Edwin Poots MLA and Deputy Mayor of Lisburn.

Replacement dwellings are just that — replacement dwellings. Existing non-residential buildings are for reuse, not replacement; that is an important difference. In reusing existing non-residential buildings, certain things will be looked for: that the building is a permanent construction; that the reuse or conversion would maintain or enhance the form, character and architectural features, design and setting of the building and not have an adverse effect on the character or appearance of the locality; that any new extensions are sympathetic to the scale, massing and architectural style and finishes of the existing building; and there are other considerations.

All those policies have been set out with justification and amplification for my planning officers to consider. For example, on the reuse of buildings, “Justification and Amplification” states:

“Due to changing patterns of rural life there are a range of older buildings in the countryside, including some that have been listed, that are no longer needed for their original purpose. These can include former school houses, churches and older traditional barns and outbuildings. The reuse and sympathetic conversion of these types of buildings can represent a sustainable approach to development in the countryside and for certain buildings may be the key to their preservation.”

That is clear policy for planning officers to work to. Such buildings can be reused if appropriate for that purpose.

Planning policy statement 21 deals with rural dwellings. The clusters that it deals with will normally relate to dispersed rural communities and will not, therefore, be affected by an area plan. An area plan identifies the towns, cities, villages, and hamlets. The planning policy statement goes beyond that to areas that are not covered by area plans. Therefore, the planning policy will not rely on area plans for its movement.

I am supportive of the RPA moving on with 11 councils. However, if we do not move forward with 11 councils, I also support the planning function going to the 26 councils. There are no reasons to prevent the Planning Service being moved to the 26 councils as a shared service, with local authorities being responsible for planning decisions. If we do not move forward on the 11 councils, I will certainly recommend that we move planning policy to the 26 councils in the intervening years.

I welcome the Member’s questions. I did not think that she was going to ask any because she talked during most of my statement. However, perhaps she is in listening mode now.

I will leave the deputy First Minister and his party to speak for themselves. We have a policy that can be moved forward. There is a considerable amount of work to be done with the independent working group and the non-farming rural dwellers, and I do not underestimate what DARD and DRD can bring to the table in dealing with that issue.