Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Oct 1938

Vol. 73 No. 1

Town and Regional Planning (Amendment) Bill, 1938—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill is introduced to make certain amendments to the Town and Regional Planning Act, 1934. Its main purpose is to import into the general framework of the law governing the making of planning schemes some of the flexibility which experience has shown is desirable for the planning of a district. By adopting the machinery of the Town and Regional Planning Act, 1934, a planning authority may make a scheme that will secure the orderly and progressive development of their area. A planning scheme should make provision for the control of development that is not only imminent but also likely to occur in future years. For this purpose it was necessary to confer upon planning authorities wide powers over private property in their areas, subject to necessary safeguards. The safeguards imposed by the Act of 1934 and the regulations made thereunder are contained in an elaborate procedure to be followed by the planning authority in the making of a planning scheme including the issue of public notices at various stages of the preparation of the scheme, consultations with owners of property and other persons; the approval of the Minister to the planning scheme when made, and its subsequent submission to each House of the Oireachtas. There is also appeal to the High Court on matters of law. All these safeguards are being preserved in this Bill.

A planning scheme when approved and brought into operation can only be revoked in whole or in part, or amended, or varied, by means of a subsequent planning scheme. The provisions of a scheme are just as rigid and binding as the provisions of an Act of the Oireachtas. It follows, therefore, that before a scheme is made the future development of the area to be planned must be carefully surveyed from the social, physical and economic aspects. It is doubtful if every form of development to be permitted after a scheme has come into operation can be envisaged during the preparation of the scheme so as to enable appropriate provision to be made therefor. My Department has been engaged for a considerable time in working out the details of model provisions for insertion in planning schemes for the guidance of planning authorities, and upon full consideration of the powers necessary to secure effective control of development, I came to the conclusion that it was desirable to adopt a more flexible procedure whereby, without departing from the principle that a planning scheme should determine the main lines for the orderly and progressive development of an area, it would be possible to entrust to the responsible authority the control of the internal development of a particular site or sites within the planned area. In this way the work of planning authorities would be facilitated considerably and the preparation of schemes expedited.

The altered procedure is concerned mainly with the control of development for residential purposes and the regulation of density of dwellings. A planning scheme could include appropriate provisions dealing with the improvement of existing roads or the construction of new main routes, but it would be difficult to prescribe conditions in regard to roads of lesser importance or lay down the future road system for particular portions of the area planned on which development is to be permitted, or possibly postponed for a specified period. The new procedure is set out in Part III of the Bill. It is proposed that a planning scheme may contain a provision declaring in relation to any specified land in the area to which the scheme relates that such land shall not be developed wholly or mainly by the erection of dwelling houses or other residential buildings thereon, unless and until a road plan in relation to such land is in force and the development is undertaken in accordance with such plan.

The procedure to be adopted will ensure that there is full consultation between the owner of the land and the responsible authority as to the nature of the development. On the submission, by the developing owner, of the road plan to the responsible authority, the particular area affected can be examined in detail and its development planned with due regard to the amenities and convenience of neighbouring lands.

The road plan may authorise the appropriate local authority to construct or improve roads on the land, and payment by the developing owner to the local authority of all or part of the cost of the construction or improvement. The plan may also provide for payment by the developing owner to the local authority of all or part of the cost of any construction or improvement of roads carried out between the coming into operation of the planning scheme and the coming into force of the road plan which has facilitated or rendered less costly the development of the land to which the road plan relates. There is also provision for the preparation and submission of amending road plans. The decision of the responsible authority on a road plan will be subject to appeal to the Minister.

In the areas where development is subject to a road plan being in force, the planning scheme will contain the provisions regulating the density of buildings. It has been found desirable to have more extended powers for determining density than are conferred by Part II of the Second Schedule to the Act of 1934. The power of limiting the number of houses to the acre is one of the most important powers that a planning scheme confers. It will secure in a planned area that there is no recurrence of the conditions which are associated with slum dwellings. It will also tend to reinforce the efforts that are being made throughout the country to raise the standard of public health. Rates of mortality, especially infantile mortality, are highest in overcrowded areas. Local bodies should, therefore, avail of the powers that town planning confers to ensure that our people may enjoy proper sanitary surroundings both in home and workshop.

The model provisions that were framed for the consideration of planning authorities in the making of planning schemes contemplate that the density of buildings, other than dwelling houses, should only be controlled by prescribing a minimum area for the curtilage of each building. It is thought that this method should suffice. In the case of dwelling houses a greater power of regulation is desirable, and in addition to a minimum curtilage for each dwelling the density is also to be controlled by prescribing maximum average densities over units of land. It was not clear that this power in regard to land units was fully given by the Act of 1934 and Section 8 of the Bill is intended to remedy the position.

A further practical difficulty is concerned with the details of development occurring after a scheme comes into operation. An example will serve to illustrate the position. Suppose that in the area planned there is undeveloped land of 50 to 100 acres which the planning authority considered would be suitable in the future for general residential development, and provision was made accordingly in the planning scheme prohibiting the erection on the lands of any buildings except dwelling houses. After the lapse of some time and before the development of the lands is complete, it is found that a shopping centre would be an advantage, or that the erection of a school would be desirable. When an area is being planned the allocation of a site or sites for residential purposes only may be decided upon; the necessity for making wider provisions not being apparent at the time. At a later period, after the scheme comes into operation, a change in conditions may warrant a modification of such a provision in a scheme. If the modification would not conflict with the main features of the scheme, a departure from the particular provision should be permitted under proper safeguards, without carrying out the procedure which an amending planning scheme would entail. It is, therefore, proposed in Section 9 of the Bill to confer upon the responsible authority a power of granting exemption from particular provisions in a planning scheme where there is specific provision included in the scheme for the adoption of that course.

The other sections of the Bill deal with certain amendments of the Act of 1934 which its operation has shown to be desirable. Under Section 28 of the Act of 1934 a planning authority can authorise a person to enter on lands within their district for the purpose of making surveys and investigations before deciding whether a resolution for the making of a planning scheme should be adopted. It is proposed in Section 4 of the Bill to give an urban planning authority powers of entry on lands for the purpose of examining an area adjoining their district before deciding whether the area should be planned as a contiguous area.

Section 26 of the Act of 1934 provides that a planning authority must give not less than one month's notice of the intention to pass a resolution deciding to make a planning scheme to every member of such authority. Such a resolution when passed by a majority of the planning authority has important legal effects. All development within the area to be planned comes under control, and if any new building is begun without the permission of the planning authority, or if the continuance of any building is prohibited by the planning authority such building (if it contravenes the planning scheme when made) can be removed without compensation. It is possible that where one month's notice was duly given to every member of a planning authority a new member may be co-opted on the council between the giving of the notice and the passing of the resolution, and such new member may be present at the meeting at which the resolution is passed. The effect would be to invalidate the resolution and everything done in pursuance of the resolution.

An appeal lies to the High Court on the making of a scheme for the annulment thereof or any specified portion, and if the High Court is of opinion that the whole or substantially the whole of the scheme is not authorised or is not made in accordance with the Act, the court may annul the scheme. To prevent any uncertainty in regard to the validity of a resolution passed by a planning authority deciding to make a planning scheme, it is proposed by Sections 5 and 6 of the Bill—

(a) to provide retrospectively that it will be sufficient for notice to be given of such a resolution to all the members of the planning authority at the time when the notice is given and not at the time the resolution is passed;

(b) to require the planning authority, as soon as may be after the passing of the Bill and, in future cases, as soon as may be after the passing of the resolution, to publish a statutory notice of the passing of the resolution;

(c) to allow persons who own land in the area to apply to the High Court for the annulment of the resolution;

(d) to provide that where a resolution is not annulled on an application brought to the High Court that the resolution shall be deemed to have been validly passed.

Where a planning authority passes a resolution deciding to make a planning scheme for a named area and later finds that the area might be extended with advantage, the present position is that the planning authority must pass a new resolution for the added area and must make two planning schemes—one for the original area and one for the added area. This will prove inconvenient, especially where a contiguous area is added to a planning district after a planning resolution has been passed for that district. It is proposed in Section 7 of the Bill to empower a planning authority, which has passed two or more resolutions relating to separate but adjoining areas, to make one planning scheme for the whole area. The relevant date in any part of the whole area will depend on the resolution relating to that part.

It is proposed by Section 11 of the Bill to give the Minister power to dispense with the giving of any notice or the publication of any advertisement where he is satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for such dispensation. A similar provision exists in the housing code.

The present is a fitting occasion for a short review of what is being done in regard to planning throughout the country. In the large majority of areas, very little attention has been given either to the provisions of the Act of 1934 or the model clauses prepared by the Department. The areas, however, in which planning schemes are under consideration are the areas in which the largest development is taking place. They contain about one-third of the total population of the country.

These areas comprise the County Boroughs of Dublin and Limerick, the Boroughs of Dun Laoghaire, Galway, Clonmel, Drogheda, Sligo, Wexford, and six urban districts. As regards the county health districts, Dublin and Meath County Councils are the only bodies that are preparing schemes. The area selected for planning in Meath County is the seaward part of their county lying between Dublin County and the Borough of Drogheda. The Corporation of Cork have recently advertised for expert technical assistance in the formulation of a comprehensive scheme of development of the city, and the preparation of a scheme for the extension of the borough boundary with a plan for the future development of the area. Amongst the county boroughs, Waterford is the only one that has not so far taken any action.

The preparation of a planning scheme is a difficult task. A planning authority which desires to plan its area fully should be guided by expert advice. The model clauses prepared by my Department indicate the extent of the problems that are likely to be met with in preparing a planning scheme and the manner in which the development of an area may be controlled in the public interest.

In circulating the model clauses to local authorities, I expressed the hope that they would be helpful in the preparation of schemes and lead to a better understanding of the general powers which a planning scheme confers in securing the orderly and progressive development of an area in the best interests of the community and of preserving, improving and extending its amenities. I would like again to stress the importance of planning as a means of controlling sporadic development which is so injurious to the natural beauty of the countryside. There is also that form of development along main roads which is generally referred to as "ribbon development." The main objections to this form of development are traffic dangers, expense in providing the essential sanitary services, and interference with the development of adjoining lands. Apart from the danger to children and pedestrian traffic generally the carrying out of road widenings may be rendered difficult and costly. The boards of health who are concerned with the provision of labourers' cottages must give special attention to this aspect of planning. If it is necessary near the smaller towns to place cottages in close proximity to main thoroughfares, they should be grouped on sites conveniently placed in relation to such roads and with access thereto properly regulated.

Mr. Cosgrave

Would the Minister say something about Section 12? When he was speaking, he stopped at Section 11 and did not say anything about Section 12.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Section 12 gives power to appeal to the Minister on decisions of the local authority.

Mr. Cosgrave

It gives more power than that. I suggest that the Minister is constituting himself a court in the case.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It gives the Minister power to impose costs.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is not a Ministerial duty.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Well, there are precedents for it.

Mr. Cosgrave

In a Minister?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes.

Mr. Cosgrave

Can the Minister mention a precedent?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I cannot think, at the moment, of any precedent, but I understand that there are precedents.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think it is the first time that I ever heard of it.

