Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome representatives from Ulster Architectural Heritage (UAH) to brief the Committee and to answer any questions on the briefing. John Anderson is chair of the architecture planning and policy committee, and Scott McBurney is a member of the architecture planning and policy committee. Are you content to proceed?

Mr John Anderson (Ulster Architectural Heritage): Thank you, Chair. Unfortunately, Mr McBurney is ill, but my colleague Sebastian Graham, who is the UAH heritage at risk officer, will be available to answer questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Please join us at the table, Sebastian. You can be Scott for the day. We wish him all the best in his recovery.

John, when you are ready, crack on.

Mr Anderson: Thank you, Chair and members, for the opportunity to present. Ulster Architectural Heritage has been going since it was established in 1957. Our primary concern is obviously heritage buildings and the promotion of those buildings, the preservation of those buildings and their sustainable reuse in the interests of communities and the economy and so on. We publish the definitive set of books on Ulster's built heritage, we participate in consultations and we give lectures. Effectively, we are on the ground as far as planning in relation to councils and so on is concerned. I will not dwell too long on that. You already have a synopsis there.

I am a retired engineer. I have a long history of involvement in the statutory advisory councils with European affairs pre-Brexit. I am a member of the ministerial task force for culture, arts and heritage, and I am a member of the Department for Communities (DFC) historic environment division's (HED) stakeholder group. We have a good relationship with HED and have had over many years, but, as an independent non-governmental organisation (NGO) — Manus will smile ruefully — on occasions, we can say what we like, which he, because of restrictions, cannot.

We have a big problem with the Bill. We were consulted at a very early stage, and I spoke to the senior civil servant, whose name I cannot remember, who was in charge of running it through. He was not clear as to why he had to do that. We expressed the same concerns as we express and maybe amplify today, but we had no further contact, and it does not look as if any of our concerns about the Bill were really addressed. We believe that it introduces yet another level of split responsibility. We are heavily involved with heritage planning, council planning committees, the existing legislation in the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 and planning policy statement 6 (PPS 6) and its successors. We believe that all that legislation is adequate, but it is not used. As Mr McCrossan said, there is neither the will nor the finance for councils to use it. We will come to the "will" bit again. It is very much hooked in with planning and heritage planning. DFI is supposed to oversee council planning. The two-year assessment promised in 2015 with the review of public administration (RPA) has still to happen, so councils, effectively, have settled in to what, some might say, are bad habits. Then we have DFC HED, which admirably does its best in relation to heritage buildings, and, now, we are introducing DAERA. One of the questions that I have for the Minister is: will DAERA oversee and monitor it, or will it be done by somebody else?

Having read the Hansard report of the plenary, I see that some Members correctly raised the issue of why it was being put through in the absence of the guidance document. The two have to go together. The guidance document is key. Guidance is all very well, but, in our experience with council planning, often council members will say, "Guidance is guidance: it is only guidance. It is discretionary and we can effectively decide to ignore the guidance." In which case, why is the guidance there, if it carries no weight?

Just to jump back to UAH and guidance, a number of years ago we took two onerous judicial reviews against the then Department of the Environment (DOE). That established the case law for demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area. That case law is in the DFI guidance to councils in relation to the demolition of an unlisted building in a conservation area and there are very clear steps in the legislation that you have to go through. Councils routinely ignore that. We can howl at the moon as much as we like, but councils ignore guidance. That is an issue in itself.

With regard to the duplication of powers, in your synopsis there will be a list of powers in the 2011 Act. Those are with regard to heritage buildings. However, this Bill will substantially target heritage buildings. It is mostly heritage buildings that are derelict, in a lot of cases through land banking. Modern dereliction is a different thing. Say you have a 1970s or 1980s terraced building that has broken windows — there has been a fire, or there has been some intimidation issue or whatever — that does not really need this Bill because it can be dealt with by building control, environmental health and, if necessary, the police. Therefore, this Bill will target heritage buildings. There is an absence of funding — the Minister has admitted that there is no funding— and the fact is that it is discretionary.

