Local bodies get added power to protect buildings

An additional power for local authorities in safeguarding buildings of special interest was incorporated into the Local Government…

An additional power for local authorities in safeguarding buildings of special interest was incorporated into the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1998, which passed all stages in the Seanad yesterday.

The Bill provides for the greater protection of buildings and structures of special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific, social or technical interest.

An amendment moved by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Mr Dempsey, was adopted. It entitles planning authorities to recover the cost of conservation works which they themselves have to undertake, by vesting ownership of the protected structures in the authorities subject to the right of redemption by the owners.

Mr Dempsey pointed out that the Bill already allowed for the recovery of costs as a simple debt, or by registering a debt against the portfolio of a registered property. But no means had been provided to charge the debt against unregistered property, which included the vast bulk of property in urban areas in particular.

READ MORE

The amendment would permit this. "The planning authority will be able to register an instrument against the title of the owner, vesting the ownership of the property. The owner must then redeem the property by payment of the debt before he or she can sell the property."

The Minister said he was determined to ensure that planning authorities were not left with outstanding debts for work which they had to carry out in relation to endangerment of protected structures.

On recovery of costs, Mr Dempsey said senators had correctly made the point that, in the past, legislation had been enacted imposing obligations on local authorities with no back-up financing arrangements.

That state of affairs had brought the law and local government into disrepute. This Bill and other planned legislation would change this.

Earlier in the debate, Mr David Norris (Ind), called for stronger enforcement measures. He said he had personally dragged house-owners through the courts and had obtained judgments against them.

But absolutely nothing had happened as a result. He could not understand why such people were not compelled to restore historic buildings which they owned. He had wasted money pursuing them.

One house in his own area of north inner Dublin had been chosen by a film production company as a scenic background for part of a film based on the Dickens novel David Copperfield. They had very little work to do to alter the external appearance of the house into that of a tenement.

"The film production crew said to me, `We can use that house because it's derelict'. "

It is a List One building owned by a consultant, added Mr Norris.

"I would like to see the local authorities really getting some teeth and sinking them into the fleshy posteriors of some of our absconding landlords, landladies or landpersons, whoever they are."