Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

One of our Green Party researchers, Kate Ruddock, is here this afternoon. We have gone through the history of PMBs around this subject matter of dereliction, vacancy and regeneration and what we found was that, across all parties in the House, there was a desire to do something about it. As realists, however, we all know that whereas a Member can write a PMB and it is an absolute privilege to be able to write legislation and introduce it into the Oireachtas - I find it to be an absolute privilege anyway and a massive learning curve - PMBs do not go all the way, generally. This Bill was accepted on Second Stage; hence we are here. Then on Second Stage, there was really good cross-party support for it. I think you were there for the debate, Deputy Ó Broin. Deputy Bacik from Labour was there. I think you were there as well, Deputy O'Callaghan. What I have seen so far is good support for it.

There are two parts to it, in general. It seeks to update the Derelict Sites Act. That Act is quite outdated in a number of ways. The other part of it is to allow for an expedited process as to where applicants get their planning consent and the different certifications that are required - fire certificate, disability certificate and, if necessary, architectural conservation certificate - in an expedited manner.

I got quite a bit of assistance on this from some very experienced architects: Mel Reynolds, who presented to the committee on our urban regeneration series; Eoin O'Cofaigh, who knows the regulations inside out, having chatted to him; and Orla Hegarty, who also contributed to it and assisted us with it.

I will briefly go through the Bill and the parts of the Derelict Sites Act that we are trying to amend. I find the Derelict Sites Act is a little limited in its description of what a derelict building is. We seek to amend that by bringing in changes such as, say, if the doors and windows are closed up on the property. What we often see, which I see in my town, is a building that has been derelict for years but that may or may not be on the derelict sites register. It is an eyesore, and our Tidy Towns group comes along and paints nice doors and windows on it and suddenly it does not meet that definition of visually detracting from the area, so it will not go on the derelict sites register. It brings nothing of benefit to the area. We seek to amend the Derelict Sites Act to say that if a property is boarded up, if it is uninhabitable, if it needs works, we put it on the derelict sites register.

We also seek to introduce a provision whereby if a property has been disconnected from electricity or water services for a period of two years or more, we define that as derelict because it is a building that will fall into decay. I do not know if a building not having electricity or water would be enough in itself to go on a derelict sites register, but we need to consider that if there is no heat or water and nobody in the building, that building is decaying from the inside. It may not be decaying as obviously from the outside.

We seek to update the register of derelict sites as well such that all local authorities would have to have an online derelict sites register. They do not all currently have one. We also suggest that in the entries on the derelict sites register we would include information that would assist somebody because it might be a good first port of call for somebody who is interested in acquiring, refurbishing and doing up a building to go to the derelict sites list and see what is out there. It may indicate that somebody wishes to sell; it may indicate that somebody is so loaded they do not want to sell. It is, however, a good starting point. We seek to include on that derelict sites register information about moneys owed, the outstanding derelict sites levy, the planning history of that site, the current zoning of it and any other relevant information to assist people in their search. To identify people, we try to introduce more modern methods such as online advertising and the putting up of a site notice. If the owner cannot be found after a certain period, the property goes on the derelict sites register.

Under section 6 we also seek the power to acquire a derelict site so that when a building has been on the derelict sites register for more than two years, the Minister would be informed and could commence steps to compulsorily purchase the site. This gives greater powers to the Minister and a greater level of awareness within the Department. The Department has set out a number of targets for CPOs, Croí Cónaithe, etc., so we think this would assist with that.

We changed the prescribed area as well so where derelict sites would apply would be within settlement boundaries. We are not targeting the old run-down farmhouse in the middle of nowhere. It does not come in scope but it would be within the defined settlement boundary that is generally seen in a local area plan or county development plan. Will we deal with that section first? Does anybody have any questions on that or is everybody satisfied with that? Okay, we must have written that pretty well. Well done to Kate Ruddock.

Part 3 is about the regeneration of buildings. I remember that since the 1990s they were talking about living over the shop in Capel Street, for example. Every so often it comes to the fore that we need to regenerate, we need to get those second stories into use and we need to bring residential use back into our towns and villages. There seems to be this circular conversation that happens every couple of years. There is now a massive focus back on our town centres. We know that because of climate emissions and transport challenges there is a focus on putting accommodation back into towns. There is a focus on embodied carbon. If we do not make better reuse of existing building stock and try to just build conventionally with concrete, we will overshoot our carbon targets by a huge amount. We are all focused again on it. If we speak to practitioners, architects, builders, developers and people who have a dream about bringing back one of these town centre buildings, they say they run into a lot of difficulty from the outset. It can be a very onerous and expensive process to get all of the permissions and certifications required to build. What we are trying to introduce here is three further types of exempt development, which we call (m), (n) and (o). That is from section 4 of the planning Act where it runs from (a) to (l) currently. I will not bother reading that. It is in the Bill but it is about making changes, putting in doors and windows, etc. A lot of this will be planning exempt because we brought in planning exemptions. In order to be able to consolidate that process, where one can apply for a fire certificate, disability certificate and other certificates one might need, we have tried to establish what is called Town Centres First. We used a Town Centres First office because it is based on the Town Centres First policy introduced by the Government. One should be able to go in, present one's documentation, present all the information required and have a very quick turnaround so one does not have to go through the normal process of going for the fire certificate, which one might get but then one might fail on the disability certificate.

It is important to stress there is no reduction in any building regulations or building standards in any of this. Standards still have to be met but there is a realisation that in certain types of these buildings - for example, bringing the second or third stories of these buildings back into use - we will not be able to fit a lift in those buildings. It would make the project completely unviable. I spoke to some people in the disability sector and asked them about this and they said it sounds reasonable and practical. If we were doing a new build on an infill site, we would obviously have to fully comply with that. That is part and parcel of these buildings that we will not and that has to be accepted. That covers it in general. Does anybody have any questions on it?