Mr. Brian Keaney:

I thank the committee for inviting the Irish Planning Institute to be with it today. I am vice-president of the Irish Planning Institute and I will do everything I can to assist the committee with the views of planning professionals regarding the revised general scheme of the monuments and archaeological heritage Bill.

The Irish Planning Institute is the all-island professional body representing planners engaged in physical and environmental planning in Ireland. Our mission is to advance planning in the interest of the common good by serving, improving and promoting the planning profession. We are the largest professional membership body for spatial planners operating on this island. Our members work throughout the planning system in planning consultancies and authorities, semi-State organisations, An Bord Pleanála, the Office of the Planning Regulator, and central government.

The institute wishes to raise the following points in our opening statement. We strongly support the principle enshrined in head 3(1)(d), performance of functions, that the "responsibility for the protection of historic heritage is, as a resource of benefit to all, shared by all". Those who may be permitted to remove or interfere with historical heritage should, in the normal course, bear the costs of any recording or protective work necessitated by or associated with such removal or interference.

This issue can often arise in the context of planning permissions where a site of archaeological potential is involved and conditions are imposed requiring the developer to carry out an archaeological investigation or excavation or monitoring under licence. Sometimes an argument is made by a developer that the cost of complying with such a condition is onerous or, for example, if an archaeological monument such as a portion of town wall, has to be retained within the development, that it may make the development in question non-viable and that, therefore, the cost should be borne by the State. The institute believes the imposition of such conditions by planning authorities is appropriate and developers should conform to this principle. The scheme should make it explicit that the imposition of such conditions, whereby the cost falls on the owner or developer, is within the principles of the Bill and is therefore specifically approved.

The institute suggests that under head 9, establishment of register of monuments, any prescribed monument the Minister has entered into the register of monuments should, notwithstanding anything in the planning and development Acts, be deemed to be a protected structure in the relevant development plan. This measure would deal with the anomaly that currently occurs where the sole means by which a structure is included in the register of protected structures in a development plan is by a vote of the elected members of the planning authority.

The institute is aware that structures deemed to be part of the archaeological or architectural heritage by the Minister are not included in the register of protected structures. This can sometimes be attributed to opposition on the part of the owners of such structures to the limitations on exempted development and-or additional costs, if the structures are to be altered or demolished, that arise if their properties are protected structures. The IPI considered these objections invalid in the context of the policy set out in head 3(1)(d). The IPI suggests that in line with the intention of the scheme, this anomaly should be closed.

In head 13, regarding exemption for certain works to monuments with general protection, it is not clear if the exemption for a licence is provided for in the head where it refers to works being "regulated under another statutory system" applies to areas of archaeological protection or works to protected structures under the Planning and Development Acts. The institute suggests the Department should review and enhance this in the full Bill in order to avoid misinterpretation or weakening the thrust of the scheme.

Head 20 relates to the application of the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act 1964. The provision whereby the Minister "must be consulted" appears to be very weak. If a notice is served under dangerous buildings legislation, in relation to a monument, the institute believes the Minister should be empowered to prohibit its demolition unless the local authority can prove to the Minister's satisfaction, or perhaps with provision for appeal to the High Court, that maintenance, or protection works, which would prevent the demolition or part demolition of the monument are not reasonable or proportionate, or that demolition is otherwise necessary in the public interest. The stipulations contained in section 79 of the Planning and Development Act, which already controls or sets limits on dangerous buildings legislation in relation to protected structures, should apply in a more significant manner in relation to monuments.

Clarification on the mechanism stipulated in head 30 is needed as it is currently unclear whether the Minister is to be given the power simply to propose world heritage property, leaving it up to the planning authority to incorporate such sites or properties into development plans, or if it is intended that the Minister is to designate such world heritage property, and thereby that such sites or properties are automatically included in the relevant development plans. This is analogous to the Minister proposing structures of architectural heritage interest through the national inventory of architectural heritage to planning authorities, but such properties not necessarily being included in the register of protected structures in some development plans, as the power to do so is left to the elected members of the authorities. The institute therefore proposes that, where the Minister designates world heritage property under head 30, the planning authority shall include such sites or properties in the relevant development plan, either by way of a variation, if the plan has been in force for less than four years, or at the next review of the plan concerned after that period.

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to come before the committee today. I will endeavour to respond to members' questions. However, if any additional information is required, arising from this meeting, we will be pleased to provide that information in a prompt manner.