Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McAleer): I welcome to the meeting Manus Deery, acting director of the historic environment division (HED). Manus, do you want to kick off and brief members, after which we will ask questions?

Mr Manus Deery (Department for Communities): Thank you very much, Deputy Chair, and thank you, Committee, for the invitation to talk to you today about the Dilapidation Bill. I have a short statement that I will read through, and then I will take questions.

The historic environment includes all aspects of our environment resulting from the interaction between people and place over time. The historic environment division records, protects, conserves and promotes Northern Ireland's historic environment. Our aim is to help communities enjoy and realise the value of our historic environment. There are just over 9,000 listed buildings in Northern Ireland, and 2,000 monuments are protected as scheduled historic monuments. Almost 10% of Northern Ireland's listed buildings are on our heritage at risk register, which means that we are concerned that they may be at risk of loss. That may be because they are vacant and vulnerable, but, in most cases, it is also because they are in poor condition.

As it is an offence under section 85 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to demolish or alter the character of a listed building without consent from a planning authority, and, as it is an offence under article 4 of the Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 to demolish a scheduled monument, the number of demolitions of listed buildings and scheduled monuments in Northern Ireland each year is very low. However, on occasion, the issuing of a dilapidation notice under the current legislation has resulted in the demolition of a listed building without the required listed building consent. That is because such a notice currently says that an owner must "take down, secure, or repair" and makes no reference to the need to obtain any other permissions. Councils are not allowed to choose between those three words. Under the current legislation, they have to put those three words in a notice. It also gives councils no scope to seek repairs without demolition. While it is an offence to demolish a listed building without consent, no prosecution has been taken against an owner who has demolished a listed building in response to a dilapidation notice. Presumably, that is because it is not clear which legislative provision takes precedence or prominence.

My division has worked with colleagues in DAERA since the Bill was initiated, and we are supportive of the Bill. It addresses our two main concerns by allowing councils to issue notices where it:

It also clearly states:

However, section 85 of the Planning Act, which requires listed building consent for alterations and demolitions, does not strictly relate to "condition". It relates to "architectural or historic" character, so, while the intention of the proposed legislation appears to be clear, there may be an opportunity to strengthen the drafting of the Dilapidation Bill by revisiting the reference to "condition" in clause 4(5). We understand that the phrase "the condition of" needs to be inserted because, if that was removed, an "interested person" would be obliged to comply with all statutory provisions in relation to the building, which may not be the policy intention. For example, if a building is in a state of disrepair, it may not be possible to comply with all health and safety requirements. It might, therefore, be better to be explicit in clause 4(5) and say:

Alternatively, it could be summarised as:

That "protection" could be clarified in later notes.

The division supports the provision in the Bill to have a series of tools available to councils to tackle the issue. That would allow scope for use and familiarity with the legislation and help ensure that it becomes an effective way of tackling dilapidation across Northern Ireland.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McAleer): Thank you for the briefing, Manus. You said that your main concern is that we should take the opportunity to strengthen clause 4(5) by revisiting the reference to "condition", and you propose a form of words for such an amendment. Have you a view on why that more specific reference is not in the Bill currently?

Mr Deery: I do not. We were happy to see that provision in the Bill, because, previously, it was not clear which legislation took precedence. Now, there is a provision stating that, if there are other legislative requirements, you are not exempted from those through the receipt of a dilapidation notice. That is positive. It is a minor point in the sense that it concerns how you would interpret the word "condition". My worry is this: would some party try to exploit that as a loophole, in legal terms, if they had gone ahead with a demolition?

The intention in the drafting seems clear. When you are drafting the Bill, you are saying, "We're talking about the big stuff like listed building consent. We're not talking about dealing with internal health and safety concerns. What word do we use?". That is the decision. We read through the Bill in earlier appraisals and did not think of that as a potential issue, but, when reading through it again, we thought that we should bring that to your attention. It is a minor issue, relative to the overall Bill. We are supportive of the Bill for its gradation; for allowing the split between "take down" and "make good"; and for allowing people to have a dilapidation report just for repairs.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McAleer): Thank you, Manus. Out of curiosity, have you an insight into why the Bill has been brought forward by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs rather than your Department — the Department for Communities?

