Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome the following representatives from the Royal Society of Ulster Architects (RSUA), who will give evidence to the Committee and answer any questions: Mr Ciarán Fox, director; Mr Curtis Large, policy and public affairs officer; and Colin Shaw, RSUA member. Thank you very much for your attendance. When you are ready and comfortable, please give us your presentation.

Mr Ciarán Fox (Royal Society of Ulster Architects): Thank you very much. I appreciate the invitation to come along today. I will keep my opening remarks as short as possible to leave as much time as possible for questions. Colin is an architect but also a member of RSUA. He is a director of the Belfast-based practice Taggarts and was part of the working group that put together RSUA's response to the Bill. Curtis, our policy and public affairs officer, coordinated and drafted that response. He will be able to take some of the more detailed questions on our submission.

RSUA is the representative body for architecture in Northern Ireland. We are the professional body for about 850 chartered architects in Northern Ireland. We are set up as a charity, and, therefore, our whole drive is about how we can assist the public in gaining benefits from architecture. This is the lens through which we approach every piece of legislation and policy: how can architecture help improve society in Northern Ireland?

Our overall response is that we are very welcoming of the Dilapidation Bill. It is a very positive step. Importantly, we see it as part of a wider package of measures. It is trying to tackle a really tricky problem, and anything like that is rarely solved with one move. The Bill will not work on its own. There was welcome news yesterday from the Finance Minister about the non-domestic vacant rates. Certainly, we have been arguing that it is important that empty properties are not free of rates or do not have reduced rates. The direction of travel now is to move to 100% rates for empty properties.

The circular economy strategy is being finalised and about to go to the Minister for the Economy. One of the three key areas in that strategy is construction. There is no better way to boost the circular economy in Northern Ireland than to retain and keep in use our existing buildings. That is one of the most important things that we can do. The Department for Infrastructure has a really important role as regards how we retain and make best use of our existing buildings. We are meeting the chief planner next week. The Department for Communities also has an important role in community regeneration and the potential to make grants to support those who want to bring buildings back into use or retain buildings.

Overall, the Bill is focused on two connected but distinct things. It is about keeping buildings in good order and incentivising their active use. As I said, a whole pile of Departments and, of course, councils are involved. One of the biggest challenges is coordinating all those different policy areas and actors. Unlike in other jurisdictions, councils here have limited powers, particularly with regard to regeneration. What is missing locally is the role of the city and council architect. That role is well established across Europe, and has been effective in providing that coordination. An architect on an individual project coordinates all the disciplines that go into making up the finished building, dealing with many factors. The idea of a city or council architect is similar, except that it is at a town, village or city scale. We will certainly seek support across Government and councils over the next number of years to have that role introduced.

As for the timescale of the Bill, we met the Minister about 12 months ago. We were of the understanding that the Bill was due to be enacted in the early part of 2026. It was delayed a little, and we are now going into the Committee Stage. We know that it has been pushed out to May 2026. We are slightly concerned about the pace of progress. I should stress, however, that it is more important to get it right. Anything that can be done to keep things moving is great, but it is very important to get it right. Ultimately, there is no point in creating powers that are not used because they are too difficult to understand, are too costly to put into action or will, potentially, have negative consequences.

One of the things that we welcome most about the Bill is that it really reinforces the point that a responsibility comes with owning a building. That is maybe not always fully appreciated. A building is not just a private property; it has a consequence for the community. That point is made strongly in the Bill. We need to be careful, though, that we do not encourage demolition. I am not sure how well that has been handled at this stage. If somebody is told that they must spend x thousands of pounds on a project, and the easier thing to do, if the building is not listed or in a protected area, is to take that building down, you can see why, very quickly — maybe even overnight — the building will come down. That is not a positive in the grand scheme of what we are trying to achieve on climate change and regeneration. The last thing that we want is lots of derelict sites rather than derelict buildings.

