Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Members, thank you for your attitude and diligence during the closed sessions on the Dilapidation Bill. I ask the Clerk to read into the record a summary of the discussions.

The Committee Clerk: We covered clauses 1 to 3 in considerable detail. There was discussion about low-level dilapidation and whether, if definitions became more prescriptive, we could be limiting councils rather than assisting them. DAERA is looking at putting examples in the statutory guidance in that regard. We will receive a response on the actions from the council meeting. Considering in detail how to define it could be quite difficult, given that it could differ from place to place, including villages and towns. DAERA will come back to us on all of that, including the outworkings of the council meeting.

Under the guidance, councils will be able to decide what is detrimental to amenity. That might depend on where the detriment is situated. We discussed the serving of the maintenance notice and whether the term "may" or "must" should be used in clause 1(2). If it became mandatory to act, you would have to put definitions in the Bill. That would be a significant policy change. The Minister might have to take such a policy change to the Executive. Perhaps the officials can confirm that.

We referred to looking at other legislation that might be useful, such as the high hedges legislation. There may be aspects of that that we could review. The Bill Office will do that for us. We discussed the lodging of the appeal in clause 2. I think that there was confirmation from the Bill Office that you need just to lodge your appeal within the 28 days; it is not that the whole appeal will take place in that time. We kept coming back to the issue of low-level dilapidation. The guidance has templates for the maintenance notices. The Bill Office will look at the appeals structure in councils for us in order to cover that.

We discussed the link between clause 3 and clause 19 regarding the fixed-penalty notice, and we said that we would probably discuss the fixed-penalty notice more when we got to clause 19.

DAERA officials are consulting further with historic environment division (HED) on clause 4. I will supply an update to the Committee on the outcomes of those discussions. I do not think that we have had that outcome yet.

We discussed the issue of there being a minimum number of directors in place before a notice can be issued, which the Committee has raised before. That concerns a building that is owned by a group, potentially, of trustees or directors. We discussed the concern about the sufficient minimum number of directors. I think that we have that on the list of questions that the Committee will come to officials with shortly.

As I said, most of the discussion was on clauses 1 to 3.

The Senior Assistant Assembly Clerk: There was also the charges register.

The Committee Clerk: Oh, yes. I think that we are going to ask questions about that, anyway. If a notice is laid under clause 4, there is some concern about where that is recorded and about whether it would be picked up if someone wants buy the property.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): There was agreement that we will move beyond clauses 1 to 3 today and engage the officials on clause 4 and seek clarity on a couple of items. I will get the ball rolling.

I am looking for some assurance — it probably exists — because we are refining it into a single Bill. If a notice is put on a building and someone subsequently seeks to buy that building while the notice is on it, is that notice on a register somewhere, and can it be picked up via a standard legal search?

Mr Mark Allison (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Yes, that would be on the statutory charges register.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Is that commonly picked up at the moment? Is that a standing point that does not change?

Mr Allison: Yes. If a solicitor is doing a search because someone has a mortgage or a fixed loan, that will be picked up.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Therefore, that is something that happens at the moment: if a council issues a notice for demolition or remedial works, the statutory charge is on that list, and a search by a solicitor on behalf of a purchaser will already pick it up. It is nothing new or novel.

Mr Simon Webb (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I cannot say for sure that that is the current process, but we have asked for legal advice about how the process would play out in practice.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): The scenario that I am thinking about would involve someone being issued with a notice on a building that is saleable for whatever reason — because of its location, for instance. The purchaser would be entitled to that information. I want to ensure that that is captured. I think that clause 12 is where that is picked up.

Mr Allison: It is clause 13.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We looked at that. I just wanted confirmation of that in order to understand what the statutory charge, and the discharge of it, is.

Mr Allison: That is where the dilapidation notice is registered if the council is not going to do any work. If another person is going to buy, they will know that work has to be done. Obviously, the price of the property would reflect that.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes. People can pay what they want to pay, but a standard search will pick it up.

Mr Allison: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you. That is grand.

John, do you have a point that needs to be clarified in clause 4?

Mr Blair: The one on the directors?

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes; the directors' piece.

Mr Blair: Yes. Apologies if I have not raised this before. We raised the issue of trustees, some of whom may be deceased, at a previous meeting, but it did not come from me. One of the papers refers to:

Is there potential for a loophole in that regard? If trustees own a property, surely they could make sure that they always had below the minimum number of directors if they thought that the property was falling into disrepair, especially if they are also fully aware that it might appreciate in value over a number of years. They could just let it sit.

Mr Allison: We have asked questions about the trustees and the limited company scenario that we discussed before. That is one of the things that we have gone to the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) about.

Mr Blair: Trustees of any organisation will be made fully aware of their responsibilities. It is not our job to excuse them from those responsibilities, regardless of whether the numbers are down or up. I see potential for that to be exploited, albeit probably in very small numbers and on rare occasions. However, I would prefer to avoid it if we can.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Do you have an update on any discussions that you have had with HED about heritage buildings?

Mr Webb: We have received a response, but it basically says that it will get back to us in the near future. That is where we are at.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): That is useful. Give it a 28-day notice, with a fine not exceeding level 4 and a summary conviction of nothing less than two years in jail. [Laughter.]

We want a response from HED. When you do you anticipate a response?

Mr Webb: Next week.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): That would be really good.

Members, are there any other queries or questions about any of our deliberations today? We covered clauses 1 to 6. Clause 4 was of particular interest to us. No? OK.

Thank you so much; we really appreciate it. We will see you next week.

Mr Allison: Same time, same place.

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