Mr Deery: I do. The Bill is an action point that arose from the heritage crime summit called by the Minister of the Environment in 2011. In 2011, there were nine fires at listed buildings in three months. That was a result of the economic downturn, when developers were pulling security from sites. There was a big fire in Sion Mills, and there was a fire at Hilden Mill. The Minister took action and pulled together a heritage crime summit at short notice. All interested parties — councils, Departments and planning — were brought around the table and asked, "How do we tackle this issue?".

The key thing to come out of that summit was that the Minister gave our division money to issue urgent works notices, which we did. That sent out a message across Northern Ireland that the Department was serious. Another action point to emerge from that summit was to develop new dilapidation legislation, given that the legislation for dilapidations was very much out of date — it dated from the 1850s and 1870s — and varied between Belfast and other councils.

At the time, the historic environment division was part of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). The environment policy group was the group in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency that developed legislative proposals, and it was tasked with pushing that legislation forward, which it did. In the split between the Departments in 2015, we went to DFC and NIEA went to DAERA, but the legislative provision of what was NIEA went to DAERA. That is why it has carried through to you — at least that is my understanding.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McAleer): It goes back to the heritage crime summit of 2011 before the Departments were —.

Mr Deery: Yes, it goes back to the heritage crime summit of 2011.

Mr McCrossan: Manus, thanks very much for being with us. I received a letter from you literally as you walked through the door, so that was good delivery.

Why has it taken from 2011 to get to where we are with the legislation today? What have been the core reasons for such a delay, when so much was identified as being at risk 14 years ago?

Mr Deery: I cannot answer that question in any great depth. There was a public consultation on it. The bare bones of the Bill have been drafted for a long time. My received impression is that the delay has been caused by the various collapses and rebuilds of the Assembly, and the time that it has taken to get it through the system, but I do not know the real reason. I cannot really comment on that.

Mr McCrossan: It points to a lack of seriousness when it comes to the built heritage across Northern Ireland. Even in my constituency, which Declan shares, a number of buildings of significant historic value have been destroyed, more so in recent years when the Assembly was sitting. Milltown House, which you wrote to me about, was set on fire recently. That was the home of Cecil Frances Alexander, a world-renowned name. I do not believe that the HED has done enough.

The Bill needs to have teeth — and very sharp teeth — given the historic value. How can we have any faith in the HED if you continue to have huge issues such as lack of resourcing and lack of funding? What are the challenges that you face? It is OK to bring forward legislation, but, if you have no teeth, no funding and no resourcing, how are we going to implement it or deal with any of the issues?

Mr Deery: That is a very good, detailed question. The Bill gives councils teeth that they did not have before to respond to the issue. Our area architects across Northern Ireland are happy to engage with councils and owners. Heritage risk in general, which I referred to earlier, has increased dramatically — it has more than doubled since 2019. There is an issue with regard to what we do and how we do it.

We carried out research into the condition of listed buildings in Northern Ireland, which shows that their condition has declined significantly — by almost 25% — over the past 20 years. We published research into market failure in heritage in Northern Ireland. We tried to understand why owners are not making the necessary investment in those buildings. Those pieces of research are informing a business case to argue for increased research into investing to support owners but also being creative about how we support owners. That is about addressing the barriers that owners face in access to advice and skilled tradesmen, and giving them confidence that they can and should invest.

An interesting thing that emerged from that research is that there is a direct correlation between owners who place value on their buildings and their condition and state of repair, and that is not just economic value. A shopkeeper who has to have a listed building to work in values it to a certain extent. However, if that shopkeeper values the building as a contribution to the town and our wider heritage, it is much more likely to be in better condition. There is work to be done with the public and owners to increase awareness and appreciation of what we have. There is also work to be done with public representatives and the wider community on the wider benefits that heritage brings to Northern Ireland society, and how we can contribute to the aims of the Programme for Government. All of those things are important if we are to raise all boats on the issue.

Mr McCrossan: They absolutely are important, but there is very little new in what you have said, Manus. The problems that you have articulated to the Committee are not new. The core reason for the significant, mass deterioration of built heritage across Northern Ireland over a number of decades, but particularly in more recent times, is that you are so badly resourced, which is a source of great frustration for me. There is insufficient staffing and capital budgets, and you cannot keep up with the pace of the challenges that are faced. Councils are struggling, so saying that it will give them teeth is not accurate for the simple reason that there are no extra resources coming with the Bill to enable councils to proceed with any form of enforcement or material action.