Mr. Benson

First of all, I should like to welcome this Bill as being some effort to improve on the Town and Regional Planning Act, but I do not want the Minister to think, from that, that I wish to criticise the Principal Act. I think it is an admirable Act, and that, in many ways, it is in advance of similar legislation which is in force in Great Britain. There is no doubt about it, however, that in the working out of the Act it has been found that there are certain things which are capable of improvement. This amending Bill sets out to improve some of them, but there are others which, I think, the Minister might equally have included in this amending Bill.

In his concluding remarks he referred to the question of ribbon development, which I suppose is one of the things to which any thinking man objects more than anything else. There is one way in which the inducement towards ribbon development could have been at least reduced, and to my mind the principle—which I want to particularise afterwards—is admitted to a certain extent in Section 16. Section 16 provides that where an existing road is improved by the local authority the owner of the land should pay for that improvement. I think this should be extended not only to roads that have been improved but to all roads. Take the case of a main road in which the services possibly already exist, there is held out at the present moment an inducement to the builder to come along and "ribbon" on it, because he has the services and he can build his houses comparatively cheaply. If he goes into the hinterland, and does what we would all like him to do—to have perhaps one or two outlets from an estate to the main road —he then has to make his road and he has to pay for his services. Therefore, there is at the present moment a considerable inducement to the builder to "ribbon." If this principle in Section 16, which refers to improved roads, were extended to apply to all roads, then there would be no inducement, because the local authority would expect the man who wishes to build along the main road to pay as much for the services which are in that road as the man who develops the background and has to pay for the services to be installed. I think this is an important question, and I hope the Minister will give the matter consideration. I hope I have made the actual position clear to him.

I find a difficulty in completely following Section 10, sub-section (1), because it says:

A planning scheme may contain provisions empowering the responsible authority to determine the frontage line of buildings and other structures adjoining any road in the area to which such planning scheme relates which is constructed or improved after the making of such planning scheme and for which a frontage line is not determined by such planning scheme.

I am quite prepared to agree with the Minister that the town planners are very wonderful people, but I think it is asking too much of them to require them to say before the roads exist where they are going to be, and that is what I read into that sub-section. It relates to any road which is constructed or improved after the making of such planning scheme. The position of that road apparently has to be determined in the actual plan, although the road may not be developed for years afterwards. There is also another aspect which I think the Minister might have included, and that is the question of what are known as play streets. I do not know what legislation it is that empowers it to be done, but in England—in certain municipalities anyway—there is a provision by which the police, I think in that case, can close certain streets to traffic during specified hours. Those streets are then available for children, and they can play there without having to dodge vehicles, horses or motor vans. Admittedly, the proper procedure is to provide proper playgrounds. But proper playgrounds cost money, and in a congested area it is extremely difficult to find the necessary space to provide them. In Part I of the Second Schedule to the Principal Act there is provision for the closing of or diverting of traffic from existing roads and public and private rights of way, but I take it that that means a permanent closing. I do not know whether it can be stretched to apply to a temporary closing such as I have suggested, but possibly the Minister might think it worth while to clear the matter up by making provision in the amending Bill for the local authority to have power to close certain streets during specified hours for the purpose of being used as play streets.

With the Minister, I regret the lack of interest which has been shown by local authorities generally in this country in the putting into force of this very admirable Act. There are, I think, great benefits to be obtained from it, and it is much to be regretted that more use has not been made of it. I should like to suggest to the Minister that it would be worth his while to have his Department take an average town—not too big, because it would be too big a job, but not too small either—and produce a town plan for that town, so that it can be used for the authorities who are not so keen on this, in order to encourage them by letting them see what improvements can be effected and what benefits can be obtained from it. I think that is a point which the Minister might at least consider. In Dublin, it is now nearly three years since the original resolution was passed by which we adopted the Act. I know there are many people who say that we have done nothing, but probably the people who say that do not conceive what a town plan means, and the information that is required before such a plan can be produced. We have had consultants appointed. They are working at the moment, and have been for some time now. It is hoped that a sketch development plan for Dublin will be produced early next year. I do not imagine that this will be as revolutionary a document as the Bressey Report was in London, but it is possible that the consultants may have some very interesting development to suggest. We have, of course, been fortunate in Dublin in that the housing schemes have all been produced by qualified town planners.

With regard to Part III, which, of course, is a completely new aspect of the matter, I feel that it should be made to apply from the passing of this Bill and not wait until the plan is made. It would be an advantage to the local authority to let them have immediately the control which this part of the Bill gives to them—those who have already passed the resolution —rather than having to wait until the plan is made, because here in Dublin, at any rate, it is going to be at least another four years before the actual plan itself is made. I think also that this part might give power to the local authority to impose a road plan in certain cases where the owner did not produce one of his own. There is also another point to which I should like to refer—of course it will be dealt with later on the Committee Stage—and that is in regard to the definition of the word "development." It defines the word, and then right through the rest of the part it never uses the word "development" by itself. That probably will be better dealt with on the Committee Stage.

There is another point, too, which I think might have been included in that, and that is that the power of interim control which is given by the Principal Act should be extended to cover objects affixed to structures. That would cover advertisement hoardings and advertisements fixed to buildings. We have in the operation of control up to now come across cases where there were advertisements which it was felt did not enhance the beauty of the city. There are some people who hold that no advertisement can possibly enhance the beauty of anything. That is possibly going a little too far. At present we have control over the structure, but we have no control over an object affixed to the structure. For instance, a man may come along and put advertisements up on a railway bridge, and there is no power to have them removed under interim control. There will be, I admit, when the plan itself is passed, but not under interim control. In the meantime, the whole appearance of the bridge may have been ruined.

Section 57 of the Principal Act deals with the control of constructive and other work. At the present time there are various alterations made to structures without seeking permission, and the corporation has no power to prevent that. It may be that some of the things which are done are not in accordance with what would be desirable. These things, of course, do not come under the bye-laws. If they come under the building bye-laws they can be controlled. I suggest that an amendment might be included in this section making it necessary to secure permission to make alterations to any structure before such alteration is carried out.

Under the next section of the Principal Act, Section 58, where the planning authority has made a special prohibition in relation to any work, the planning authority may prevent the thing being done before the actual plan comes into force, if my reading of it is right. The section reads:

When a planning authority has passed a resolution for the making of a planning scheme, and has, before such planning scheme comes into operation, made a special prohibition in relation to any work, such planning authority may, if they are of opinion that the prejudicial effect of proceeding with or doing the work to which such special prohibition relates, would be of such nature as to be incapable of being remedied after the coming into operation of such planning scheme, declare, at any time before such planning scheme comes into operation, that any contravention of such special prohibition before such coming into operation shall be unlawful.

There are very few things which cannot be remedied after the coming into operation of the scheme, and the only one which occurs to me at the moment is: if an historic building were pulled down, a planning scheme obviously could not make it be put up again. At the same time, if a structure, whatever it may be, has been built and possibly has been in existence for three or four years, there would be very few local authorities who will say that it must be pulled down after four years when the plan comes into operation. That is what Section 58 allows them to do. If, instead of that, some provision was made for the work to be stopped, and for a penalty to be imposed rather than allow the job to proceed and then have it destroyed, I think it would be an improvement.

Section 16 (2) (b) of the Bill provides "a road plan which provides for the construction of a new road may regulate the situation and nature of such road." It is suggested that the sub-section might also include the extent to which such a plan must be carried out by a certain time. There are cases where you have a loop road possibly affecting two different builders and you want perhaps to make both of them work from the main road, or only one from the main road and leave only one outlet until the full site is developed. At present there is no power to specify the order in which the work has to be done. It is entirely in the hands of the developer. If the road is passed, one man possibly can hold up development of another piece of ground. Because he is not prepared to make a certain section of the road, he will hold it up until his own houses are built and then complete the job or allow the other man to develop. Some power might be included in that section to allow the local authority to specify the order in which the work is to be done. These are all the comments I have to make on the Bill at this stage. I think it is a desirable measure, and I am only sorry that the Minister has not seen fit to expand it to include some of the points I mentioned. Whether he is prepared to consider including any of them at a later stage, I do not know.

Mr. Dockrell

I should like to make a couple of points really along the lines which Deputy Benson has already outlined. I take it that this Bill more or less deals with towns in one section and the wider aspect of houses in the outer area. The Minister has taken power in connection with the frontage line of structures on new or improved roads. I take it that that is only one aspect of an improvement that may be desirable. Of course, we would all like to see large schemes of improvements carried out straight away, but owing to financial difficulties and other things the usual procedure is to carry out a desirable improvement in the city over a series of years. The Minister can say how far there is any substantial truth in this, but most local authorities, when you reproach them with possibly not doing some aspect of a very desirable improvement, will say that they are up against difficulties; that if they acquire a house which is in a bad state of repair and put a tenant into it, the tenant obtains rights against the local authority and that really the last stage is worse than the first. It seems to me that the local authorities ought to have power to go on with plans piecemeal where they are not prepared to go on with them all at the one time.

Deputy Benson has referred to ribbon building. Everybody deplores that and yet nobody seems to be prepared to tackle the question as to why it takes place. Houses are supposed to be erected around roads but they must be roads with sewers, water, gas and probably electric light. I do not know whether the Minister has made up his mind or not that those things should be tackled as a whole, but to start to develop a site—to make a road and forget about the sewers, the gas, and the electric light—would be to make a farce of this Bill. I should like the Minister to say how far that aspect of the question has been considered. As has been previously stated, in the case of a main road where all the amenities are present, there is nothing to do but put down the house. But the development of the hinterland requires certain services and it should be developed in an ordered way. There is no use in talking about roads and forgetting about the other necessities. Apart from the main thoroughfares, how many places could the Minister find where there are desirable sites with all the amenities laid on? I think that they are very few and far between —except sites which are at present in active development by either the Corporation or a builder.

Mr. Brasier

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a difficulty in planning which is experienced by local authorities—that is to say building on what we might describe as culs de sac. Local authorities are practically debarred from taking over that type of road. I happen to come from an area in which there are a considerable number of seaside resorts. These resorts are now being developed but, owing to the irregularity of the building which is taking place, it is impossible to lay down water or sewerage schemes and some sort of control of this class of building is absolutely necessary. For some reason or other, the Local Government Department seems to be reluctant to give powers to the local authority to control building of this type. I should like if the Minister would say whether in the future culs de sac can be taken over and developed by the local authority. These are some of the difficulties we experience in regard to building development.

Mr. Brennan

This is primarily a Bill for towns and cities. The Minister referred to the destruction of the natural beauty of the country and, to that extent, rural areas ought to get consideration and local authorities ought to get powers which, I am sorry to say, are not contained in this Bill. Possibly, the Minister will agree to include those powers in the Bill. I have in mind the presence of unsightly rubbish heaps in various towns and villages. These unsightly deposits are situate on private property or on property the ownership of which is not known. Certain public squares in villages and small towns do not appear to have any owners and we have all kinds of rubbish deposited in these places. The local authorities do not know where they stand in regard to these places. If we are going to beautify public places, that is one of the things which should be done first. There is no use in having town planning for cities or towns or seaside resorts if our public highways are used for deposits of unsightly rubbish. Local authorities are given certain road powers under this Bill. If they were given the right to assert their authority over property, no matter whose it is, and have these rubbish heaps cleared away, a very good thing would be done.

As pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister did not tell us the meaning of Section 12. It seems to me to be a new departure. It is not a new departure for the Minister to fix compensation but this does not refer to compensation. The Minister reserves to himself the right to decide that a certain sum of money should be paid by a certain local authority to another and that sum is to be recoverable, in the ordinary way, once it is fixed by the Minister. There is no machinery for the taking of evidence and, so far as I know, there is no precedent for the giving of judicial power of that sort to a Department. When the Bill comes back from Committee, I hope we shall find that that provision has been eliminated or that the wording has been altered. I would like again to refer to the Minister the points I have made with regard to the removal of rubbish heaps all over the country and I would ask him to say what authority he proposes to give to the local authorities for their removal.

Mr. Kennedy

Before the Minister replies, I would like to know if this Bill applies to rural villages and if such matters as the situation of abattoirs, slaughter-houses, the widening of roads and such things would be covered by this Bill. In cases of rebuilding, after the demolition of sites, perhaps the Minister would say how the provisions of the Bill will apply and what is the position generally with regard to making the roads wider. I understand that at present there are such powers in existence but they are not being exercised. In country villages I have seen houses demolished and in other places I have seen new houses being erected at corners which are a danger to the travelling public. I have been told that if certain things were done and certain processes of law were exercised that such things as these new buildings could be prevented. However, the matter is not very clear in the public mind. I think it would be well to have full powers to widen streets and roads and make it possible to remove such unsightly buildings as abattoirs on the side of the public road.

Mr. Mullen

I would like briefly to refer to one matter in connection with this Bill now before us. So far no reference has been made to the matter I want to raise, and that is in connection with the question of rights of way at seaside resorts. For some years past the habit has become fairly general and, it seems to be a growing habit on the part of certain people, who have the influence, the money and in some cases the effrontery, to come in and grab certain portions of land adjoining the foreshore and in this way to deprive the ordinary citizens of access to the sea in certain parts of the country. I am aware that this has happened in the neighbourhood of bathing centres and other beauty places. In view of the tourist development which is now taking place in this country it would be very advisable and very much in the interest of the country and of the tourist industry in general if local authorities would be given definite rights so as to enable them to see to the preservation of these public amenities and rights of way. I have been informed and I believe that at present the law in relation to these rights of way is notoriously intricate and very difficult of interpretation. That state of affairs lent itself to exploitation by persons who desired to exploit these rights of way. Now that there is an opportunity of clearing these matters up and of taking control of these rights in the interest of the public, I hope that opportunity will not be lost.

General Mulcahy

Four years after the passing of the original town-planning Act we would hope, in facing new legislation, that we would be in a position to deal with this whole matter. Undoubtedly that will be found to be the case. In the meantime, however, there is danger that between the chinks in the two pieces of legislation unsightly remnants will be found here and there arising out of the new development. It is with a view to seeing whether this amending Bill will cover that matter or whether it will be necessary to bring in additional legislation that I am raising this question now. Deputy Benson implied that in Dublin we were rather happy in the fact that housing schemes were produced by people who were fully qualified in the matter of town planning. However, I have here a letter from the city architect's office dated 16th June, 1938, to the effect that a certain building scheme in Clontarf complied with the building by-laws and therefore there was no power to refuse sanction, and it was further added that town planning power would be strained if applied to boundaries between two building schemes. I take it that the Minister does not accept that as a theory. There was a nice residential cul-de-sac in Clontarf which was shut off from the public road by trees and a nice green hedge. On an estate on the far side of this, another housing scheme was being developed. It appears that the plans of the building scheme on the other estate complied with the building laws of the Dublin Corporation. Everything went on all right until last Easter when the people who had built on the Dunluce Road found that the nice green hedge and the trees at the rere of their houses had disappeared. Instead of having nice ornamental trees and hedges at the back of their houses they found that the builder on the adjacent estate had destroyed the natural boundary of trees and hedges and substituted a four strand wire fence which gave an uninterrupted view from the public road in front of their houses and showed a view of the back gardens with the daily line of laundry et cetera. They naturally expected that nothing like that would occur four years after the Town Planning Act had been passed—an Act controlling building schemes. It should be within the power of people controlling the supervising and passing of housing schemes to deal with a matter of that kind. The position now is that such a state of affairs exists as I have indicated. The amenities of these people have been destroyed. The city architect's office appears to be in full sympathy with the people in this matter, but it appears they are of opinion that there is no remedy.

When the city manager and the city authorities had the matter brought before them on the 27th July, the people interested were advised that the law agent would be asked to advise in the matter as to the powers of the corporation to compel the builder to build a wall hiding the objectionable view. Since the 27th July there has been complete silence on the whole question as to what authority there is to prevent a person in the City of Dublin in the case of a new housing scheme passed by the Corporation, leaving his work in such a way that the whole amenities of property recently built may be utterly destroyed. Personally, I refrained from referring the matter to the Department of Local Government, because I felt that something could be done through the corporation officials to have the matter satisfactorily settled. I still hope that it may be possible, through the intervention of the Dublin Corporation, to get the matter settled. In view of the fact that these matters are now occupying the attention of the Minister's office, I would like to take this opportunity of passing the papers to the Minister or his officials so that this complaint could be looked into in connection with the Town Planning Bill, and so that they would have an opportunity of seeing whether cases of this kind cannot be covered by the town planning legislation we have, or by the powers provided in this Bill, or whether there is not a case for some definite ad hoc legislation of a kind which would deal with questions like this. It is certainly a pity when we have had so much talk about town planning, and when so much general acceptance was given to this legislation in the House and in the Press generally, and when so much money has been spent in assisting in the building of houses, that in an important residential part of the City of Dublin it is possible to have a thing like I have mentioned happen. The Corporation of Dublin have so far failed to determine their powers in this matter. The natural boundary was removed last Easter, and the people in Dunluce Road have since been in correspondence with the various parties concerned to have the matter remedied. As I say, I take the opportunity of passing the papers to the Minister so that he and his officials can have a look at them. I should like also to support the case made by Deputy Brennan and Deputy Kennedy that, apart from planning altogether, there does seem to be a necessity for putting legislative powers into the hands of local bodies to prevent eyesores and nuisances being erected in parts of the country where clearly it would not be necessary to create a plan.

Mr. Cogan

I should like to call the attention of the Minister to the need for intelligent planning in respect of small towns and villages. In many of our small towns and villages, housing schemes are in the course of development and the effect of these schemes has been to demolish large sections of these towns and villages and, in some cases, to transplant the population of the streets to districts far removed from the towns and villages. That has the effect of creating eyesores in these small towns. It gives them the appearance of having been visited by a badly directed air raid, and it also inflicts a certain amount of injustice on traders in these small towns who have got to depend on the people at present residing in these towns for their custom. These traders will suffer a very grave loss if the population, or a large section of the population, are removed to a considerable distance. I think town planning in these small towns and villages should be directed so as to ensure that where houses are demolished they should be replaced as far as possible by other buildings. The sites should not be left derelict and the business people should not be deprived of customers upon whom they have got to depend for their existence. Moreover, such a course would lead to an improvement in the appearance of these towns whereas, under the present housing arrangements, you have these towns disfigured to a great extent owing to the demolition of condemned buildings.

Mr. Costello

There are one or two points to which I want to direct the attention of the Minister. They are, perhaps, points that would arise more appropriately on the Committee Stage, and, consequently, I do not want to take up too much time in discussing them. The general scheme of the Principal Act, which this Bill is designed to amend, provides, I think, that before the powers that are granted to local authorities are exercised, there should be in existence a scheme, and if such a scheme is in existence that property owners or people who are developing property should have an opportunity of going into that scheme, with a view to seeing whether their plans in any way run counter to the planning scheme. I want to know if that is the principle under which the Act is operated. I shall develop the point a little further in a moment.

The second question is this: Under the Town Planning Act, as it stands at present, provision is made for compensating owners of property whose rights have been interfered with by local authorities in the exercise of their powers under the Town Planning Act. When, however, property owners apply, certainly in the City of Dublin, to the corporation, as the town planning authority, for the assessment of compensation to which they are admittedly entitled in consequence of the alleged exercise of these powers by the Dublin Corporation, they are told that it is not possible to have any compensation assessed, or even to have arbitration held with a view to having evidence taken and compensation assessed, until the town planning scheme is in operation, perhaps years and years hence. In one case of which I know, that was the answer given. Subsequently High Court proceedings had to be taken but the matter was compromised eventually. I want to know if the Minister has considered that defect, if it is a defect, in the Act? That is the contention of the Dublin Corporation, that even where a property owner is admittedly entitled to compensation for interference with his buildings or property, in pursuance of the alleged exercise of powers under the Act, then that compensation is not payable for years ahead, that the assessment of compensation cannot be made, or that arbitration proceedings cannot be held for years. If that is the position under the Act—and it is alleged to be the position by the legal advisers of the corporation—that is a matter that should be looked into and should be amended if necessary. I propose to put down an amendment if the Minister does not see his way to amend the Act in that respect, to secure that the compensation shall be assessed immediately.

The other point upon which I want guidance from the Minister has reference to the question I put already: Is it the general scheme of the Act that the powers of the Act are not exercisable until a town planning scheme has been prepared and put into operation? Property owners who are developing their property in the city do not quite know what to do. If there was a scheme in existence, they would know whether or not their plans for building cut across the planning scheme of the City of Dublin. In one case, actually where buildings were erected, it came to my personal knowledge that the Dublin Corporation served notice on the person building the houses that they intended to run a road through portion of the property. As a result of that, he had to remove a garage which he had erected. He had entered into an agreement with the purchaser of the house and garage and as a result of the removal of the garage he got into very considerable trouble, as the purchaser repudiated the transaction on account of the removal of the garage. At the end of all that, when he had made his plans in accordance with the requirements of the Dublin Corporation, after the lapse of some months he was told by the corporation: "We are not going on with our scheme; you can do anything you like now; we are not going ahead with this road." While I admit that local authorities should have ample powers in that respect, it is most essential that the rights of local authorities in this respect should be very definite and specific. The Town Planning Act is a very difficult Act to construe. It is extremely difficult to ascertain what the powers of local authorities are under the Act. So far they have not been clarified by the amending Bill, and I should like some guidance from the Minister as to what is intended under the Principal Act and this Bill in reference to powers before the town planning scheme comes into existence, and, secondly, in reference to this question of compensation.

Mr. T. Linehan

There are just a few points to which I should like to direct the Minister's attention. Reference has been made to unsightly new buildings at seaside places and beauty spots. I think an evil that requires equally urgent attention is the number of derelict, unoccupied, old buildings that are dotted all over the country in various towns and villages. There are a number of towns and villages in which these buildings have been unoccupied for years. They are dreadful eyesores as far as the appearance of the town is concerned and, apart from the value of the site, they are absolutely valueless to anybody. I do not think that you could pick a town in the South of Ireland in which there is not some derelict eyesore of that nature. I believe that if powers are not given in the Regional Town Planning Act some steps should be taken to compel local authorities to deal with the position and to see that these unsightly eyesores are removed from the public view. They are absolutely of no utility and, as far as one can see, they are of no value to anybody.

