby the demands that are placed on the owners of a property in terms of, as mentioned by Deputy Ó Snodaigh, the costs involved are such that they result in buildings becoming vacant, derelict and ruins, rather than a pragmatic approach to saving a building with some modification that allows it to be preserved for future generations. I would welcome the views of An Taisce with regard to that balance of demands. Unfortunately, at times because the view is taken that it must be done in a such a strict manner, the costs are so prohibitive that ultimately it results in the loss of the building for future generations.

I am sure the witnesses are familiar with section 57 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which allows for the owner or occupier of a protected structure to apply to the planning authority for a declaration as to the type of works it considers would or would not materially affect the character of the structure or any element of it. There are considerable delays within local authorities with regard to applications that are made under section 57. Is there benefit in exploring the possibility of a suitably qualified person, such as a graded conservation architect, being permitted to sign-off on works in consultation with the conservation architect within the local authority in order to speed up the process? I am not suggesting that anything should be discarded but that we seek to streamline the process in the context of body of work currently under way in regard to dereliction and vacancy and bringing buildings back into productive use. I would welcome the witnesses' views.