Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome representatives from Retail NI to the meeting and invite them to provide evidence to the Committee and answer any questions. I welcome Mr Glyn Roberts, chief executive, and Mr George Dorrian, policy advisor. Just to make Members aware, we will facilitate a live photograph of the session for Retail NI, if you do not mind. We will conduct the meeting as normal, and that will take place at some point in the meeting when all members are in attendance.

It is good to see you, Glyn and George. If you are ready and have your papers in front of you, you can brief the Committee and then take some questions on the other side.

Mr Glyn Roberts (Retail NI): Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity. Initially, I will talk about the slightly bigger picture, and George will go through some of our points about the Bill.

First, it is clear that we are in the midst not just of a dilapidation crisis but of a dereliction crisis throughout all our towns, cities and villages. Some 25% of non-domestic units are now vacant, which is the highest figure in the UK by a significant amount, so we have a serious crisis. Whilst there is no silver bullet, there is no doubt that the Bill is a small but significant step towards that. If we are to fix our high streets and town centres, it is lots of incremental small things that will ultimately make a difference, and the Bill is a step forward. To be clear, however, the Bill on its own will barely scratch the surface of the challenges that we face.

I was one of the chairs of the high street task force that the Executive set up in the last mandate. It produced a good report with 14 recommendations, and it signed up all the key Departments as well as 33 business, trade union and council representatives. Sadly, since the Assembly and Executive have been restored, the high street task force has not been recalled. The centre of that was a five-year high street reconstruction programme. So many Departments have skin in the game with high street regeneration that getting them all over the line, all coordinating and all communicating is a big challenge. One thing that the high street task force did was to bring all the key players together around the table.

I will make a couple of brief observations. We clarified one thing with the Department yesterday. You will be aware that DAERA has responsibility for village and towns that are under 5,000 square feet. That applies across the board, so there is no population limit. That will pose significant challenges for councils, and George will cover that. The councils have made representations on that. There are issues about clarification. What is a structure? What is a building? What is dilapidation versus dereliction? In my view, they are essentially two sides of the same coin, so there are some definitions that have to be clarified.

I am optimistic that we can turn the situation around. I would not be doing this job if I did not believe that. In many respects, looking at the almost industrial levels of dereliction and dilapidation on our high streets and in our town centres, it is about changing the narrative and the conversation. Instead of seeing them as the failed businesses of yesterday, it is about seeing them as the new businesses of tomorrow. The Department of Finance is doing good work with the Back in Business scheme, which gives new-start businesses that take up an empty, derelict or dilapidated building rates relief of 50% for the first two years. Some things are being done, but they need to be done in a coordinated manner. Success looks like creating 21st-century high streets that are multifunctional hubs — not just retail and hospitality but lots of different service providers and living communities. That is the challenge; that is the promised land. It is not even about selling retail or hospitality but selling destinations.

The blight of dereliction has almost become a mental health issue. People have an emotional connection with their high streets and town centres, and there is nothing more depressing than seeing derelict buildings and closed shops, so there are significant issues on that front. We are working on a paper about how to revitalise the Post Office network that we hope to launch here next year. We have lots of ideas, and it is about how we get a solution-based approach to the challenges.

Mr George Dorrian (Retail NI): We welcome the Bill; there is no doubt about that. It is an issue that has been a concern for many years. There was a lot of expectation and build-up when the Bill was coming, so, now that it is here, we welcome it. One challenge is to make sure that it is right and fit for purpose. We are concerned with making sure that is the case.

There are a number of issues. A lot of emphasis is put on extra powers for councils. We deal with a lot of councils, and, as you are aware, they are under pressure, and they do not have spare funding for that. There is a big emphasis on being proactive, and councils need to be proactive. I will give you an example. Last year, a request was put in to compile a list of derelict buildings. Belfast City Council said that it would find doing that a struggle. Whether or not the resources are there, we have learned from the devolution of planning powers that, if you do not resource something properly, the issues continue. A lot of people would agree that, while planning is getting better, it still faces its challenges.

There are other issues. There are concerns about the terminology of "detriment" and "serious detriment" in the Bill. It is not that anyone disagrees with the concept, but the terminology needs to be tightened up and strengthened.

Cost recovery has always been an issue. There is a big emphasis on recovering costs from people who are identified as being in breach, but that has always been a challenge. At the minute, the Bill proposes a £500 fixed penalty, but, realistically — I say this as a building owner — that does not cut it. Almost everyone agrees that it needs to go further and be raised for it to be an incentive for people to act.