Another point to which I should like to direct the Minister's attention is that in small towns and villages it is noticeable that when the town begins to develop and building starts it invariably develops in the direction of the population trend. I think you will find that in the South and West when towns begin to develop they generally go in the one direction— usually towards Dublin, as a matter of fact. When that happens you get a string of buildings all along the main road in the direction in which the development is taking place. You ultimately have in a medium-sized town or village a string of big and small garages in a straight row. You have this ribbon building on the main roads on which there is the general flow of traffic. I think that in non-urbanised areas the local authority should have power to deal with that kind of thing. It is not an improvement to a town to have that type of building going on. It is not on those lines that modern building development should go—one straight line out along a particular road. I would ask the Minister to look into the two points I have raised. I should be glad to know from him if these points are covered in the Bill, and if the public health authorities in rural areas have power to deal with them. If they have not that power already in the existing legislation, I think the Minister should take the power now and give it to them.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am glad that so many Deputies have taken an interest in this amending Bill and displayed an interest in the question of town planning in general. As Deputy Costello has said, it is a new subject and a very intricate matter. The law dealing with it is, I am afraid, little known due largely to the fact that not many places have availed of the existing powers. In fact, too few local authorities have put the present Act into operation up to the present. I hope that the discussion that we have had here to-day will help to direct the attention of the public in general, as well as local authorities and their officials, to the Town Planning Act, and that it will tend to make its possible benefits better known. I trust it will have the effect of getting the matter more widely discussed so that the benefits that can arise to the community from putting the Act into operation may become better known. As a result of the passing of this Bill, and of amendments to it, we hope to put at the disposal of local authorities and the community in general additional powers for their benefit and welfare.

A number of the questions raised on the Second Reading of the Bill can best be left over, I think, for the Committee Stage. Deputy Benson raised some matters of interest. He had some questions to ask about Sections 10 and 16. Some of the matters that he referred to have been the subject of discussion between officials of my Department and officials of the Dublin Corporation. Some of the matters that the Deputy referred to will arise for further discussion on amendments which I propose to introduce on the Committee Stage. If there are any other matters that Deputy Benson, or any other Deputy thinks are worthy of consideration, by way of amendment to the Bill, I should be very happy to have them discussed. I shall be pleased to see Deputies interesting themselves in this, and giving us all the help they can to try and improve the Bill—to try and make it a more useful instrument for local authorities and the community in general. We shall do our best to try and utilise the suggestions which Deputies make, by way of amendment or otherwise, to improve the Bill.

I doubt if there is any power at present to do what Deputy Benson suggested in the way of closing streets at certain hours, and I doubt if any amendment of the kind could be introduced into a Town Planning Bill. I will look into the matter and see if it would be possible to do by way of amendment what the Deputy has suggested, but I hardly think it would come within the scope of a Bill of this character.

Deputy Costello at the end of his speech referred to the question of the planning of small towns. A number of other Deputies also dealt with this. Deputy Costello wanted to know whether a planning scheme must be in existence before a local authority can exercise its powers with regard to planning schemes or building operations. I would point out that once a local authority passes a resolution to make a scheme it has, following that, certain well-defined powers. These are set out pretty fully in the Act. In addition, I should say that about a year ago we sent out not only to every local authority but to everybody whom we thought would be interested, or who had displayed a special interest, in this matter, a copy of model regulations. We also sent these to the Press. We did that to give as much information as possible to everybody interested: to try and get the Act known and its provisions better understood. We have also issued a summary of the provisions of the Town and Regional Planning Act of 1934, which contains a fairly full description of the Act—of its provisions and powers and the manner of using them.

Mr. Costello

I was aware, of course, of the fact that there are in the Act certain powers where a special resolution is passed. But supposing a local authority passes such a resolution, and then sits down in secula sæculorum and does nothing about a planning scheme surely it is not equitable that it should be allowed to proceed on the basis that it was exercising the powers given it in the Act by proceeding “with as much expedition as possible to formulate a plan.”

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am afraid that what the Deputy has suggested has happened in one or two cases. In the Act as it stands there is no provision to oblige a local authority to produce their scheme within a certain time, and I doubt if, as things stand, we could introduce such an amendment into our legislation.

It is generally agreed that it is necessary to have expert advice in the making of a plan. The number of experts on town planning is strictly limited. There are numbers of professional men who, if asked to make a study of it would, probably, find it profitable to give their time as experts, but the disposition of local authorities to utilise the Act has not encouraged a sufficient number of professional men to engage as specialists in the subject up to the present. I know, probably, three or four professional men who have secured appointments as experts in town planning since the Act was passed. There may be others. I also know that some local authorities have given it as an excuse for not proceeding with greater rapidity in the making of plans, that they found difficulty in securing expert advice.

Mr. Benson

Has not the Minister power to impose a plan on delinquent authorities under the Act?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No.

Mr. Benson

If these bodies pass resolutions and do not proceed with a plan, has the Minister not power to impose a plan on them?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

We have certain powers to press them to proceed, but we cannot impose a plan on them.

General Mulcahy

And you have no staff for doing so?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No. Deputy Dockrell suggested that we should produce a plan for small towns and rural areas. That is not the province of the Department. There are plans in existence—not many—for towns and cities. These are preliminary plans, but the officials of any local authority, engineers, architects, town clerks or members of boards, would be facilitated by those who already have plans, and every advice and assistance that we could give would be given. It is not the province of the Department or of the officials to produce plans for local authorities, and, as Deputy Mulcahy stated, we have not the staff necessary at present to give time to do so. The other point made by Deputy Costello was with regard to compensation. I think what the Deputy said was true and that until a standing scheme is made, compensation cannot be ascertained.

Mr. Costello

That is a scandal.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That exists.