With regard to specifics, we make it clear in our response that we need enhanced definition of various elements, whether that is provided in the legislation or through guidance. We understand that work on guidance has been undertaken by the Department. We have not seen that yet, but we would be happy to provide feedback if that guidance document becomes public. We 100% acknowledge the need for a right to appeal, which is embedded in the Bill. We want to ensure, however, that it is not so easy to appeal that that becomes almost the first step.

It should be the last resort. It is important that things are structured but not in such a way that it is too easy. Of course, there needs to be a straightforward right to appeal, but we do not want things getting bogged down in the courts. We have seen that in other areas, and it does not serve anybody other than the people who make money out of things going to court.

I move now to keeping track of the scale of the problem and how we are progressing. At the moment, Northern Ireland has the heritage at risk register, which, of course, is focused on only heritage buildings. It would be useful to adopt a similar approach and maybe extend it to have a record of derelict, dilapidated buildings. If we do not know the scale of the problem, it is hard to understand what is going to happen when the legislation comes in. Perhaps, there is a role for the public in being able to add to that list or at least to recommend additions to it. The people who live in an area tend to know what needs to happen. Allowing the public to raise their hand and say, "There's a building near us that's bringing the area down. It is not being well maintained. It is potentially going to pose a risk". There should be a way of flagging that up.

Stronger fixed penalties would be useful: £500 is at the very low end, as any of you who have done building work in recent times will know. The building works will be likely to cost thousands of pounds. The penalty does not feel like the gentle nudge that you need. Perhaps, if there is a desire to keep it at that, there should be a clear ramping up if action is not taken quickly.

Finally, the legislation needs to be supported with the signposting of support. Most people want to do the right thing. Most people who own buildings want to do the right thing: they want to keep their building in good nick, but, sometimes, circumstances make it very difficult for them to do so. Therefore, it is important that people are not in any way vilified for a building falling into disrepair but that they are supported to bring it back into decent shape. Where grants, loans or even advice are available, that information should be provided to people as notices are served, so that they know that, yes, action needs to be taken, but supports are available.

That is a quick summary of our position. I am happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you very much for that; it was very good. Some of the points in your submission chime with those of the witnesses in our previous session, and some not so much. You raise pertinent and important issues.

I will tease out one in particular, if that is OK: the interpretation of "amenity". You detailed clauses 1, 4, 7 and 11. You are calling for the same response as the previous witnesses in regard to the interpretation of "amenity". That is important, because the meaning of "amenity" is hugely important. I would like to see that bottomed out. Do you have any suggestions regarding the four that you have picked out: "detriment to local amenity"; "serious detriment to local amenity"; "dangerous structure"; and "prejudicial to health or a nuisance"? The settings are quite different if it is residential, retail or rural. What does loss of "amenity" look like in those circumstances? We want to reduce the risk of it being open to interpretation. Can you help with that?

Mr Fox: Curtis, was there any initial feedback from the group on that?

Mr Curtis Large (Royal Society of Ulster Architects): I cannot think of anything specific. One of the interesting points from the session was that we understood and appreciated that the Committee was consulting on what the definitions should be, so we were not expecting to see them in the legislation at this time. The operating outcome of that conversation was, "We know that these notices are graded by level of seriousness of dilapidation. We would like to see, even on a general level, potential recommendations for remedial works being graded, based on the level of severity of dilapidation". We know that the Committee is consulting on it. Colin, do you have any thoughts on that?

Mr Colin Shaw (Royal Society of Ulster Architects): Yes. We should be nailing this more to what is already in existence elsewhere in the UK. What we are trying to get through is a Bill that is possibly 95% similar to what is available in England, Scotland and Wales. Then we would form it, slightly, in that last 5%, to be more specific to the Province. We know who we are and what we have. We are unique in that respect. However, the definitions of "dilapidation", "dangerous structure" etc must surely be available elsewhere in the UK from other legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I will tease it out a wee bit further. I think that the definition of "amenity" is not as subjective as some people think that it might be. I will give you the example of a gentleman who has already visited me and has a residential property in Limavady. The neighbouring property has been not so much dilapidated but derelict for 35 years. It is in the process of dilapidation. The loss to amenity there is loss of property value for him with unwanted rodents and visitors such as birds. We are lacking in legislation to do with the area. The issue may be not so much the building but, say, a huge tree that encroaches on other properties and poses significant dangers. Do you think that the Bill is the opportunity to batten down more firmly on what loss of amenity might mean so that it is not so subjective?