We now turn to the four categories of ownership in our submission. The first is land bank by speculators. This is not being dealt with and has not been because — I talk generally — with many of these buildings a speculator will buy a listed or heritage building on the basis that it is cheap. It will sit quite often on what could be perceived as a valuable site: Hilden Mill is an example. There is no incentive to maintain that building; in fact, there is an incentive not to do so. With a big listed building like Hilden, the developer will be availing of a zero rate because it is an empty, listed building. For a building the size of Hilden, I imagine that that will work out at some hundreds of thousands of pounds, perhaps. You then ask this question: is the building insured? If the developer is having a nominal hundreds of thousands bonus and given that Hilden was in good condition when it was bought, why is the building not insured and why is that benefit not tied to having insurance? The Bill does not deal with that and could have done. We have said that to Land and Property Services (LPS).

I declare an interest because my wife and I are working at a little 1740s building on the north coast and our rates are £4,500 per year because part of it was once a shop. However, our insurance for that building is £450. You can see the balance. Some of those buildings will not be insurable, and that is generally because they have been neglected for so long. That is generally down to the land banker.

The second category is owners who own a building but do not care about it. They have no love for the building and no wish to spend any money. There is no profit motive in that, and they just do not care about the building. The third category is, like us, people who care about a building and want to see it restored but either do not have enough money to do it at a jump or are not physically able to do the work themselves, which is not us; we dig and pick and so on. The fourth category is public ownership, such as the one at the bottom of your garden here: Dundonald House. For those three categories, in order to avoid legal action and hassle and to make a problem disappear quickly, the best option is demolition.

We are losing national heritage. We are losing a national asset year-on-year. Councils and, indeed, this Building do not look on it as a national asset. They look on it piecemeal; as buildings here and there. There is no sense of cumulative loss. It may seem rude to say it in this Building, but at least part of that, maybe a major part, is the fault of this Building, because nothing happens here or anywhere without political will. I think that, three iterations ago, the Programme for Government (PFG) had a section in it to do with heritage: that has been removed. All of the parties in the Republic have signed up to the Republic's 2030 plan for heritage. We are probably where the Republic was 30 years ago or 35 years ago: in the demolition phase. The Republic has woken up to the fact that it is as much of a national asset as the natural environment and all the rest. It is a tourism asset, an economic asset and a feel-good asset, if you like. The Budget was announced yesterday in the Republic. The budget for that from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage for 2025-26 is €235 million. Obviously, we cannot hope to mimic that, but our problem is not a health or an education level one; we need a sustainable, year-on-year budget of a few million pounds, which, if employed properly, would make an enormous difference.

In the plenary debate, the Minister praised the DOE scheme from a number of years ago that we call the "vinyl scheme", where buildings were clad to make it look as though they were occupied or in good condition, which cost £8 million. Buildings were covered in impermeable plastic, and they rotted away behind the camouflage. Effectively, they were Potemkin buildings; they were made to look good, but it actually sped up their demise towards dereliction. Emotive language is used to describe such buildings in council committees and in our summary, and it can be seen in the Hansard report of the debate; terms such as "eyesore", "social misbehaviour" and "environmental health". Those are used regularly in councils, and they were used by Members in the plenary debate. That is what destroys buildings. That emotive language is what gets into the press, and the public will see that; they do not see the benefit of listed heritage buildings because they are not led to see it. Again, that comes back to political will.

I have probably said enough. There are a couple of examples. Mr McCrossan mentioned the house in Strabane.

Mr McCrossan: Milltown House.

Mr Anderson: Milltown House, which is where Strabane Academy is located. When the grammar school moved, that house was presumably in pretty good condition. Even after the fire, the exterior looks as if it has been in good condition. Was the building insured? If not, why not? I know that government insurance is a sort of block, so there is not specific insurance, but the insurance is there if it is needed. Whether that applies to education authorities or health authorities I do not know. I imagine that it does.

