An Taisce greatly welcomes the publication of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill 1998. The comprehensive protection of our architectural heritage in the face of unprecedented economic pressures is not only a long-standing national objective, it is also an obligation under the European Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage.

The Bill has just passed through the Seanad without any significant amendment. Since so much time, brainpower and good will has gone into the measure we would like to support it. Unfortunately, it does not fulfil the promise of the 1996 interdepartmental report "Strengthening the Protection of the Architectural Heritage" on which it was always intended it should be based.

As a result, An Taisce, which systematically monitors planning applications affecting historic buildings, urges that this Bill be amended to reflect the following concerns.

Too much local authority discretion with respect to listing.

The primary role for protecting buildings would remain with local authorities who have shown themselves incapable of fulfilling this obligation. While the Minister for Heritage may issue guidelines to local authorities, there is no certainty that he or she will. Indeed the Minister for the Environment has the power to do just that but has not exercised it.

No independent conservation-orientated central body.

The interdepartmental report said that "provision should be made for review and/or amendment of local authority preservation lists through an independent process". The Bill makes no such provision. It is crucial to note that the Minister for the Environment may already intervene in any development plan to list a building or designate a building as derelict under the derelict sites legislation. These powers are discretionary and have never been exercised.

Likewise, the Heritage Council may designate buildings in public ownership as Heritage Buildings. This power has been exercised once and is now dormant. The truth is that nobody wants to be seen to interfere with local authorities in the areas where they have any real power. A cursory, literal consideration might suggest that the existing regime is adequate. An Taisce's long and wide experience as a planning watchdog is that this is not the case.

The Bill's explanatory memorandum says the Minister will "recommend" protection for buildings which are included in the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage. However, the Bill itself simply fails to provide for this and in any event the national inventory will take many years to complete.

The fear is that this Bill will provide a range of ostensibly progressive discretions which are never in practice deployed. This is why, if we want conservation, not just the possibility of conservation, a power to supplement the discretions of local authorities and Ministers must be exercisable by an independent body, comprised in part by those with a record in environmental protection, charged with a conservation agenda.

In effect an independent central body should list buildings and then defend them (including legal proceedings) if they are allowed to deteriorate. And it should give advice to the local authority and An Bord Pleanala about the listing at the planning-application stage.

Undermining of buildings listed for protection (List 2 or List B).

The new statutory regime, including safeguards for interiors, would apply to buildings listed for preservation under any current local authority development plan. It seems that this new protection would not extend to buildings "listed for protection" as opposed to "listed for preservation".

In practice this would be extremely dangerous as it would highlight the anomalous status of buildings "listed for protection" (the so-called List 2 or List B) in development plans. In some counties these comprise up to three-quarters of the total stock of listed buildings. If the net effect of this Bill were to be to undermine the status of List 2 or List B buildings it would be a step backwards. This infirmity runs contrary to the statement in the explanatory memorandum that "buildings which are currently listed for protection or preservation under a development plan . . . will become protected buildings under this Bill".

Demolition of listed buildings still possible.

We note that permission may be sought and granted for the demolition of listed buildings under the Bill. This is little different from the current situation. We believe that there should be a legal presumption against demolition written into the law, rebuttable only by exceptionally compelling evidence.

The Bill would not have stopped many recent controversies.

Regrettably, An Taisce cannot see the difference the proposed legislation would have made to many of the most significant demolitions in Ireland in the last few years. For example the approved Hilton/Westin hotel and office development on College Green, Dublin, would still be possible because it was granted permission by An Bord Pleanala on appeal. Demolition of the five Georgian houses on Essex Quay would still be possible because the buildings simply were not listed (and the proposal was to list them on List 2 which might, if anything, be undermined by this Bill). Dilapidations like those of Arlington House in Portarlington and Coolmoney House in Co Wicklow would still be possible where the local authority chose not to intervene.

Despite increases in grants for conservation and big fines for illegal demolitions, the Bill does not go far enough. It would leave us in continued breach of our international commitments.

Philip Geoghegan is Chairman of An Taisce. Michael Smith is Chairman Dublin City Association, An Taisce.