PJ Murphy (Fine Gael)

I second the amendment. As Fine Gael’s spokesperson on housing in the Seanad and as the owner of a construction business that specialises in the conservation and restoration of historic buildings, having read the Bill, I believe it is a well-considered Bill. I am very supportive of the vast majority of this Bill. Given the extent of dereliction in our towns and villages around the country, this is a Bill we are very much in need of implementing, as soon as we can get it right. I agree with the Senator that the Derelict Sites Act 1990 is not fit for purpose.

The Bill’s ambition to expedite planning applications and permits of derelict buildings has great merit. Creating an online register of sites and the process behind the sites becoming derelict, which can be viewed online, would also be most helpful. Creating a system for informing owners of a property’s potential and streamlining the system around planning applications in what would effectively be a one-stop shop is fantastic idea that I am supportive of. It is very much needed.

The Bill also sets out steps whereby local authorities may acquire derelict sites, which is also much needed. It adds that the Minister must be notified when a site has been on the register for more than two years. That is all very positive.

That being said, I have a number of concerns about the Bill as well. My colleague, Senator Curley, has proposed an amendment that it be delayed for a year while some concerns are considered. The Bill proposes the establishment of a planning authority with its own body of staff. This group of staff will administer the application process, to be known as a town centre first application. Certain things relating to the costs and the funding and staffing of that need to be looked at. I am supportive of the idea behind it but certain details need to be figured out.The proposal to do away with certain requirements of the building control regulations is another concern I have. The exemption from obtaining a fire safety certificate is an important aspect in the context of many old multistorey buildings like this. I agree that there are a lot of inconsistencies and flaws in the systems through which these fire certificates are given out in each county. However, we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater and do away with them completely. We have to figure what is wrong with the system, as opposed to doing away with it completely.

The proposal to do away with certification of the design and construction of the building works by a registered construction professional and a competent builder might be a backward step in the enforcement of building standards. We may need to look at why there is a problem with getting these certifications as opposed to doing away with them completely. While I am very supportive of the vast majority of this Bill and think it needs to be implemented in the long term, I will support the amendment to push back its Second Reading.