Manus, it is not just individual private owners who are responsible for the deterioration of the built heritage. Departmental and publicly owned properties of significant value have been left in a terrible, unacceptable state and become a law on to themselves: for example, Milltown House. Equally, financial institutions, such as banks, have been responsible following the repossession of businesses and historic buildings. You referenced Sion Mills: a lot of the deterioration of the mill there, which was in pristine condition in 2011, happened because a bank got in the way of what was being done.

Legislation is great, but, if there are no resources to back it up, it is unenforceable. That is my concern. Given the amount of damage that has been done to the built heritage — deliberately in a lot of instances — the fact that there have been no prosecutions speaks volumes about how the Department has utterly failed to protect our built heritage. What does the HED need to ensure that it can guide the councils in the important role and function that they will have as a result of the legislation? Has the Minister been told, "Show me the money", because the legislation will not deliver anything if it does not have a single pound behind it?

Mr Deery: There was a lot there. Until 2015, under planning legislation, there was the opportunity to issue what was called an urgent works notice. That means that the planning authority can say that a building is in a state of concern and issue a notice to an owner to carry out the minimum works, or else the Department or planning authority will go in and carry out that work. Following the heritage crime summit in 2011, we got money from the then Minister. We issued six urgent works notices across Northern Ireland, making sure that they were in different parts of Northern Ireland to put out the message that we were serious. In the second year, we issued six urgent works notices again, and, in five of those cases, the work was carried out by developers at no cost to the Department. The message had got out loud and clear that we were serious, and the work was carried out.

That power has subsequently been devolved to the planning authorities in the district councils. A professional planner is not an architect like I am and the members of my team are. Professional planners will have no background in what should be in an urgent works notice, which makes it an uphill task for them to carry out and serve such a notice. This legislation will sit with building control officers in the councils, and they are construction professionals — that is their bread and butter. I hope that the legislation will allow action to take place that has not necessarily taken place since the devolution of that power to the planning authority, because it will be the people in the councils with the knowledge who will be taking it forward.

Yes, of course, there is an issue with funding. We, as the HED, invested £32 million in grant aid between 2004 and 2014, and we invested £2 million in grant aid between 2014 and 2024. It is a dramatic change, but we all know that there have been significant cuts across the board, and we have tried to work with that. My hope is that the legislation will be more effective because of what I have outlined.

We do not exist in a bubble, in that the economy is hugely important. There is a direct correlation between heritage at risk and economics. Look across the UK: unsurprisingly, in the south-east of England, there is not much heritage at risk. We are in a poorer part of the UK; we do not have the same moneys. Galgorm Castle now has a trust looking at its future. Fifteen years ago, I was walking around Galgorm Castle with a colleague from Historic England, looking at the potential of enabling development, and he said, "If this was in England, Manus, a footballer would've bought it, and you wouldn't have the problem that you have". We, as a Department, can help support that, but there are wider economic issues at play as regards finding sustainable uses for the buildings. We could always benefit from more money.

Mr McCrossan: You referenced urgent works notices: do you have figures for how many have been issued by each of the 11 councils?

Mr Deery: I do not have those figures to hand. My understanding is that a few have been issued by Belfast City Council but that, generally, there have not been many.

Mr McCrossan: Do you agree, Manus, that the fact that only a few have been issued does not really reflect the story on the ground? Councils, even with the power that they currently have, are not taking the necessary action.

Mr Deery: Yes. There are resource issues associated with that. We all know the situation that councils find themselves in. What I am saying is that, while we have a similar situation here, I am more optimistic because you now have a Bill that has a gradated approach. That means that staff will become familiar with the legislation, will become used to using it and, therefore, will be more inclined to use it if needed; whereas, at present, there is legislation that is organised on a separate theme and people are not familiar with it. There will almost be a higher test to encourage people to use it. My hope is that the Bill will be a positive.

Mr McCrossan: OK, thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Sorry, Manus, a few of us had another engagement. You are the man I want to speak to, however.

Please excuse me if you cannot answer this question; I do not mind. I was quite excited about the Bill coming forward, but I am less than excited now. I will paint a picture for you of why I am less than excited, and, if you do not want to speak on the specifics, that is all right. My assessment is that the Bill is being brought forward to bring together other, disparate pieces of legislation in order to make it easier to interpret the powers that already exist. It does not look to me as though there is any ambition to enhance the powers, particularly of councils. The first clause of the Bill says that the council "may", and it is "may" in every other aspect.

