Carrots, Sticks, & the North-South Divide

Across the island of Ireland, the same problem is playing out in different accents. Historic buildings, the very fabric that gives our towns and cities their identity, are sitting empty, deteriorating, or falling into a disrepair from which recovery becomes more expensive with every passing year. Upper floors lie vacant above busy streets. Landmark structures quietly unravel. In some cases, by the time anyone acts, the window for viable intervention has already closed. 

This is not simply a failure of conservation policy. At its heart, it is a viability problem. Older buildings are expensive and complex to repair. Modern compliance requirements, fire safety, accessibility, energy performance add cost and complexity. In many towns, market values simply do not support the level of investment required. The gap between what buildings need and what the market can deliver keeps widening. 

Both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland recognise this challenge. The question is whether they are doing enough to address it and whether the tools they are reaching for are the right ones. 

The difference between Northern Ireland and the Republic’s approach to regeneration can be understood through three lenses: the carrots that incentivise reuse, the sticks that penalise neglect, and the question of leadership; who actually drives regeneration on the ground. 

On all three counts, the two jurisdictions have taken markedly different paths. And understanding that difference matters, not just academically, but practically, for anyone trying to unlock the potential of an existing building or place on either side of the border. 

The Republic has built one of the more comprehensive frameworks for encouraging the reuse and regeneration of existing buildings anywhere in these islands. It is imperfect, and not every scheme has delivered at scale, but the architecture of support is substantial. 

The Historic Structures Fund and Built Heritage Investment Scheme provide direct grant support for conservation works, from small-scale repairs to significant capital projects. The Living City Initiative allows property owners to offset refurbishment costs against tax over a number of years, improving the financial case for reuse in the parts of cities where it is hardest to make the numbers work. More recently, the Vacant Property Refurbishment Grant has directly targeted vacancy, offering up to €50,000 (and up to €70,000 for derelict properties) for qualifying works. 

These are meaningful carrots. They do not solve every problem, and uptake has been uneven. But they change the calculation for property owners who would otherwise sit on vacant buildings simply because action feels too costly or too risky. 

Alongside its incentives, the Republic has introduced a suite of measures designed to make vacancy and neglect financially costly, and, where owners fail to engage, to give the State the power to act directly. 

On the fiscal side, the Vacant Homes Tax imposes a charge equivalent to three times the Local Property Tax rate on homes left empty for more than a year. The Derelict Sites Levy applies a 3% annual charge on the market value of land or buildings certified as derelict. The Residential Zoned Land Tax, introduced in 2024, targets landowners sitting on serviced, zoned land without developing it. 

Critically, the Derelict Sites Levy does not simply impose an annual cost, it creates a running liability that must be paid on sale of the property and can be deducted from the vesting amount if the local authority ultimately decides to acquire. This mechanism shifts the financial dynamic significantly: the longer an owner delays, the less they ultimately receive if the State steps in. 

Beyond fiscal penalties, local authorities in the Republic have meaningful compulsory purchase powers. Under the Housing Act 1966 and the Derelict Sites Act 1990, councils can acquire vacant or derelict properties where engagement with owners has failed. The CPO Activation Programme, launched in 2023, gives councils a structured, proactive framework for identifying, engaging and where necessary acquiring such properties. Over 11,000 properties entered the programme across 2023 and 2024, demonstrating growing national use of these powers. 

Councils can access funding, including the Urban Regeneration and Development Fund, to finance CPOs, and the Housing Agency provides specialist guidance and support. The Government’s Housing Plan has further strengthened this framework, increasing emphasis on CPO use where owners fail to engage and including reform of the Derelict Sites Act to sharpen enforcement. 

The intent is clear: make inaction expensive, and make the State’s willingness to intervene credible. In a market where the passive strategy of simply holding a building and waiting has historically been more rewarding than investing in it, this combination of fiscal pressure and acquisition powers attempts to fundamentally reset the incentive structure. 