I turn to emergency action. We are aware of issues around serious storm damage, such as that which occurred last week, but the Bill does not mention that. In a lot of councils, there are no structures to allow building control officers, who may be needed in an emergency, to be on site to address that. Sometimes, it comes down to volunteers who come forward. Those practical things should be strengthened and put into the Bill because they will directly impact on the structures themselves. It is not just we who would welcome that but councils, as it would give them much clearer direction.

The Bill is welcome. It is a great opportunity, but it is one of those things where, if we could strengthen it and if your work could take on board some of our concerns, we could get much better legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you very much to the two of you for your presentations. It is really good to have you here. I noted that you both said that the Bill is a step forward and, though it may be small, it could be significant.

George, you raised a point that I raised once before in Committee. You touched on the fact that the legislation currently deals with dilapidation. Dereliction is slightly different, but it speaks to the same issues, because there is a massive overlap. We are dealing with intervention, but we should deal with prevention too. I think that that is what you are getting at in regard to storm damage, for instance, or the way in which dereliction can lead to dilapidation. At the moment, that is an omission in the Bill, because, if you wait for a building to become too costly to repair, you end up in those legal battles. We should maybe look at the scope of the Bill to see whether we can do something around that.

Can you comment on anything in particular about the Bill and the regeneration of the town centres? Most people talk about the carrot and the stick, and the balance is almost impossible to achieve. Can anything be done or any assistance be given or processes be put in place — processes are probably easier than assistance — to improve the Bill, so that, rather than a small step, it becomes a bigger step?

Mr Roberts: The problem is that, on its own, the Bill is fine, but it does not scratch the surface of the challenge and the scale of the problem. We have industrial levels of dereliction and dilapidation in our town centres. On my visit to one of our members in a town that I will not identify, because I would probably get into trouble, I was struck by the fact that there were dilapidated and derelict buildings on both sides of her business, both of which are subsidised in one sense by the Department of Finance through the vacant property rate. One property owner had taken the roof off to get round paying rates. Our member gets no help. She does not get support through the small business rate relief scheme. There is surely something unfair in that. We are working through that issue with the Department of Finance, but a coordinated approach is needed.

About six or seven Departments have responsibility for the high streets in some shape or form. It is probably the most cross-cutting issue that the Executive face. I do not think that I am speaking out of turn when I say that, at times, the Executive are very siloed and it is a challenge to get all Ministers on the same page. One of the reasons why we wanted the high street task force to be recalled — it had been ably chaired by Declan Kearney and Gary Middleton, who were junior Ministers in TEO at the time — was not that it was an end in itself but that it was able to coordinate, communicate and make sure that we were all on the same page and moving in one direction by bringing together councils, the Executive, business and our colleagues in the trade union movement. That is the approach that we need. The Bill could be far enhanced if all the Departments were playing their part as well. In isolation, yes, the Bill is a positive step forward, but it will not scratch the surface of the problem unless we have every other Department playing its role.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I agree with you, and I agree with you on the high street task force, because that would have led us into a much more preventative and proactive space in which we could have been better informed. It is welcome that the Bill has been introduced, but we probably could have been stepping off into a better space. I also agree with you about the impact on mental health, which you mentioned. The dilapidation of our environment absolutely leads to social dilapidation. All those things are interlinked.

My final question expands on that. Do you see any opportunities through existing legislation, outside the Bill, that might facilitate the wider piece that you alluded to about other responsibilities, for example on rates, or does other legislation need to come alongside to assist it, perhaps through regulation or policy that can be tightened up?

Mr Roberts: It is not necessarily about spending more money; it is about the Executive and councils working smarter and having a coordinated approach. For example, you are dealing with the fallout of the closure of Kilrea bridge. That has had a huge impact on the town. Again, several Departments can be part of the solution there. What the Department for Communities did for Sandy Row with the revitalisation scheme was welcome. There is the rates hardship fund in the Department of Finance. I am straying a bit, but I am just illustrating a point, which is that the work cannot be done in isolation.

The other thing that we have fed through to the Minister at different times is this: we have members in every village, town and city, and there is no doubt that, in smaller towns and villages, they definitely feel left behind and that their voice is not being heard. Many places do not have a traders' group or a chamber of commerce, and we have worked hard to revitalise the chamber network and traders' groups. Smaller towns definitely feel left behind. They are not getting the big infrastructure investment and the focus. Again, that was illustrated by the situation in Kilrea with the bridge being closed. We have been out working with and assisting traders in Sandy Row, and we hope that we are making progress on that, but there are so many players and Departments, and it is about getting them on the one page. That is probably the biggest thing to say.