Hilden Mill is a significant behemoth in my constituency. I am sure that you are aware of it. It has historic context. I believe that it is a listed building or something in that space. Given that linen was one of the three pillars that held up this whole island at one stage, I am proud of Hilden Mill. Similar to what Daniel said, there are fires in Hilden Mill multiple times per year, and it is in a dangerous condition. I had hoped that the legislation would give councils, perhaps working with us, some teeth to revive our buildings. However, looking at the Bill, I do not think that it does anything in that space at all. Can you give me any confidence that the legislation will, in fact, give councils teeth?

Mr Deery: What teeth do you have in mind?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Well, I think that Daniel touched on it. The areas of dilapidation that we see that make the greatest impact — setting aside our main streets, obviously — are probably those that have historic context. People own them. People buy them. Property companies buy them to speculate — probably not with the intention of changing the nature of a place, but inevitably that is what happens. With regard to historic value, which none of us wants to see lost — we have lost too much as it is — I would like a council to have the teeth that enable it to work with a planner or developer, for instance, so that a site would not be made redundant, banked or left open to the risk of fire. It cannot be spontaneous combustion, given that there is no electric on that site, but fires happen there, and then there is a danger to young people and others who enter it. Is there a way in which to move something like that into a phase where there is cooperation, but the council has teeth through legislation, so that the community sees restoration and that value reappear? I do not think that the draft legislation leans into that space at all.

Mr Deery: Yes: the Bill is reactive. It is about dilapidation. It is about saying, "If there is a problem, here is what we will do. We will try to encourage you to move forward, and there are various levels of stricture around that". I think that what you are talking about is community coming together to find a way forward. Certainly, we have examples of communities doing that, and doing it effectively. If the community is involved, assuring long-term sustainability is very much part of it, which is positive. I wonder whether this is the draft legislation for that. The Bill is about the very practical thing of building control officers responding to and dealing with problems and trying to push that forward.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Manus, the problems exist in communities, not in isolation, and I am not aware of any other existing or mooted legislation that picks up on the physical danger or loss of amenity. It is an issue for communities; in fact, I would go as far as to say that it has a detrimental effect on property value. When we go round any built area, we see that the better an area is kept, the happier the people there are. It has that consequential impact as well. It looked to me as though there was potentially an opportunity in that regard. I am not clever enough to have the answer as to what that might look like, and I understand that it is fiscally difficult.

Mr Deery: I agree with you strongly. People talk about the "broken window theory", which is that, if a broken window is broken and left untended, things can then get worse. It is like when issues with BT phone boxes were quickly responded to and addressed.

We have a small grants scheme called the village catalyst programme, where we work in partnership with DAERA through its tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI) scheme. We have come together with the Architectural Heritage Fund to provide viability and development grants for communities and villages to take on heritage at risk in their village. Then, the DAERA money provides the capital support for that change. It is a really good scheme because it is not just about fixing up the building; it is about making sure that there is a sustainable use for it that tackles rural poverty and social isolation. We have done five schemes so far: Ederney, Caledon, Gracehill, Culmore and Rathfriland. In all those villages, you can see the change in the community. People almost have smiles on their faces. You see small things. Private developers are saying, "Things are changing", and investing in the villages in a way that they did not do previously. Public investment in tackling heritage at risk in a centre or a building makes a big change and is very positive.

One of the places that we are looking at for a scheme is Newtownbutler. If you have been through it, you will know that it looks run-down at present. It looks forgotten. The community is coming together to do one of the schemes there, and you know that that will transform the place. I fully agree with you that addressing the issue or an important part of doing so is about working with communities to find a way forward.

Our colleagues from Ulster Architectural Heritage (UAH) are here. They deal with heritage at risk and compile the heritage at risk register with us. One of the things that we are doing is looking at a heritage at risk policy to work out exactly what we can do and be clearer to everybody about what we are doing, why we are doing it and how we can work together to make the most of the resources that we have to deliver.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I appreciate that. Thank you. I will probably go into that a bit more.

Ms Murphy: Thanks, Manus, for coming in. I am over the moon that you referenced Newtownbutler; it is the town just over from me. It is probably one of the stark examples of how dilapidation can have a serious economic impact on a small town or village, especially in a rural area. My question comes from that and is quite broad. How do you see the legislation working practically alongside DFC's Shaping Sustainable Places policy and rural regeneration more so?

