Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Jun 1940

Vol. 80 No. 16

In Committee on Finance. - Acquisition of Derelict Sites Bill, 1940—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. Ruttledge)

I move the Second Reading of this Bill which will confer on sanitary authorities more effective powers and a simpler and more expeditious procedure for the acquisition of derelict sites which are unsightly and detrimental to the amenities of towns and villages. The existence of such sites, which are frequently mere rubbish dumps, in many towns not merely detracts from the appearance and amenities of the towns, but frequently constitutes in addition a danger to public safety and public health. The clearance of them will effect an improvement in these respects and will in addition afford employment for unskilled labour.

The statutory powers of local bodies in this respect are at present restricted in urban areas to structures which are not only in a ruinous state but also dangerous to the public. There is a somewhat similar provision in the Public Health Acts which could be made applicable to non-municipal towns, but as in urban areas there would have to be an element of danger arising to the public from the condition of an existing structure before the local authority could act. These powers are, therefore, of little use in connection with any measures directed to the improvement of towns by the removal of unsightly structures.

Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 lay down the procedure to be followed by a local sanitary authority in acquiring derelict sites in their sanitary districts. Under Section 3 (2) the owner or occupier of the site is given the option of improving the site in the first instance. If within 28 days after a preliminary order is made he himself undertakes the work necessary to cause the site to cease to be derelict, acquisition by the local authority will not follow. Under Section 4 the owner will also have a right of appeal to the District Court against the proposal of the local authority to acquire his land as a derelict site. The justice may adjourn the application for a period to enable the applicant to do the work necessary to prevent the site from continuing to be derelict. The period set out in the Bill as circulated for an adjournment is six months. This period is, I consider, excessive and I propose to move an amendment on the Committee Stage reducing it to two months. Failing action by the owner under Section 3 (2) and if no appeal is made or if such appeal is rejected by the district justice in whole or in part, the land will be vested in the local authority. Section 7 provides that compensation, to be assessed by arbitration, will be payable to any person having an estate or interest in the land so vested.

When the site has been vested in the local authority that body are required by Section 8 to clear, level, drain, fence or otherwise improve the site so that it may no longer constitute an injury to health or to the amenities of the neighbourhood. The sanitary authority may use the lands for any of the purposes on which statutory powers are conferred on them, or, if they do not require it for these purposes, they may sell or let it, with the consent of the Minister.

Mr. Brennan

For some years past I have been endeavouring under other Bills, particularly under the Town Planning Bill, to bring in amendments on the lines with which this Bill is supposed to deal. This Bill is in the right direction but, to my mind, there are certain matters not covered in it. I am surprised to find this Bill brought in at this particular time and I am still wondering why it was brought in. The Minister says that it aims to assist in providing employment. That is not anything like a satisfactory reason because the amount of employment which will be provided will be very small. At the present time the kind of employment needed is productive employment, and employment of a productive nature can be found. My view always was that the local authorities should have the right to get derelict sites cleared away. I never felt that it would be the ambition of the local authorities to clear those sites. It is not acquisition the local authorities want and I do not see what advantage it is to them to have a lot of little scraps and bits of sites thrown on their hands. My view always was that the local authorities should have the right to serve notice to clear away these sites at the expense of the owners. In certain cases it might be necessary to have powers of acquisition. To my mind, the Bill is one that will lend itself to a good deal of amendment, and there are many things that are necessary in this respect not covered at all by the Bill. There are very few villages from 100 to 200 inhabitants all through the country in which there is not some kind of old dump or heap which is unsightly. These old dumps should have been removed years ago. There was no authority to remove them. I am afraid the Bill does not give authority to do so now. To my own knowledge, there are laneways, and what might be termed bits of ends of squares and derelict parks, if I might so term them, in some small villages in the country that do not seem to have an owner at the moment and very great difficulty would be found by the local authorities in finding the owner. I know what has happened in most of those villages. The landlord who originally owned the village sold the houses and the property to the tenants. Nothing, however, was done about these public dead-ends that were lying around and now they are used for dumping. The county council does not own them: none of the local authorities owns them: there is no owner for them at the moment. We want to get the right to clear all these places up, and I do not think we have it in this Bill. We only got this Bill this morning and the Minister, apparently, is looking for all stages of the Bill now. I think that is very unreasonable. I do not think the Bill is necessary at the moment. I do not think it is nearly so necessary as it was even last year or the year before. My view of these dumps and rubbish heaps is that we want to clear them up more for the sake of making the country attractive for tourists than for anything else. At the present time I do not think that counts very much.