We are not just using the Dilapidation Bill to push for other stuff. It is about making sure that we turn the situation around, and I believe that we can. I would not do this job if I did not believe that we could turn it around. There is a dereliction and dilapidation crisis, however, that needs urgent attention. We cannot sustain 25% of our buildings being vacant. It is not just shops; it is bars, restaurants, retail outlets — call them what you like.

We see a future for our town centres as multifunctional hubs, with service providers, police stations, health services and living communities: all of that and much more. It is almost the community hub model, which is so important. That is the way to focus on it. It is not necessarily about having more money but about working smarter.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I said that that was my final question, but I have another wee one. Willy does this to me: he says, "Just a wee one".

Mr Dorrian: Sorry, I have a comment to add. You mentioned working across Departments. One of the points about dilapidation and dereliction is that of ownership of the buildings, particularly when it comes to cost recovery, which we talked about. There is an issue with that, and it would be interesting to explore how clear we are about whether we have a database of who owns all the properties. For example, on arterial routes that I know of in Belfast, a number of times when buildings fell down — in fact, the whole front came off a shop in the storm only a fortnight ago — there was no way of identifying who owned them. I am aware of other examples. If the Bill is to be effective, we would need to know how widespread that issue is. Some of it is just that owners have passed away. If that sort of thing happens, you will never get cost recovery, but those buildings will continue to decline. That is an area that also needs to be looked at. It is something for the Department of Finance. Is that an issue? It may not be, but I suspect that it might be. There are a lot more buildings where the ownership is unclear.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thanks for that clarification, George. This is the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, so we make no excuse for representing our rural towns more specifically on this. I am aware that the legislation is not "must do" but "may do" and that it leaves the discretion to the 11 councils to take whatever approach they see fit. I do not want to put you on the spot — I certainly will not ask you to name councils — but, as a membership-led body, do you see a discrepancy between councils' attitudes to dealing with dilapidation and dereliction? My assessment is that the legislation will not bring about an improvement in that. If that discrepancy does not exist, that is not a problem, but I suspect that it does. Is that your experience?

Mr Roberts: One area that has an impact on dilapidation and dereliction is councils still passing applications for out-of-town retail development. Whilst that is not the only reason why we are in this state and why we are here talking about dilapidation, it is still a major factor.

We worked hard to get the "Town centre first" retail planning policy over the line. It has stricter criteria, but it is all about putting the town centre first. There are still councils that want to have their cake and eat it by passing out-of-town retail development, which is of direct detriment to town centres and causes dereliction. We have seen that with banks closing down in high streets and town centres, but, when one business closes, it means less footfall for the surrounding traders. You then start to see a domino effect, and, when that happens, it is hard to rebuild that trade. There are examples of that in towns, and Bangor is probably one. Hopefully, Bangor city centre is now going in the right direction with Queen's Parade, and that is really good to see. It lost so many high street names that relocated out of town to Bloomfield Shopping Centre.

We have to make sure that we make our high streets and our town centres the first port of call for as many businesses as we can for as much footfall as we can, not just for retail or hospitality. Councils need to have a strict adherence to "Town centre first". It means what it says: you cannot have more and more out-of-town retail development and expect to have vibrant town centres.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I know that that is a big touchpoint of yours because you have raised it here before. Are you finding any pinch with councils that represent a rural offering?

Mr Roberts: There are areas where we have concerns, but there is only so much that we can do. We have been proactively supporting local chambers of commerce. We have helped to set up new chambers because that role, dealing with day-to-day issues with councils, is important. If you see a strong town, you will nearly always see a strong chamber of commerce there. I am conscious that some of those chambers and traders' groups are run by volunteers. A lot of them do not have paid staff, but those staff work incredibly hard and are very committed.

I am absolutely convinced that small towns can turn it around, and there are some really good examples of that. It is about councils and the Executive and, indeed, the UK Government being part of it. For example, we had the Levelling Up Fund. We also have had conversations with the Shared Island Fund because it is doing more on infrastructure investment. It is about aligning all of that.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you very much. I really appreciate that. Thank you, members, for your indulgence while I asked my questions.

Mr McAleer: Thank you very much for your presentation and for the effort that you have made to come up here and provide the briefing note.

In a number of the evidence sessions, concern has been raised about the ability of councils to oversee this. For example, when Ulster Architectural Heritage was here, its representatives made the point that there is already adequate legislation here if it were appropriately enforced. They raised the question of who oversees it. Earlier today, the Institute of Historic Building Conservation raised the issue of the expertise in councils and local planning offices on the issue compared to that in the South of Ireland, for example, which has dedicated conservation officers for each county council. What is your view on the ability to oversee and implement such legislation?