Mr. Costello

Would the Minister accept an amendment to deal with that?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I would be glad if the Deputy would submit an amendment to see what could be done with regard to it. I realise fully the difficulty that exists, but I would like to see the amendment before committing myself.

Mr. Costello

If the Minister accepts the principle of the amendment, surely he has very expert draftsmen at his disposal.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Even with the principle, I would like to have an opportunity of looking into the matter.

Mr. Costello

I will put down an amendment.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I understood Deputy Brasier to say that the Department were reluctant to give local authorities the necessary power to deal with the destruction of the amenities of certain seaside resorts. That is entirely contrary to the facts. We shall be very happy to do anything we can to give local authorities greater power under the original Act, or under this Bill, to control and improve the amenities in the areas under their control. If the Deputy can suggest any way of amending this Bill, or of amending the original Act through this Bill, so as to give further powers within the ambit of the Act, we will be very happy to assist any local authorities that are anxious to use whatever power exists, or that may be given, so as to improve the amenities.

Mr. Brasier

Can the Bill deal with culs-de-sac?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

With all questions that properly come within the ambit of this Bill.

Mr. Brasier

At present the county surveyors cannot do so.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I doubt, except for planning purposes, if we could take away rights-of-way that exist. Some Deputy suggested that for planning purposes even rights of way can be done away with, but, of course, compensation will have to be paid by the local authorities. Certain pretty wide powers exist to deal with the problem referred to by Deputy Brennan under the Public Health Acts. These Acts give local authorities power to do away with nuisances.

Mr. Brennan

They must be proved to be dangerous to the public health, and must be so certified.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Any reasonable medical man could, I think, satisfy himself that the type of nuisance referred to by Deputy Brennan would be a danger to health.

Mr. Brennan

He could not do it. There are unsightly rubbish heaps, and old disused or broken up motor cars, that are a danger to public health. We cannot get them so certified. They are there and we cannot remove them.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

As to the type of rubbish to which the Deputy refers, I think the wit of the local authority would find power within the present law to deal with that, apart from town planning, and enable them to clear away rubbish beaps and nuisances.

Mr. Brennan

I am afraid we cannot find it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I think it is there. If a local authority passes a planning resolution it has full power to deal with the matters referred to. As to the case in Clontarf, to which Deputy Mulcahy referred, I think there is full power to deal with it under the original Act.

General Mulcahy

I would be glad if the Minister could find it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I thought it was there. I took a special interest in that for personal reasons. I thought it was there and that it was going to safeguard the interests of certain people who have been pointing out that trouble was likely to arise in the last few months. I assured them that the matter was very fully covered and that there was no danger with regard to their property. I am sorry to hear from Deputy Mulcahy that the Corporation think there is. If the matter is not covered in the amending Bill I will try to have it done. We cannot cover the case that has happened in Clontarf, but I hope we will be able to deal with future ones.

General Mulcahy

I hope the Minister will deal with the matter.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

We cannot put a hedge back.

General Mulcahy

No, but the Minister will see that there are other steps.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Deputy Costello asked a question about Section 12, and the power of imposing costs. If a person prosecutes an appeal and is unsuccessful, and costs are imposed on him, say a builder or someone of that kind, it seems reasonable that something in the nature of a penalty might reasonably be imposed on the person who insisted on carrying on the appeal, and who put costs on the person who had to fight his corner. There is, at least, one precedent, I am told, for the imposition of costs by the Minister. It is not a thing about which I am enamoured, and I am quite prepared to consider the possibility of leaving to someone the power of imposing penalties of that kind.

General Mulcahy

I wonder in that connection if the Minister would consider at this stage whether, where an appeal had been taken by an ordinary person against a local authority in connection with a scheme that it should not be possible for an award of costs to be made against the person taking that appeal in favour of the local authority; that is, that where the local authority is undertaking a building scheme and bearing the costs of it and where there are likely to be appeals from ordinary persons affected by the scheme, that they should not be inhibited from putting forward an appeal by the fear that they may have to bear the costs of the local authority. I do not think that the local authority should get the costs against a person in any case where, because of the action of a local authority, that person is driven to appeal.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Is it not usual to leave that to the High Court judge to decide?

General Mulcahy

That is the difficulty, you see, and if costs were given, then a person is stopped from making an appeal that he might reasonably make simply because of the unknown into which he would be going and the fear that he might be going into a case in which he might have to bear the local authority's costs. I think that where the local authority is bearing the costs of the whole scheme the additional cost of having to bear the ordinary type of appeal that might come up from any owner of property is not such a great addition to the scheme as would warrant its being imposed on the person appealing. I think that plans might be much more satisfactorily made and that there would be greater harmony in the end over the final decisions to be taken if it were possible to have an appeal heard without the persons appealing having to bear the local authority's costs as well as their own.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I have certain sympathy with the suggestion put forward by Deputy Mulcahy but, at the same time, if there was no fear of costs, God knows how many appeals there would be and appeals that might not be really serious appeals.

General Mulcahy

They would have to bear their own costs in any case and their own costs would probably be heavy enough to eradicate spurious appeals.

Mr. Costello

I do not think it is proper to have discussion at this stage but I would like to know what the costs are, because this appeal is heard in camera by some of the Minister's officials.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

What I had in mind were appeals to the High Court.

Mr. Costello

There is an appeal to the Minister.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There is; but there would be no costs worth speaking of in that case.

Mr. Costello

Would the Minister agree to an amendment, or consider an amendment, if he will not agree to it immediately, providing that all appeals should be to some judicial tribunal and not to the Ministerial authority? The Minister will not agree to that. I suggest that we should have a reasonable compromise and allow the courts that will hear the appeal to deal with the question of costs.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 16th November, 1938.