Then there is another matter. One section in the Bill makes provision for compensation. Another section sets out a period of two years after which a place may be declared derelict if there is no building on it. We are passing through a period of strain at present and we do not know what is in store for us. We do know that in other countries whole districts have been devastated and houses blown down. These places may remain derelict for years. In this country we have not made any provision for compensation in the case of air raids or anything like that. If they occurred here we might reasonably visualise houses being blown down and not being rebuilt for years. We have not any way of meeting that situation. Therefore, I think this Bill is one which requires a good deal of consideration and leaves itself open to a good deal of amendment. The Minister would be very ill-advised in rushing it through at the present time. It is a necessary Bill; it is a long time overdue; but it would be much more useful at any other time than the present. If the Minister would give the House time to consider it until, say next August it would probably meet the situation. Personally, I do not think this is a good time to bring it in, and I have very serious objection to giving the Minister all the stages of the Bill now.

Mr. T. Kelly

I consider that this Bill is a good one. I hope it will add to the very limited powers which the Dublin Corporation have at present in dealing with these derelict sites. It is really a scandal that the metropolitan City of Dublin should be inflicted with such eyesores as we see on all sides and that we cannot have them dealt with. I wonder if the Minister in this Bill has dealt with difficulties which have arisen in connection with the administration of the powers that the Dublin Corporation already have regarding derelict sites. There is a site in Grafton Street, one of our best streets, which has been lying derelict for 40 years. All the owner has done is to put a paling around it. It is now being used as an advertisement hoarding and has been so used for many years since it ceased to be the Grafton Theatre of Varieties. It is private property. There does not seem to be any law in existence to compel the owner to build on it. I do not know whether the powers given under the Town Planning Act can deal with such a site as that.

Then there is another difficulty. At the far end of one of the finest streets in Dublin, opposite Parnell Street, there is a site which has been lying derelict for at least seven years. The structure is held up by props and there is a paling around it. It appears that it is the subject of a law action, probably in Chancery. The Minister, being a lawyer, knows how long Chancery suits go on for; I suppose they go on for years. Is that property to remain there as a terrible eyesore until that Chancery suit is decided?

A third difficulty has arisen to my own knowledge in connection with sites occupied by what are called squatters. I know a site in a very good class street in Dublin, portion of which was taken by a man who put a tin construction around it. I brought that site under the notice of the Dublin Corporation, but the corporation had absolutely no power to interfere. The owner whitewashes this tin construction now and again, and as long as he does that he is within the law. There are derelict sites in other portions of the city also. I should like to know if the Minister has given power in this Bill to deal with such cases. For instance, would power be given to the corporation to deal with the case which is the subject of a law case? Are the owners of such sites to be allowed simply to enclose these places and leave them there until they get the price which they want for them? I hope this Bill will allow the corporation to deal with these cases, as we are all anxious to get rid of these eyesores.

Mr. Morrissey

There seems to be general agreement on the necessity for the Bill. I think the House is agreed with regard to the Bill itself, but Deputies on all sides of the House, so far as I can gather from Deputies Brennan and Kelly, want to improve the Bill. I wonder would the Minister agree to the Second Stage being taken to-day and then give Deputies time to send in amendments to the Bill until, say, the Dáil resumes in August.

