Select Committee Town Planning Bill, 1929 debate -
Thursday, 28 Nov 1929

SECTION 9.

(2) Property shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected by reason of the making of any provisions inserted in a town planning scheme which prescribe the space about buildings or limit the number of buildings to be erected, or prescribe the height or character of buildings, and which the Minister, having regard to the nature and situation of the land affected by the provisions, considers reasonable for the purpose.

Mr. Johnson

I move amendment 39:—

Section 9, sub-section (2). To delete the sub-section and to substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—

" (2) Property shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected by reason of the making of any provisions inserted in a town planning scheme which require the removal or rendering sightly of unsightly and dilapidated structures, or define the areas on which buildings may be erected and those on which building is prohibited or postponed, or prescribe building lines or the space about buildings or limit the number of buildings to be erected, or prescribe the height, character or design of buildings, and which the Minister, having regard to the nature and situation of the land affected by the provisions, considers reasonable for the purpose."

The re-draft is necessary because of several small changes and one considerable change. First we seek to insert the words, " Property shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected by reason of the making of any provisions inserted in a town planning scheme which require the removal or rendering sightly of unsightly and dilapidated structures." That is part of what we have already agreed to. The mere removal of such structures is not a reason for paying compensation. " Or define the areas on which buildings may be erected and those on which building is prohibited or postponed or prescribe building lines or the space about buildings." Building lines is an important provision which has been found necessary by virtue of a fault in the British Act.

Mr. Farren

When leases fall in they must have the right to insist on account of the light. They do it in Dublin.

Sir E. Coey Bigger

They want it in rural districts, too.

Chairman

That is not to give a claim to compensation.

Mr. Farren

He gets compensation for the loss of space but not for the loss of line. It is giving the same power to urban authorities as the local authority in Dublin has.

Chairman

It is rather more than that. The new sub-section starts with these words: " Property shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected by reason of the making of any provisions inserted in a town planning scheme which require the removal or rendering sightly of unsightly and dilapidated structures."

Senator Farren

You can get compensation for the loss of space. If you insist on a building line being moved back compensation is given for the loss of space but not for injury.

Chairman

The case of Earl Street was brought to the courts.

Mr. Farren

The case of Sir Joseph Downes' buildings in Earl Street.

Chairman

I am sorry to say I was on the losing side.

Mr. Farren

I am glad you were. It is a necessary improvement.

Colonel Moore

This seems to me to take away from that—" property shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected." I do not see how he is going to get compensation even for loss of line.

Mr. Farren

You cannot take line from a man without compensation.

Colonel Moore

Does not this take it away from him?

Chairman

I do not think this is a case of taking line from him at all: " Property shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected by reason of the making of any provisions inserted in a town planning scheme which require the removal or rendering sightly of unsightly and dilapidated structures or define the areas on which buildings may be erected. . . ." That means the local authority is to be entitled under this scheme to say you are not to put a building there.

Mr. Farren

If the local authority widen the carriage way they are then taking space.

Mr. Barrington

That is in the next section.

Colonel Moore

Supposing a dilapidated building belongs to a certain person and the authorities say you are not to put a new building on it what happens then?

Chairman

There is no compensation under this sub-section.

Colonel Moore

Is not that strong?

Chairman

It is, but is it not necessary?

Mr. Barrington

Supposing a man has a shop with a depth of 30 feet. That may make a very valuable shop but if you take 15 feet there is only 15 feet left. Surely it would be unfair if he were deprived of any compensation.

Chairman

You only tell him you cannot build.

Mr. Farren

On the other hand, take Rathmines Road. A number of people have built shops on what were formerly the gardens of these houses—unsightly shops. If one of these gets into a state of dilapidation surely the local authority should be entitled to say you shall not erect another shop there, you must take that down. It destroys the whole amenities of the place and depreciates the value of the surrounding houses. You must protect the other people as well as the men who own that space.

Mr. Barrington

He has already acquired that right.

Mr. Farren

If you allow him to do wrong once there is no reason why you should continue to allow him to do wrong.

Mr. Barrington

In many cases that right exists for a hundred years or more. Should he be deprived of that for the benefit of the public without the public compensating him?

Mr. Farren

It was because of the erection of such buildings that the Town Planning Bill was introduced. You may have splendid new highways and people may come along and erect tin houses on them.

Mr. Barrington

My only point is that you have no right to deprive a man of property that he has already acquired and that he has probably held for a hundred years or perhaps more, in the public interests without the public compensating him for what you deprive him of.

Mr. Farren

I certainly could not oppose reasonable compensation where injury is inflicted on any person.

Mr. Barrington

Who is the person to find out what reasonable compensation is? By this section you deprive an arbitrator of going into that.

Mr. Johnson

No, you simply say property shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected because of these provisions.

Chairman

What items do you think are unfairly included in that?

Mr. Barrington

" Property shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected by reason of the making of any provisions." Say property or building lines.

Sir Edward Bigger

There is no objection up to the words " prohibited or postponed."

Mr. Johnson

Prohibition or postponement are two questions that are really affected by Senator Barrington's argument.

Mr. Barrington

The part I object to is " property shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected."

Chairman

What I am trying to get at is what you want excluded from the sub-section.

Mr. Barrington

I should think " or prescribing building lines." I do not think he should be compensated for dilapidated structures, but if you are depriving him of a portion of the line that he has at present by prescribing building lines I think it would be only fair to compensate him.

Colonel Moore

Also if they do not allow him to build at all on it.

Mr. Farren

The object sought there is to prevent overcrowding.

Chairman

Why should a man who is going to injure the public by overcrowding in any building space be compensated?

Colonel Moore

If a man has got a shop in a space that is undesirable, and it is decided that it should be cleared away, has he to go to that place without any compensation for the line on which the old house was?

Chairman

That would not be touched by this sub-section if the shop was unsightly or dilapidated.

Colonel Moore

Suppose it be unsightly or dilapidated still he has a right to the line.

Sir Edward Bigger

This does not take it away.

Colonel Moore

He shall not be deemed to be injuriously affected.

Chairman

This sub-section is a little stronger than the one in the British Act. I think the prescribing of building lines is not in the English Act.

Mr. Johnson

No.

Mr. Barrington

I should be inclined to move that " or prescribe building lines" be deleted.

Colonel Moore

I must still stick to this point " on which building is prohibited or postponed." I think very often, quite rightly, he ought to be compensated. The land is being taken from him and he gets nothing for it.

Mr. Farren

It is not being taken from him. He is merely prevented from doing a wrong thing. He cannot use the land for the erection of something which would be an eyesore to everybody.

Colonel Moore

The proposed new sub-section contains the following: " or define the areas on which buildings may be erected and those on which building is prohibited or postponed." There you may prevent a man from building any sort of a house.

Mr. Johnson

It would seem to me from the discussion that what is preponderating in the minds of the Committee is the following: " and those on which building is prohibited or postponed, or prescribed building lines."

Mr. Barrington

It would be well to take out all the words after " erected " down to " lines." I will move that.

Question put and agreed to.

Chairman

The proposal now before the Committee is to insert the new sub-section with those words deleted.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.