Debate contribution: Dilapidation Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 1 July 2025.

MLA

Mr Robbie Butler

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

1 July 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Dilapidation Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5061351

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you. I return to the much-anticipated Dilapidation Bill, regardless of whether the Member thinks that it came quickly enough or not. I was reading through the papers in regard to our responses to dilapidation, and it goes back to about 1973, actually. So, it is not even that we have been waiting for 10 years for this but a lot longer. On behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I welcome the Second Stage of the Dilapidation Bill. Committee members have all seen the negative impact on our communities of dilapidated buildings and neglected sites, and, as the Minister has rightly pointed out, many of them pose a danger to the public. The Committee welcomes the modernisation of the legislation, as it has been a long time coming, and a lot of the current legislation dates to the Victorian era. That is not 1973, which is in and around the vintage of when some of us were born: the roaring '70s. The Committee held an evidence session on 26 June with officials from DAERA's neighbourhood environment quality branch, and we considered the outline of the 31 clauses and two schedules. We then heard that the Bill is intended to give councils powers to deal with dilapidation, dangerous buildings and neglected sites and a fit-for-purpose enforcement regime. Those should reflect powers that are already available in the rest of the UK, as the Minister has outlined, and will enhance the cost-recovery powers for councils. That could, potentially, be one of the more difficult things to deliver on. The Committee heard that the aim is to enable councils to tackle dilapidation at an earlier stage through a hierarchy of notices dealing with different levels of dilapidation. Those notices are dealt with in clauses 1 to 10, covering an increasing level of dilapidation from a maintenance notice to a dilapidation notice to a dangerous structure notice. Finally, at the highest level, it covers immediate action that a council can take to deal with a building that is considered to be dangerous. The Committee was pleased to see that the Bill also provides for cost recovery for the council where it has taken the necessary remedial action itself, registering a charge on the land in the statutory charges register until costs are recovered and also registering a dilapidation notice in the register to allow a property to be sold with appropriate information. That is good news, perhaps, for the high street in particular. We heard that the remaining clauses cover a range of matters, including potential obstruction by an occupier, the power to require ownership information, consultation with planning regarding heritage sites, and appeals against a notice issued under the Act. Should the Bill come to the Committee, members will be paying close attention to clause 20, which provides for statutory guidance that district councils must have regard to. Members will wish to have sight of the draft guidance to properly scrutinise the Bill. We had a less-than-satisfactory experience with the Agriculture Bill, when we were asked to make a decision without sight of the replacement scheme. That was explained to us by the departmental officials at the time, but, in this instance, we really would like to have sight of the guidance to consider it alongside the Bill, Minister. We then heard that the Bill provides a definition of "interested person", that of "owner", that of "building" and that of "land". The Committee will wish to consider the term "amenity", however, in particular, as it is expected that the interpretation of "amenity" will be broad and must be covered in the guidance. The Committee will also be scrutinising the regulation-making powers to ensure that they are appropriate and that they are subject to the negative resolution procedure unless they amend a fixed penalty amount or the definition of "heritage site". At that stage, they will be subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure, as we have been informed. There is no doubt that there will be considerable public interest in the Bill. Members, including members of the Committee, have already had photos sent to them of dilapidated buildings and sites fostering antisocial behaviour, including vandalism, drug activity and arson. At Committee Stage, members will want to ensure that the Bill is robust and broad enough to cover public and council concerns. It is not only falling masonry that makes a building dangerous. Antisocial behaviour can make the public feel that a derelict building or site is dangerous. The Committee queried the 2016 consultation, and officials stated that the responses were broadly supportive and had cross-party support. Officials had recently written to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) to ensure that it was still supportive and had heard that it is. The Committee queried why the Bill aims to bring in only discretionary powers for councils and whether there is a risk of regional disparities, because we already see councils operating in different ways in their interpretation.

If the powers were mandatory, presumably DAERA would need to provide direct financial support to councils; we would like confirmation of that. Officials said that there were resource issues but that the Bill would place the cost of remediation works on the property owner, occupier or interested financial organisation or party in the first instance.

The Committee asked about an inventory of dilapidated properties and sites. Officials advised that Ulster University conducted a study for DAERA in 2017 to estimate the number of affected properties and provide a breakdown. DAERA has now shared that report with the Committee. The Committee queried the impact on rural areas, and officials advised that a property needed to have a negative impact on a neighbourhood, so it is unlikely that a council would act on a stand-alone remote property. Given its remit, the Committee will be very interested in rural equity. The Committee will wish to determine whether that is appropriate, as even remote properties can be dangerous. I will add that agencies turn up to remote properties if they are on fire or if there is antisocial behaviour, and we have a responsibility to those statutory agencies too. Officials advised that the statutory guidance would go into more detail on the test to quantify the level of neglect of dilapidated buildings. Members highlighted the limbo that they feel about unadopted developments where the developer has gone bankrupt and disappeared. Officials advised that a charge could be put on a property via the Land Registry. I hope that I have given the House a flavour of the issues that the Committee can see and that need scrutiny. However, the Committee supports the principles of the Bill and looks forward to considering it in further detail during Committee Stage. I would like to make some remarks on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party and myself. As I said, research showed that this has been a topic for discussion for the Ulster Unionist Party for nigh on 52 years, and it has certainly been a focus in our manifesto commitments. We welcome the Second Stage of the Dilapidation Bill, because communities across Northern Ireland, rural and urban alike, are plagued by derelict buildings and neglected sites. They are not just eyesores; they undermine public safety, deter investment and foster antisocial behaviour. I want to home in on and paint a picture of one building that is local to me: Hilden Mill in Lisburn. I am old enough to remember the mill in almost its former glory with people working in it. For around 25 years, however, nobody has been working there, and it has fallen into serious disrepair. Unfortunately, it acts almost like a beacon for young people. Although the site has been secured a number of times, young people have broken into it and use it for different things. In addition, the fires that are lit there bring extreme danger not just to the young people themselves but to the emergency services that have to respond. Beyond a building being an eyesore and beyond the safety of those who are near that building, we have an obligation to those who have to respond to incidents there. The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the Bill's ambition to modernise a framework that, as the Minister said, dates back to perhaps the Victorian era. The proposed hierarchy of enforcement from maintenance notices to actions on dangerous structures is a step in the right direction. However, important questions remain. What will success look like in practice for councils, and, more important, for our communities? Where does the community voice sit with regard to what happens after action is secured? Will the legislation empower councils equally, or will rural areas continue to be left behind due to resource constraints? Why are the powers discretionary and not mandatory? What assurances do we have that enforcement will not be patchy across regions? We really want to see the Bill work not just for Lisburn but for places such as Lisnaskea. We would also like sight of the statutory guidance under clause 20 before decisions are taken, because we cannot afford another scenario such as we had with the Agriculture Bill, when we acted without sight of the anticipated replacement scheme. Let us, in this moment, grasp it, work collaboratively and collegially with the Minister, be upfront about the information that is there and the challenges that we face and deliver a high-quality Dilapidation Bill.

1,570 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:58 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification