Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 988 relates to section 281 on page 472. The original wording in the January Bill was much more comprehensive in describing a protected structure and the merits and attributes attached to it. In amendment No. 988, I suggest that we reinsert the wording from the Bill's first iteration in January.

The title of the section is "Duty of owners and occupiers to protect structures from endangerment". After "structure" I propose that we add the other elements of it which were listed in the January edition. The amendment proposes:

In page 472, line 3, after "structure" where it secondly occurs, to insert "or any element of it which contributes to its special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest, is not removed, altered and".

I think that is the wording from the 2000 Act. I think it is also the wording from the January Bill. I do not know why it has been removed from section 281 in this case and I would like to see it reinstated.

Amendment No. 989 proposes to add to section 281(4), which relates to an offence. The current wording is: "Any person who, without lawful authority, endangers a protected structure". I want to expand this so that in addition to "endangers", we include "alters, degrades or removes" in describing someone who "shall be guilty of an offence". The Minister of State might tell me that "endangers" covers endangering the actual protection of that building. It is no harm to include "alters, degrades or removes" or wording to that effect which might be more comprehensive.

Amendment No. 990 proposes:

In page 472, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: "(6) The endangerment, alteration, degradation or removal of the protected structure or proposed protected structure which relies on subsection (5) as a defence, shall be rectified in agreement with the planning authority within 12 months of the carrying out of works.".

Section 56(5) is somewhat bizarre. Nowhere else does the legislation offer a defence for infringements of the planning Act but it does under protected structures. The Bill states:

...it shall be a defence for the defendant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the endangerment of the protected structure or proposed protected structure resulted from works which were— (a) urgently required...

(b) undertaken in good faith... and

(c) unlikely to permanently alter the structure.

That might be all well and good but we still have a damaged protected structure. Where somebody relies on subsection (5) as a defence for works that they have carried out, the degradation or damage to the protected structure "shall be rectified in agreement with the planning authority within 12 months". If it was urgently required to prevent damage, 12 months is an appropriate period of time for somebody to come back and rectify that. It should not be left to sit in abeyance like that.

Amendment No. 991 is similar. Where works have been done to a protected structure that have damaged the characteristics of it, someone relying on this subsection as a defence cannot use those works that rely on the subsection as a reason to then support a deletion or removal from the list of protected structures covered in sections 278 and 279. Someone cannot carry out works because they thought they were necessary or did not know they could not do them and then depend on those works when they go to the planning authorities responsible for making additions and deletions and say, "Ah sure, the building has been degraded."

Are those all my amendments?