There are two examples in Belfast, namely Primark, which was burnt to the ground, and Cathedral Buildings opposite the cathedral, which was also burnt to the ground. Both those buildings are now restored because, aside from the fact that their owners wanted them restored, they were insured. In the case of Primark, it involved seven insurance companies and £100 million. Unbelievable. The insurance was there, and the building is now restored. It is a credit to the city. When it comes to publicly owned or publicly related owned buildings, that insurance question needs to be answered.
There is another example that again, we feel, mirrors what the Bill will produce or not produce: the Antrim Arms Hotel in the centre of Ballycastle. It was owned for a long time by a developer — a speculator — and was neglected. For a long time, there has been a problem with the main gable. That problem has now been highlighted and appears to be getting worse. The council, without putting too fine a point on it, faffed about, and the developer went to court. There is another issue with courts being involved, especially Magistrates' Courts, because, generally, with the best will in the world, local magistrates do not have much of a clue about heritage buildings. That case went to court. The council should have served an urgent works notice on the building because, effectively, it needed propped, which is a fairly simple operation and would not have been that expensive. The developer went to court. The building is listed. It is in a conservation area, and Ballycastle is possibly our best preserved seaside town. The developer has been blatant: he says that he wants to build a boutique hotel on a clear site. The council basically retired with its tail between its legs, paid with public money to put containers and barriers around the end of the building, and the whole process is now stalled because the court judgement effectively scared the council off. Nobody knows what to do. I gather that the council — it is hard to get information — never actually served an urgent works notice, as it has powers to do under the 2011 Act.

Our worry is that the Bill will effectively produce lots of situations like that. The easiest way for all parties and the best way for a developer is always demolition as quickly as possible. That delivers a clear site; indeed, some of what the Minister said and some of what is in the financial justification for the Bill mirrors that. It says that it will serve property developers, increase site values, give construction jobs and so on. It is geared the wrong way in the first place. I should probably stop.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We really appreciate that. It is very good. Thank you for the paper.

You are evidently passionate about this, and I and a couple of other members seem to be in the same space. There is one thing. I do not take issue with you saying this and understand where you are coming from, but something like Hilden Mill — the amenity — evidently is an eyesore. I do not think that that is unfair, but I take your point. I agree with you that there has to be other language to say that it is incredibly valuable, is a beautiful building and could be once more.

Mr Anderson: There are examples. Salts Mill in Saltaire, near Bradford, and the one in Scotland — the name escapes me —

Mr Sebastian Graham (Ulster Architectural Heritage): New Lanark.

Mr Anderson: New Lanark. They are magnificent mill buildings in everyday use. I will give you some statistics, though Sebastian is much more over the stats than I am. In England and Wales, there are 60,000 thatched buildings, most of which are in everyday use. If you go to England and Wales, you will see in small settlements all over England and Wales attractive thatched buildings. In the 1950s, we had 1,500 surviving thatched buildings: we now have fewer than 70. They are not all are in pristine condition and would fall under the category of dilapidated; they are, therefore, seriously at risk.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): That is probably singularly most evidenced in our attitude to thatched buildings: there are significant failures here.

I have one question as Chair, and I ask members to keep to one question, if possible. We have three more briefings to get through, and I do not want you walking out on me.

Your paper states:

I agree. The paper continues:

Have you had any engagement with councils over the years to get them to compile such lists, which would provide us with evidence and help us to monitor and manage that?

Mr Anderson: We have success with councils in areas that could be described as "safe". We get the impression that some councils do not want that information, because it would imply that they had to do something. Our organisation could easily do that for all the councils, if we were asked, and probably do it much more economically than it could be done in-house.