Mr Deery: The Shaping Sustainable Places policy has just been out for consultation, as we know. The idea behind it is that there are community plans for places that have been developed in partnership and are presented by councils and that they form the framework for what happens in those places. It will be council-led. The councils will also have the planning powers and the dilapidation powers that will give them power not only to work with people, which is always the best way, but to have a stick whereby they can say, "We can serve this power". The Bill will be a positive addition to the toolbox for addressing the issues.

Ms Murphy: Thank you for that, Manus. Last week, I raised some concerns, as did others, about the Bill, as it is at the minute, being urban-heavy and rural-light. How do you read it? What is your take on it?

Mr Deery: Existing legislation talks about dilapidation notices and health. It is about the safety of the public. Where a building is overhanging a footpath, it is a danger to the public and can be demolished. In the past, we have had buildings sitting in their own grounds, which is more likely in a rural area, on which dilapidation notices could not be served because the buildings were not a direct danger to the public. In my reading of the Bill, one of the positive things is that it will allow a dilapidation notice to be served on such buildings. While council building officers will probably take time to get used to having that extra potential, the Bill provides the potential for them to take action and not have to wait until the last minute when things are about to collapse and hurt people.

Ms Murphy: Thank you.

Mr Irwin: There are dangers in the Bill. It will be fraught with legal difficulties. I live near a small, country village. There is an old house that has not been lived in for 40 years and has been listed. It has a tin roof. It will never be lived in again without massive spend. I have been told that the only piece of the building that is listed is the porch. Does it make sense to leave a dilapidated building that will not be replaced or lived in again?

Mr Deery: I hear you on that. The first thing is that it will not just be the porch that is listed. A building will be listed in its entirety. The porch might be the most important part of the listing.

Mr Irwin: If you saw it, you would wonder why.

Mr Deery: Yes. It is about looking at these things in context as well. We have had a massive loss of our rural historic buildings over the last 20 years. With regard to our thatched buildings, for example, few that are left are not listed. There have been major economic changes in how we live, which has had that impact, but it is important that we have remnants of what the character of our previous historic buildings was like. I do not know that building, and I do not know how bad or otherwise it is. I would be happy to send our area architect down to talk to the owner to see what potential might exist.

Mr Irwin: To the best of my knowledge, the church owns the building. It is a tin-roof building, an old building. There have been negotiations for repairing it, but the cost of repairing it would not work. You would not know where to start and where to finish. It is not a historical building in the main. I can understand it for listed buildings, but, for that building, it does not seem to make sense.

Mr Deery: I suppose there is a decision that the Department has to take. Buildings decay, and buildings are not listed on the basis of their condition; they are listed on their architectural and historic interest. As a Department, we do not want to delist buildings because they are in poor condition, because that would encourage people, if they do not want them listed, to leave them in poor condition. We have a judgement call to make for those things. Our approach would be, if it is listed, to keep it on the list and work with the owners to find a solution.

Mr Irwin: It has been idle for 40 years, and no solution has been found. I cannot see a solution being found at this stage.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Stop being so optimistic, William. [Laughter.]

Mr T Buchanan: How do you respond to the Ulster Architectural Heritage, which says that its fear and concern is that the Bill will facilitate further loss of historic buildings, which is a matter of grave concern? I am one of those who feel that all our old buildings should remain, whether that be an old school from the past or whatever. They should remain and be looked after. It really grieves me when somebody moves into an area, for example, buys an old school building, tosses it and puts a modern house on the site. It destroys the whole area. I am talking about rural areas more than urban areas. How do you respond to those concerns about the Bill?

Mr Deery: They will be talking to the Committee later. I do not have details on why they are making that argument. As I perceive it, it is about providing councils with the tools to take action; it is not about providing a charter for demolition. It seems that this is an extra tool that will, hopefully, allow councils to intervene before buildings come to a stage where they are lost through neglect, and that is positive in my mind. I am making presumptions here, which is not fair, but I presume that it might be associated with the sort of argument that Daniel McCrossan made about wider funding for the historic environments and how people who have owned buildings for 40 years that are in bad condition can be supported to find a sustainable use.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Any other questions, members? No, OK.

Manus, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.