Mr Dorrian: One of the ideas that we had — some other groups had this as well, and it is found in England or GB — is the appointment of a town or city architect. We had such officers here many years ago who would oversee the whole sphere of planning, dereliction and maintenance of the townscape. That should be explored again. There are plenty of experts and people with knowledge to do it. The question is whether you would do it on a council basis or more widely. You could look at a different structure or whatever way is most appropriate.

The expertise is there in councils; it is just a case of resourcing them properly to do it. If there is going to be a much greater emphasis on being proactive, that needs to be resourced. That is the key to it. Especially as regards heritage buildings, the expertise is there and there are a lot of good, committed people who know about them, but it is all about resource and being able to do it. The town or city architect approach should be given consideration.

Mr Roberts: To illustrate another point, we should give councils regeneration powers. We see the need for that in loads of projects, particularly with the challenges facing Belfast city centre, Tribeca and all those schemes. Giving the councils regeneration powers would help as well. It was promised. Councils have been given power over planning but not regeneration powers, and that hampers their ability to turn the situation around and be that change maker in local high streets.

Mr McAleer: I have a wee follow-on question. Aoife touched on this earlier. The good example of Sion Mills was given by the previous group. From your experience, are you aware of other good examples across the island and the world of where regeneration legislation has been used to create the multifunctional hubs that Glyn talked about in town centres?

Mr Roberts: It is not so much a matter of legislation. There are certainly towns, locally, that have that. It is all about changing the leadership structure and developing that localism approach. It is about changing and revitalising the leadership model. Obviously, you have some towns that have business improvement districts (BIDs); there are nine or 10 of them now. For many towns, that has been a catalyst for change. Towns that have a strong chamber of commerce or traders' group are important and have that leadership model. We spend a lot of time on this. You are probably aware that we give High Street Hero awards that are all about recognising the contribution of smaller towns in particular. There are some really good examples. Newtownards is an example of a town with a really dynamic independent retail offer. It is a destination, and it has twice won our High Street of the Year award. It has a strong local chamber, and it has worked really hard on its offer.

It is about the local effort and how you empower and revitalise the local leadership model. As a body, we cannot be everywhere, and we try to concentrate on the strategic stuff. Next year, we are looking at doing another High Street Summit, bringing international good practice. We are in the early stages of working on a paper that will look at that international good practice. The idea being that that is something that we could feed into a future Programme for Government.

The high street task force report was always designed to be an annex to a future Programme for Government, but the Programme for Government is vague. It does not even mention high streets or town centres. If you want to get things moving, the starting point would be to recall a high street task force. That would help with coordinating, communicating and really getting a sense of purpose. If the political will is there, we can turn around the situation on our high streets.

Mr Dorrian: There are some really good examples in GB of old train stations that have been repurposed for, mostly, smaller independent retailers. They are feeding in and being given the opportunity to open up hubs, if you like, containing 10 or 15 smaller retailers — not dissimilar to the one in Belfast city centre, where the former train station has been repurposed as a food court. There are some really good examples in GB, where old-style, traditional, big railway stations have been converted. The heritage of the buildings has been protected, but they are getting a lot more use now. Manchester is one example.

Mr Irwin: Thank you for the presentation. Is it fair to say that you welcome the Bill, but, in its current state, you have concerns about how effective it will be? Is that right?

Mr Roberts: On its own, it is a step forward, but, unless we address the planning issue and get business rates right, infrastructure right, public transport right and all those other factors, the Bill will not realise its full potential. As I said, it is about a coordinated approach. Is it a step forward? Yes. Is it something that we welcome? Yes. Are there issues that we need more clarification on? I am sure that, at some point, you will have the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) in front of you for their view on how it works on the ground, but councils will be best placed to see that. Clarifications are needed, such as defining "structure" and "building". There are issues there. We are corresponding with the Department on that.

Mr Irwin: I have experience of all that in the past. Getting Departments to work together seems to be difficult.

Mr Roberts: You don't say.

Mr Dorrian: It is. Sometimes, it just comes down to things like the fines. They need to be more realistic for people to think that it will be an incentive for people to opt to start work. A lot of people have already said that £500 would incentivise nobody to step forward if they were to get a notice. They will either simply ignore it, or, even if they pay it, it is of no consequence to them. It is about giving teeth to the Bill so that, if people get a notice through the door, they will know that they have to do something about it, rather than just dismissing it as just another piece of legislation. That is the key.