Mr Fox: Absolutely. We were hoping that guidance would come out from the Department to accompany the legislation, and then we would be able to give feedback as to whether we feel that it has sufficiently defined that. It is almost easier to start with somebody's first best attempt at what that might look like and then give feedback on it. Ideally, that would not happen after the legislation but be done in parallel with it.

In the example that you gave, it is hard for anyone to say that that is not having a detrimental impact on the community. The community can be one house, in the sense that somebody else's property is creating a nuisance. Quite often, certainly in more urban areas, the dilapidated building starts to be used as a place for teenagers to go drinking. That is not what the neighbour wants. How do you take action? Who do you go to get action taken? Amenity is about the impact on people. There is no doubt of that in my mind. It is about how we make sure that it does not get lost in the process as we go through.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): No problem. I will read out the definition that we were given from the additional text in the guidance. In the context of the Bill:

I am sorry to go back to the previous witnesses, but they raised reasonable concerns that, for instance, if you are a property owner and graffiti is sprayed on your property, you have no control over that. I am not sure that the Bill will look at that level of loss of amenity, but, at the same time, that is why the definition is important, so that we do not have zealous officials interpreting it in a certain way. That is why I think that it is key, as you do. As you rightly pointed out, Ciarán, the regulation guidance should be there with the Bill, even if it is going to be changed. It says "in its broadest sense". However, from my perspective, the risk here is that councils will act totally differently. You will get an official who will work zealously, and there will be others who take a very relaxed attitude. Then you have discrepancy between council areas and neighbouring jurisdictions, which is not good.

Mr Fox: To be honest, to some extent, there is a bit of inevitability that, when this comes in and councils are given the role of enacting it, there will be differences. For as long as I can remember, building control has been with councils and the approach to it in every council is slightly different. There have been attempts to bring some degree of consistency, but it is difficult when it is not mandated. However, it works reasonably well, still. People get to know what the level is, and, ultimately, if a member of the public is concerned that a council is being overzealous in its application of the law or is interpreting it in too limited a way, they have recourse to go directly to councillors. That is the democratic process to say, "This is not working. Why is this not considered to be a problem in our council area, yet, just down the road in another council area, it seems to be, and action is taken?".

There is always that balance. My view is that it would be great to get this up and running, rather than trying to have everything absolutely settled, and then accept that there may need to be tweaks to the implementation. From where we are today, however, there is no doubt at all that we need to take a big step forward. Let us not hold back on taking that step to get everything absolutely locked down.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I have one last question before I move on, because I know that a number of members are interested. There is a slight difference among stakeholders in their attitudes to the appeals process and the notice periods. Your position is that some of those are too long, but that is not a universally held opinion.

Mr Fox: I am sure that it is not.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Are you able to quantify that a little bit better; for instance, the 28 days for appeals relating to maintenance?

Mr Fox: It comes back to how easy it is and how do you delay. If you are allowed your 28 days, you get to the twenty-eighth day. The council has already decided that there is a problem, and you wait for 28 days and nothing happens. Effectively, a month passes, the problem persists, you put in your appeal and then the clock starts ticking. There may be a way of having a gradation, where, for the very serious cases, you could have seven days to appeal, because something needs to happen. For the less important cases, perhaps, you could have a longer period.

You will have seen in other areas of public life that, where there is a 28-day period, people will max it out, and then they will start the process. Whatever the next part is, there will be another 28 days, and, suddenly, three months has passed. What can that lead to? First, the problem persists, but it can also, in building terms, lead to worsening, particularly in the more critical cases. Our response is, let us say, a first-level response. The more complex way might be to have a level for the really serious stuff where action needs to be taken. If you are served with a notice, is it not reasonable that you come back within seven days and say, " No, we don't think that's right"?

