Protected StructuresLegislation meant to protect buildings listed for preservation could actually see them left to decay because of over zealous controls, according to the Society of Chartered Accountants.
Conservation work typically costs twice as much as new development so tax incentives and other changes are needed to protect the architectural heritage, it maintains in a submission. In a document released today, the society presented a submission to the Department of the Environment and Local Government on Part IV (Building Conservation) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The Act introduced a number of measures meant to protect the built environment, but these same measures are working against the protection of these buildings, the submission claims.
A key purpose of the submission, it states, is to make the minister and the councils who define what buildings are to be protected aware "that the very act of listing a property for conservation in a development plan will have significant financial impact on its owner in the long term and possibly in the short term". The legislation "is resulting in significant problems for the property profession, the planning profession, the development industry, the banking industry and the property investment community", it states. "It is very clear to the society that the inclusion of a building in the Register of Protected Structures is a strong disincentive to investment in a given property. This is impacting on the value of those buildings."
Members of the society who are officers in financial institutions indicate that many have recently adopted a policy of avoiding investing in properties involving protected structures "both as lenders and as long-term investors", the submission states.
"If money is not available for the purchase of such properties or the investment in such properties then their long-term future must be in question," it says. "This has serious long-term implications for government conservation policy." The submission also provides data on how the cost of renewing a listed building can cost twice as much as a new site. It includes extra consulting fees paid to professionals; higher construction costs; time delays; limitations on use; and lower property values as reasons for the higher costs.
These costs typically are borne only by the property owner, it adds. "In effect, one stakeholder in the community pays for everything from which all the community derives benefit." The society was critical of the existing grants system meant to compensate for these costs. The maximum grant per building at €13,000 "is minuscule and is often ridiculous in relation to the size of the extra costs imposed on a property owner, particularly in commercial or city centre buildings", the submission states. It is also unhappy with the limited right of appeal under the current legislation. The owner can make a written objection if a building is added to the preservation list but there was "no independent appeal process and the final decision rests with the planning authority".
To comply with their statutory responsibilities, many authorities take "a blanket approach without, in the society's view, a thorough investigation of the true merits of the property or elements of the property" when it is added to the Register of Protected Structures. The legislation has also made it very difficult for the local authorities to handle the workload associated with the new controls. This causes delays and adds to development costs, and many authorities have too little conservation expertise available to apply to this area. "The society is of the view that there is a need for an independent body of conservation expertise available to An Bord Pleanála to assist them in arriving at informed decisions on appeals, which relate to protected structures," the submission says.
The society recommended that a simple system of direct income tax and perhaps VAT relief should be introduced for work expended on maintaining buildings listed for conservation. "Such a system now applies to selected heritage properties that are accessible to the public for specific periods."
Such a system of tax relief would help "rebalance the financial scales and remove the serious disincentives now applying to the ownership of listed properties", the society maintains. It could also "encourage owners and investors to take on the challenge of preservation".
Zero rating on VAT would also help churches, which tend to have large numbers of protected structures in their property portfolios. Pension funds, churches and charities are outside the VAT net and would benefit. "In the case of churches or charities, it might also be possible to work out a system whereby individuals donating to a repair fund benefited from tax relief on such donations."
listing a building should become a matter of pride, not punishment, for its owner
developers are shunning urban brown-field renovation because of the 'zealous application' of conservation policy
difficulties faced by developers in coping with the Part IV legislation is causing them to concentrate on suburban locations
financial compensation to owners whose interests are impaired by listing
financial incentives needed to encourage owners and developers in conservation
financial institutions are avoiding providing funds as lenders or investors in listed properties
criteria for listing should be agreed with property owning interests and not just the conservation lobby
introduce legislation to provide for an independent appeal system
the M50 at Carrickmines situation is an example of how the conservation process is delaying a public facility
Part IV (Building Conservation) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 is causing serious difficulties, according to the ociety in its submission to the Department of the Environment and Local Government.
Chief amongst them is uncertainty related to listed properties caused by the "non-availability of precise advice and information from planning authorities concerning conservation requirements". The lack of clear information about what works are permitted or required if a building was to be acquired means the costs of modifying a protected structure cannot be established prior to purchase.
"This inevitably hinders and creates uncertainty in a large part of the market for such properties and dissuades possible purchasers from looking at listed buildings," the society maintains.
For existing owners of listed buildings, the removal of the benefits under the Exempted Development Regulations to carry out many works without securing planning permission creates additional delays and uncertainty, the society claims. "The process of having to seek planning permission for the most simple of even internal modifications creates costs and uncertainty."
It also causes uncertainties for lenders and institutional investors.
"For bankers, the lending of funds secured on listed buildings will require special caution and may involve them in invoking lower loan value ratios or may result in an unwillingness to make lendings secured on the building."
There are other inconsistencies associated with Part IV, the society says. Conservation experts acting for a planning authority can frequently come to different conclusions to experts acting for An Bord Pleanála, it says.
Requirements of the conservation department of an authority can be "mutually exclusive" to the requirements of the fire department, making it impossible to get a fire safety certificate.
"Neither department sees it as its function to resolve this dichotomy, sometimes to the point of refusing to attend joint meetings."
The much higher costs associated with works on a listed building also create problems, not just in the context of finance. The extra costs "can result in the deferment of essential works to these buildings, which is not consistent with the objectives of conservation", the society's document states.
It can also put undue pressures on those occupying listed buildings such as retired persons, charitable organisations, religious organisations and social bodies.
The society maintains that "some real relief should be given to such vulnerable sectors imposed with responsibilities for buildings that are the subject of preservation".
