Modify Act or listed buildings will suffer

Protected StructuresLast week I wrote about the general problems that the Society of Chartered Surveyors (SCS) believes are facing owners of listed buildings as a result of the 2000 Planning Act. This week the focus is on some technical issues that need adjustment if the planning legislation is to operate satisfactorily.

The first issue is to create different listing categories - currently there is one category, which can apply to any thing from a mansion to railway cottage. We should move to a UK-type system where categories range up to a total listing (applying only to buildings of significant architectural or historic merit). The second category might include the structure of a building, but not internal elements while the third category would include facades but not other elements. A fourth may be a special element of a building - a ceiling, or fireplace. The fifth category could be garden features.

Hand-in-hand with hierarchical listing would go financial support, technical support and limited withdrawal of the application of the Exempt Development Regulations. Thus, if you own a very special property, you would need full planning permission but receive significant help from your local authority. If you own a building with a minor feature, then you could use it in a day-to-day way without involving the planning authority.

One of the issues criticised in the SCS submission to the minister is that there is no effective appeal mechanism against the listing of a property in a development plan. Technically, there is an appeal process, but the appeal reverts to the same person or group who made the original decision in the planning office responsible for listing your property. The society argues that there should be an appeal system to An Bord Pleanála.

The next technical point the SCS wants amended is the definition of "curtailage of a listed building". The legislation refers to curtailage as all the land surrounding a listed building owned by the property owner. Thus, if you have a listed building on a 500-acre farm, then technically all farm buildings, roads and boundary walls are listed and you cannot carry out any works without planning permission.

In urban areas the definition of curtailage is causing problems for developers building on undeveloped land. Conservationists say that new buildings should not be built within the curtailage of a listed building so as to avoid compromising the character or setting of the listed building. Thus redevelopment that would otherwise proceed is being frustrated or compromised. The SCS argues that the definition of curtailage should be modified to apply only to the land in the immediate local environment of a listed building.

A consequence of the application of Part IV of the 2000 Act is that lenders are concerned about funding listed buildings. They are aware of the extra costs of preparation and modification. Some institutions have made policy decisions not to advance funds for properties subject to listing in local development plans.

The effect of higher costs, constraints on modifications and alterations in the legislation are impacting on the value of listed properties. While evidence is limited, the effect on values will be more marked unless legislation is adapted to allow buildings to be modified and used for appropriate purposes. One of the loudest voices protesting about the legislation is the churches, religious denominations and charities. They hold substantial amounts of listed property and are feeling the Act's effects.

Writing in the Fold, the magazine for the Cork and Ross diocese, Fr Tom Hayes noted: "So a church can be listed as part of our heritage, but the parishioners have to pay to keep it." He noted that they, too, have to seek permission before making even the smallest of changes. In an earlier article the Bishop of Kerry, Dr Bill Murphy, said that "church buildings are primarily places of worship, not museums".

The SCS in its submission did not comment on the problems being experienced by the churches but noted that discussions were taking place between the religious and the minister. However, I have experience of several charities and religious orders that own listed properties. The costs of repair and modification to these are significant. In some instances, the cost of repairs and/or restrictions on modification are forcing charities into selling the properties rather than upgrading them.

The final issue considered by the SCS is the conflict within local authorities between conservation experts and those responsible for other elements of the built environment. The conservationists appear to want to keep buildings as museums in the form they were originally constructed. However, many listed buildings require modification to comply with health and safety legislation. Many local authorities are not managing this conflict and the issue is left with the property owner.

In summary, the SCS believes that our built heritage should be preserved, but argues that the conservation process has to balance the needs of modern society to use all its buildings in a productive and effective way. Part IV of the 2000 Planning Act is well intentioned but needs significant modification and more enlightened administration if there is to be a happy balance between the past, the present and the future of the built environment.

W K Nowlan who was chairman of the working party which prepared the SCS submission to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Copies of the full submission are available from www.scs.ie