If it is going to have an impact on the community in a significant way, in my mind, it is appropriate that action would need to be taken. Graffiti is an example of a less serious case. Everyone knows that it is best for graffiti to be removed within 24 hours. Is it good for that to be there for three months? What does that say to the wider community? It says that it is not really that important. It is OK for graffiti to remain there for three months. Someone will put in an appeal because they could not be bothered to take it off the building. Is there a balance there, because the cost of cleaning that up is so small that, perhaps, again, there needs to be a way of handling that, rather than going through something to remediate that costs thousands of pounds? Do we need to have all of that agreed at this stage of getting the legislation through? Perhaps not, but maybe we can provide scope in the legislation for different tiers to be set.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It is important to get a feel for that. Your point at the start was that this legislation will not be rushed. The Committee will have done its deliberations way in advance of May, by the way. The Committee has a real interest in this, but we need to make sure that it is good legislation and is not rushed. That is the balance that needs to be struck.

On a personal level, I agree with you about a common-sense approach to fines, because £500 is perhaps not enough. It is probably a good starting point but the fines for non-compliance could be graduated after that. That would make more sense. Similarly, as you have rightly pointed out, there needs to be a common-sense approach to notice periods. That goes back to the question about amenity; what has been lost, and what is the risk?

Mr Fox: We are covering a wide area of ground. I love talking about real examples of things that have happened. You mentioned graffiti, but what about a wall that looks as though it might fall down, or a roof? If you get water into a building, the speed of degradation is very fast. It might cost thousands of pounds to fix that. Even to get scaffolding up and all the rest of it costs a lot of money. On the one hand, you are dealing with something that could be fixed really quickly and cheaply, while, on the other hand, something might cost thousands of pounds. It would be difficult to have one blanket rule for all of that. Most people act logically in those situations. If something will cost you £30,000 to fix and the fine is £500, pay the fine if you are not that interested in the building. Pay the fine.

Pay the next fine. Where does the balance come? If someone says, "Can you get that graffiti cleaned, otherwise you will have to pay a £500 fine?", the chances are that the graffiti will be cleaned the very next day because no one wants to pay £500. It is hard to have this all wrapped up in a bundle.

I come back to Colin's point: we have a model that we are clearly working to in the legislation that has been shown to work pretty well in other parts of the UK. It is about getting that in place and then maybe working around things a little bit, and the key thing is giving enough scope in the legislation for those more detailed things to be dealt with, maybe at council level.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Brilliant. Thank you.

Mr Blair: Thanks to all the representatives. I am keen to tease out a bit more, if I can, about the issue of avoiding demolition and dilapidation. I am intrigued by some of what you said in that regard. I will give a general example from real casework, though I do not want to identify people. Imagine an old, historic and listed corn mill and a person trying to convert it into a home. There is no help available and no consent forthcoming because the proposed building is too modern, nor is there any protection at all for what already exists or anything to compel the owner to maintain it. That historic building is literally crumbling to the ground, and an attempt to save what remains of it is not being assisted by process or government. When it comes to that example and the many related examples across the dilapidation piece, can you — sorry to put you on the spot — give us an example of where government can better collaborate in the context of this Bill to make those things happen more speedily and more successfully?

Mr Fox: Colin, you have probably come across quite a few examples in your everyday work.

Mr Shaw: Yes. A lot of my time is spent researching for clients who own buildings such as the one that you cited. There are lots and lots of various sources for grant funding available, if we have to dig deep. I am doing a lot of projects that are just as you have described, where councils are providing schemes to allow owners to put a new roof on and save that building for the next 10 years or so. It is all about money, and you cannot force a person who owns an extremely dilapidated building to spend thousands and thousands of pounds. It would be nice to do that, but you cannot do it. There has to be a carrot as opposed to a stick, and, if the carrot is some form of grant funding and just enough money to tip it over into a project that will actually be cost-effective for a person, that person could match-fund it or pay another £100,000, with another £20,000 added in from a grant, and that will allow that project to be delivered.