Mr Irwin: I have some concerns about it, even from a legal perspective. There can be issues around it.

Mr Blair: Thanks to you both. You touched on some things that I will raise for consistency, because I raised them with the previous delegation. On the issue of infrastructure, I have experience in my constituency's main town, Antrim, where former financial institutions cannot be converted to retail or hospitality because of the waste water infrastructure on one side of the street. How real is that? How widespread is that? Can you give us an indication of that? It will absolutely feed into the problem with dilapidation. Two examples that I gave earlier have both been resolved, by the look of it, but they sat vacant for years, and there were no jobs, no footfall, no rates revenue coming in and no additional benefit to the high street.

Mr Dorrian: To be clear, it is an issue. One example that I can give you is close to here on the Newtownards Road. There are new businesses that are mostly hospitality- and food-based — beer-based, to be honest. They had lengthy problems trying to get established. Two of them are now open, but they could easily have walked away. They are in buildings that lay vacant for, maybe, 10 years-plus. Portview Trade Centre is another example. It wants to go into that area and be much more hospitality-based but faces challenges. With the ones that do get closer, it becomes unviable for them to do it because of the sheer cost.

Mr Blair: George, for consistency, it is probably worth mentioning — I said this earlier — that multinationals are better placed to invest in waste water infrastructure privately than your local independent retailer, trader or hospitality provider is.

Mr Dorrian: It is just not an option.

Mr Blair: My second question is different to the one that I asked in the previous session. How much is public ownership of buildings, derelict or otherwise, a factor for you? Are there former public buildings?

Mr Dorrian: Most of the bigger ones are city centre-based, but, again, it is only a matter of time. With the ones that are there now, there is a fallback when it comes to office space, for example. They may be trying to sell office space, but there is no great demand for office space at the moment. If those buildings are sitting vacant without being taken on, they will become an increasing issue, maybe more so in the larger towns and cities.

Mr Blair: Is there any current trend in the towns and villages outside Belfast?

Mr Dorrian: Not specifically. Not from a public ownership point of view. However, a lot of them may be historical and owned by families. You tend to see, certainly on arterial routes, a lot of buildings and so on that have been owned by families over the years but have just tailed off. That goes back to the point that I made about how I am still querying how up to date we are when it comes to recording ownership of a lot of the smaller buildings.

Mr Roberts: This is connected. One of the conversations that we are having with the Department of Finance is about the future of the vacant property rate, which effectively is the Executive subsidising dereliction. It is about £30 million, and we have said that we need to retrofit the current small business rate relief scheme into a high street rate relief scheme that would get more targeted relief to independent retailers, hospitality and leisure, which is the norm in the rest of the UK. We can use that vacant property rate as a wider fund. It is not new money; it is cutting the cake differently. You are focusing the rating system and turning it from a disabler into an enabler. Why should landlords get away with taking the roof off to avoid paying rates? You go to town after town where they have done that, and, effectively, the current policy is subsidising dereliction.

The other idea that we put forward is the scale-up rate relief scheme, which would help existing businesses expand their premises and would create new jobs and new investment. That is not just a retail thing but could be applied across the board. Effectively, that could give that business six months' rates relief, and, when it is revalued, it will be quids in for Land and Property Services because it will be a higher rate.

There are practical things that do not cost money that can retrofit and change the existing schemes to make a big difference. The Back in Business or business bonus scheme gives 50% rates relief for the first two years for a business that takes up a derelict and dilapidated building that has been vacant for a year. That is a really good example of using the rating system to address a particular problem. We can look at how we can go further and faster with that.

We are feeding all those ideas in, but, again, as I said at the start, that has to align with what every Department is doing. There is no point doing that work if councils let more and more out-of-town retail development happen. We have to be clear: it is about being on the same page in all of this. It can be turned around — absolutely. At times, I am accused of being a harbinger of doom, but I am really optimistic. We could do something really bold and innovative.

Mr Blair: What about rates incentivisation? The incentivisation for new businesses to be created in buildings that are currently derelict also removes the potential snag of people getting cash benefits to property bank and increase the value of their asset but not necessarily using it for retail, hospitality or any other use or to provide jobs. They are simply renovating the building and holding on to it until it increases in value, so the rates component would take away that risk.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you, John. Are there any other questions from members? OK.

That was a great session.

Mr Roberts: Thank you very much, Chair. It was a pleasure.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It was really good. Thank you so much.