I will give you an example. What one London borough does with a team of two people — it is a big borough with lots of conservation areas — is to photograph every two years all the buildings in a conservation area or the parts that can be seen from the street. They then compare those with the photographs from the previous two years, and, if an owner has carried out an unauthorised alteration, he is invited to apply for planning permission. If he does not get planning permission, enforcement kicks in. It is a simple system and is easily worked. Once a year, owners get a cheap little booklet telling them about their conservation areas. It is a mindset. Owners get the mindset and start to take pride in their areas, and neighbours will almost self-enforce.

There is nothing like that or little local mindset along those lines here, and that is because, to jump back to you, there is no political mindset. There is no political will to do that. I have no doubt — indeed, I know — that individual Members have the will to do that, but it is not up to ministerial level. I hesitate to get political, because we are not political. We are a nine-county organisation and always have been, but we are completely apolitical. We have said this to Liz Kimmins and to other senior Sinn Féin people: Sinn Féin is signed up to this policy in the Republic. Our view on built heritage, most of which is pre-partition, is that it is Irish and British. Sinn Féin is signed up to that in the Republic, and it has the potential to lead on that up here. There is no sign of that, however, and we cannot understand that. That is not to get at that party.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): That is our job. [Laughter.]

Mr Anderson: Anybody can start the process. Any of the parties can start it. It is just that Sinn Féin already has a handle on it, so to speak.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): There is no doubt that it is a complex issue. The example that you gave of the derelict properties happens in residential settings too. I have people reaching out to me who live in private properties and, sometimes, even in Housing Executive-owned properties where the state of disrepair to a vacant property is such that they lose their amenity. It is a wide-ranging issue.

Mr McAleer: John, I have read your briefing note and listened to your comments. Is it your group's view that we should not proceed with the Bill but, rather, should upgrade PPS 6?

Mr Anderson: I will send the Committee our response to the sustainable communities thing as well as a bit of background. We believe that the root of this lies in planning through the education of council planning committees in relation to heritage. I was a councillor, albeit an independent councillor, for a number of years, so I have seen it from both sides of the table. There is too much rotation on planning committees. Across the water, a planning committee chair, for instance, will, basically, learn the legislation and, assuming that he can stay elected, will be there for 10 years or more. He is there as an expert to guide his committee. That does not seem to happen here, because there is really quick rotation all the time, and I do not really know why. There are 11 councils here, and there are, potentially, 11 different local development plans (LDPs). There are 11 different interpretations by officers and councillors who are not sufficiently trained in heritage, and there is no national policy to protect national built heritage assets.

PPS 6, although it has not always been adhered to, is good policy. It needs tweaked a little. We have talked to Rosemary Daly in DFI about Liz Kimmins's review of planning, and we hope that, if the Assembly is amenable, that will be talked about at least. We have no clout other than our experience, if you like, but we have been there and done that, and we have been doing that for many years, so we have seen the progression of loss. Since the review of public administration, it has got worse. The last audit report on built heritage protection in Northern Ireland was in 2012, and I think that the then Committee for the Environment produced its own report also in 2012. The reports basically confirmed the abysmal state of built heritage protection in Northern Ireland. That is as long ago as it is. This winter, we are going to the auditor again to ask that a new report be done on that. We will say to them more or less the same as what we are saying to you. Again, Stormont can lead this.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Sorry, Declan, but I will come in on that. It is an interesting point on the PPS. The fact that there are different interpretations of the planning policies across the councils is indicative of my fear with the Bill. There is an attitude to risk, where, because it states "may" and so on, there will be a doubling down of some councils performing ambitiously and some not.

Mr Anderson: The LDPs are fine. Absolutely. Only an LDP can deal with local issues. However, coming back to the point, built heritage is a national asset, and it needs a national policy in the way that it has in the Republic and in, dare I mention it, given what is going on at the moment, France. The French have a word for it, and it has nothing to do with flags or patriotism per se: it is "patrimoine"; "patrimony" in English. That takes in built heritage, food and wine, and France's engineering skills. We lack that. Everything is taken piecemeal. We say, "There is a building. It is derelict. That is all right. Sure, knock it down". A modern building will then be put in its place. The modern building is boring. Most new buildings in Northern Ireland —.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): A lot of your members who are architects might be offended by that. [Laughter.]