Mr Blair: There are many areas that the Committee looks at where there is a lot of talk about carrots and not always a lot of requests for a stick, frankly. An analysis of that would be very interesting indeed, not least an analysis of those behind the various requests for carrots.

In relation to what you came back with there, Colin, is the reality that there needs to be more consistency across councils when they are helping with the restoration and renovation aspect, and, more specifically, can you think of an example of better coordination in Departments that could make the Bill successful? I am thinking, for example, of DFC in relation to built heritage, DOF in relation to rates income and, of course, DAERA in relation to the Bill?

Mr Shaw: Yes. I am working on two interesting schemes at the moment with Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council. One is called "Empty to Occupied", and the other one is "Fit for Future". Each scheme allows clients who own buildings that have been in various states of disrepair or vacancy to apply for funding to ease the burden of bringing that building back into occupation. Rates will then flow, and that will rejuvenate various town centres. We are working through lots — something like 10 — of town centres in that council area. Perhaps 50 properties benefit from that, whereas, if those two schemes were not available, that would not happen. We see that as a real positive. How Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon does it, I do not know, but it is the only council that, as far as I know, has those schemes. It is not particularly easy to get the money, because clients have to line up, tick a lot of boxes and go through a lot of red tape, but it is there, and it is working.

Mr Fox: One of the big questions in the situation that you painted is always whether the building is listed. If you have a listed building, the next question is whether you purchased it when it was listed. If you did so, typically, you bought it having fully understood the responsibility, the limitations on what you will be able to do and the cost associated with that. Other situations need to be handled better by government, however. When a building is listed post purchase, government creates a set of conditions on the owner of the building — it is not of the owner's doing — and there needs to be much better support for the owner in that circumstance. As happens quite often with homes, a listed building can be passed down through the family. In that situation, someone has effectively been landed with a building that they did not ask for; however, it is now in their possession. Much better coordination and support are needed in such situations. The need is slightly less when someone has bought a building in the full knowledge of its listing. Normally, limitations will depress the price somewhat, so that is almost factored in.

In our recent response to DOF on the rating system, we suggested that a more intelligent approach to rating was needed that encouraged people to maintain their buildings and to get them back into use — there are various details on that — and we certainly got a good hearing.

There is another bit of coordination that would be really useful. We hear at times of slightly overzealous officials in the historic environment division (HED). We are supportive of the historical environment division of the Department for Communities and its work, but we occasionally hear of demands being placed on building owners. The architect will come in with a proposal, and HED will say, "No, you cannot do that", even though the architect has oodles of conservation expertise and knowledge. Maybe we need planners to be a little braver and say, "We acknowledge the very useful advice from our HED colleagues; however, we are going to grant planning permission, because, in the grand scheme of social and environmental benefits, this needs to proceed as proposed". There is definitely work to be done in that area. What we see a lot at the moment is there not being anybody in a position to spearhead all the elements and bring them together.

Mr Blair: Coordinate it.

Mr Fox: Coordinate all that, yes.

Mr Shaw: That is one of the duties of a city or county architect.

Mr Blair: Indeed. Thank you for that.

Mr Large: I will build on Colin's point about the money that is available in councils. We also find that money is available at Executive level. DFC, DFI and DAERA consulted jointly on Shaping Sustainable Places, so we expected a reasonable degree of collaboration. I also expected them to mention the Dilapidation Bill in the consultation document. I was surprised to see that it was not there. That is evidence that the conversations are perhaps not as collaborative as they should be.

Mr Blair: And could be as we go through this process.

Mr Large: Exactly. That scheme makes available £165 million over the next 10 years, with councils chipping in.

Mr Blair: Before we close, Chair, if you do not mind, I will pick up on Ciarán's points. He did not use these words, but I will: we need to be careful not to consult on or scrutinise this to death, because that is why we end up with nothing happening here — talking about it for years with no result coming out of it.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK, John, thank you very much. Do members have any other questions? No.

Thank you very much for your submission. We share your ambition for the legislation. We may well ask you back as we get deeper into our deliberations, and, if you have anything to add, please communicate with us. We will remain with our ears and eyes open to what you have to offer. Thank you very much for your time.