Mr. Brian Keaney:

I am speaking on behalf of the Irish Planning Institute which represents planners across the public and private sectors and in the semi-State sector. We welcome the clarity in the heads of the Bill. I wish to reiterate the five key points from my opening statement which the committee should bear in mind as it considers the next stage of the legislation. On the issue of the developer bearing the cost of archaeological investigation, excavation or monitoring as part of the development process, the potential threat to remove archaeological or heritage features on the grounds that keeping them would render a scheme unviable is somewhat addressed as part of the legislation.

I answered questions earlier on designations. If at national level the Minister designates or introduces a feature in the register of monuments, that has the status of a protected structure as it would be in a development plan so that automatically transfers across. There is a clear link between the ministerial designation and the inclusion of that feature or monument as part of the development plan record of protected structures.

Clarity on exemptions from the requirement for archaeological licensing goes to the heart of the development management process. All works under the Planning and Development Acts, either carried out on or under the land, or making a material change trigger the requirement for planning consent. Within that there are exemptions. People will know that a single-storey extension to a domestic dwelling of less than 40 sq. m does not need planning permission in theory subject to conditions. Our concern here is the reference to exempting certain works from planning consent by virtue of the fact that they are licensed under another regime. We need clarity on that; there may not be an issue.

Where works are being done to a national monument, the first port of call is usually to raise the issue with the local authority which is the planning authority. We again need to get clarity on that issue. If exemptions are to be granted under this legislation, how do they interface with the Planning and Development Acts and regulations?

The heads of the Bill refer to the role of the Minister in respect of a dangerous building. If a national monument is classified as a dangerous building, the legislation should be changed to give the Minister greater powers to intervene to prohibit the demolition of or works to a national monument irrespective of whether it is classified as a dangerous structure. We again seek clarity on that.

We also seek clarity on the designation by the Minister of a world heritage property and what that means for the development plans. As with the register of monuments, if the Minister decides to designate a property as a world heritage property, that protection is automatically brought into the development plan process. Those are the five points.