Mr Anderson: Most new buildings in Northern Ireland will never be listed, because they are boring and have no architectural merit. They are, basically, boxes of square footage. For character and interest, if you go to France, Spain or Germany, you will see heritage buildings everywhere, and people live in them happily. Here, there is a tendency towards building the McMansion, which is built in the country and is ostentatious with eagles on the gate, and it is completely out of character, despite decades of good rural design guides, which sit on shelves gathering dust.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Declan, do you have anything more?

Mr McAleer: No. My supplementary question was answered.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Daniel, behave: it is 12.00 noon.

Mr McCrossan: I will challenge the Chair, because you squeezed in four questions. We will not argue over it.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Daniel, one.

Mr McCrossan: John, it is good to see you. Thank you for your presentation. You obviously have a heartfelt and determined passion for heritage.

I mentioned to our colleague in the previous session the challenges faced because of under-resourcing, limited capacity, weak enforcement powers and slower, more bureaucratic processes, particularly in Northern Ireland when compared with other jurisdictions. Interestingly, the figures show that heritage has a lower economic leverage. It was referenced in the Built Heritage At Risk Northern Ireland (BHARNI) report:

There is a massive disparity, and that speaks to how we see and value our built heritage. You pointed to a very important thing: the failure of this place to centralise the issue, to take hold of it and to take a lead and run with it. There are a number of strains for that.

I have two questions in one. What is your view about the lack of prosecution for deliberate damage to and destruction of built heritage in Northern Ireland?

Mr Anderson: That is —.

Mr McCrossan: The second point — because he will intervene. The second point, quickly, is—.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): He is not getting a second go, John.

Mr McCrossan: What do you see as the immediate solution to the problem in order to ensure that we do not see the further demise of built heritage across Northern Ireland? Has the history of this place, particularly since the Troubles, led us to value our built heritage less, because so much was destroyed by bombs?

Mr Anderson: That is often used as an excuse, and it is overused. I will answer the second part of your question first. It needs political will and a small amount of multi-annual funding that does not have to be begged for by us and the Department every year.

I cannot remember the first question.

Mr McCrossan: It was about your view on why prosecutions have been low.

Mr Anderson: The prosecutions are entirely to do with, again, the will in councils. The Department has the will, because, recently, there have been a few successful prosecutions to do with monuments. On the other hand, there is an element of educating the judiciary about fines and in the fact that it is a national asset. Basically, it is down to money and the will of the council officers.

In the case of a building such as Milltown House, especially if it is publicly owned or publicly related owned, across the water, a guardian is often put into such a building when it becomes unused. Effectively, there is a live-in caretaker, sometimes with a family, and that can be done very economically. If you abandon your house, somebody will vandalise it; but, if somebody is living in your house, it is easy to say that it will not be vandalised, because, effectively, there is a guardian there all the time. That can be done economically, and it is done as a matter of course.

It is even included in some legislation across the water. It is an easy fix, but you need a building that is in good order to start with. Many of the buildings that are now seriously dilapidated were in good order to start with. Crumlin Road courthouse is an example of that.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you. Do members have any other questions? That was well done, today, Daniel. More of that.

There is an opportunity there. You may wish to keep in contact with the Committee. As the Bill progresses, we will consider the clauses and potential amendments. Some of the stuff that you talked about chimes with stuff that has been said in plenary debates. Feel free to continue to communicate with us, and, if there are particular clauses that, you think, could be sharpened up or clauses that you have concerns with, communicate that to us. That will help us with our due diligence and scrutiny of the Bill. Thank you for giving of your time. It was very useful.

Mr Anderson: Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence. I hope that I was not too long-winded.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): You did well. It is good to see passion. Thank you very much.