Northern Ireland’s approach has leaned more heavily on planning policy than on financial incentives. PPS23 – the policy that allows enabling development as a mechanism to secure the conservation of heritage assets is a genuinely useful tool, and one without a direct equivalent in the South. It has unlocked projects that would otherwise have stalled. 

But planning flexibility alone is not enough to bridge the viability gap. Without a comparable system of grants, tax incentives, direct funding, or credible acquisition powers, many buildings remain in a holding pattern: not quite derelict enough to trigger intervention, not quite viable enough for private investment to act. 

A Dilapidation Bill is currently being considered at Stormont, which would give councils stronger enforcement powers to address neglected buildings. Under the proposed legislation, councils would be able to issue notices, intervene directly, recover costs, and penalise non-compliance. On paper, this sounds like a necessary step. 

In practice, we think it raises a significant question: what happens when enforcement is introduced without viable pathways for reuse? 

A building owner facing a dilapidation notice needs not just a legal obligation to act, but a realistic route to action. In Northern Ireland right now, the obstacles to that action are multiplying. Planning delays remain a significant constraint. The wastewater infrastructure crisis, which has seen developers required to fund connection solutions that are properly the responsibility of a functioning public system, is adding cost and uncertainty to projects that would otherwise stack up. Up to 37,000 homes with planning in the pipeline cannot be built because of the absence of a drainage infrastructure solution. And the absence of political decisions on key funding streams continues to slow regeneration across the region. 

Introducing more enforcement pressure into this environment, without addressing the underlying viability problem, risks penalising building owners who want to act but cannot, while doing little to move the buildings that are genuinely beyond private means to rescue. Compare this with the Republic’s approach: enforcement is paired with financial support, acquisition powers are backed by funding, and the levy mechanism creates an escalating financial consequence for delay rather than a one-off notice. 

Perhaps the most significant and least discussed difference between the two systems is the question of who drives regeneration and how. 

In the Republic, local authorities play a proactive and empowered role in regeneration. They are supported by dedicated funding streams, they have tools to acquire vacant and derelict land, and they are expected to take an active rather than reactive stance. The CPO Activation Programme is a good example: it is not simply legislation that exists on paper, it has a structured national framework, specialist support from the Housing Agency, and access to finance. The result is not uniform across all councils, but the infrastructure for local leadership exists and is being used. 

In Northern Ireland, regeneration has historically been more centralised and more dependent on market-led activity. Local councils have been given greater planning powers in recent years, but the funding infrastructure, the capacity, and in some cases the political will to drive proactive regeneration from the ground up has lagged behind. 

No single tool is sufficient. The evidence from the Republic and from regeneration systems across Europe is consistent: successful town centre revival requires carrots and sticks working together, supported by strong local leadership, credible acquisition powers, and viable pathways to action. 

Northern Ireland has the planning lever. What it largely lacks is the financial infrastructure, the acquisition framework, and the funded local leadership to make reuse viable for the buildings and places that need it most. Adding enforcement pressure through the Dilapidation Bill is not wrong in principle but doing so without also addressing the viability gap, the infrastructure deficit, and the delivery leadership question is unlikely to deliver the regeneration outcomes everyone wants to see. 

The Republic has not solved this problem, vacant buildings persist in many Irish towns despite the policy toolkit. But the direction of travel is more coherent, the ambition is clearer, and critically, the tools are better matched to the scale of the challenge. There is something worth learning here. 

At Rejen, we work on both sides of the border. We see the same buildings, the same potential, and often the same frustrations in both jurisdictions. The tools available to our clients and to us as their architects differ significantly depending on which side of the border a project sits. That gap matters, and closing it should be a priority for policy makers in Northern Ireland. 

If you’re working on a building or place with potential on either side of the border, we’d welcome a conversation. 

Get in touch at studio@rejenarchitects.com or visit rejenarchitects.com 

You can also stay up-to-date with all things Rejen by following us on LinkedIn & Instagram or by subscribing to our newsletter (using the form at the foot of the page) to get early access to all of our insights articles and more!