Mr. Ruttledge

I will agree to that. Deputy Brennan wonders why the Bill is brought in now. I can quite understand that. Instructions were given for the preparation of this Bill last August, but owing to the pressure of other work, it could not be prepared until within the last few days. As a matter of fact, if I had time I would have widened the Bill very much more because, as it stands at present, it does not deal with places through the country where you see derelict houses on lands and that kind of thing. It would take away from the whole framework of the Bill to bring these in at this stage. I proposed to bring in a Bill subsequently to deal with them. In these cases where there are derelict houses, such as we see in various places along a road through the country that are of no advantage to anybody but are an eyesore, what should be done is to serve a notice on the owners to clear them and, if they do not clear them, have them cleared under some employment scheme; but I would not, however, interfere with the land. There is a difference when you come to deal with towns or villages. There is nothing to prevent the sanitary authority letting the place back again or giving it back or dealing with it in any way they want. They can deal with it in any way they want, subject to the consent of the Minister.

As to the case that Deputy T. Kelly has in mind in Grafton Street, that is a case that certainly can be dealt with. With regard to the other case, where there is an action in Chancery, there may be some difficulty about the person who is interested in it. But these things can be got over. Where the sanitary authority are satisfied, after reasonable inquiries made by them, that they cannot get anyone on whom to serve a notice, they can post a notice on the premises. If they cannot get somebody who is interested in it they can deal with it in that way. I think the case that the Deputy has in mind can be dealt with. However, between now and the Committee Stage, that can be looked into to see how it can be done.

There have been accidents caused by these dangerous buildings. I saw in a Westmeath paper the other day where fatalities had occurred in some parts of the country owing to dangerous buildings. As the law stood, you had no power to remove any of these derelict buildings unless you could prove they were dangerous. Even the acquisition of these sites for the housing of the working classes would be a very tedious process. You have to make an offer first and then if you take the sites compulsorily, hold an inquiry. In that way the work would never be done. It is intended to deal with derelict sites which are eyesores throughout the country. They are of no advantage to those on whose premises they are standing. They are in a neglected condition and the local authorities are unable to have them cleared away. I have no objection at all to improving the Bill by leaving the Committee Stage over until August.

Mr. Brennan

My difficulty is that the Minister apparently intends to bring in a second Bill.

Mr. Ruttledge

There is no hurry about it.

Mr. Brennan

I anticipated that this Bill would deal with all these matters. I do not know what the Minister has in mind for a second Bill. Possibly he has in mind what I have in mind in regard to this Bill, and that the amendments I want to bring in now may deal with things that he will put into the other Bill. It shows the disadvantage of trying to do business in a piecemeal fashion.

Mr. Ruttledge

We may be able to do something with this Bill which will avoid having a second Bill. I had an idea that the position in country places was worse. It is certainly bad in some towns and villages. I imagine that dilapidated buildings would be of no advantage of anybody. My idea would be to give persons concerned with old houses notice to remove them, and if they did not do so, to put in the Board of Works, or let the Board of Works deal with them under the unemployment schemes, on the grounds that they are derelict sites.

Mr. Brennan

That is not covered in the Bill.

Mr. Ruttledge

That is the most essential thing. That is what I have in mind. We may be able to incorporate such proposals between now and the Committee Stage.

Mr. Brennan

Would the Minister also give some consideration to the question of dealing with unclaimed plots, and with lanes with dead-ends where there are no owners. Nobody has power to have these places cleared up. I have in mind places where the sanitary authorities have for years been trying to deal with them.

Mr. Ruttledge

When amending the Bill we will bear that in mind. I do not know how we will deal with cases where there are no owners. Notice must be served or posted on the premises.

Mr. Brennan

I have in mind a village with about 150 inhabitants. The place originally belonged to the landlord, but he sold the houses and gardens. A square in the village has not been sold. The landlord has cleared out. The square does not belong to the county council, and is being used as a dumping ground for refuse. The Minister would want to meet cases like that.

Mr. Ruttledge

We will see what can be done.

Mr. Cosgrave

Can the Minister give a reason for changing the period from three years to five years? The period was three years in the previous Act for dealing with derelict sites.

Mr. Ruttledge

It is proposed to reduce the period to two years.

Mr. Cosgrave

Can the Minister give a reason why the expression "derelict site" is given as "land which is unoccupied or is not being put to any bona fide use by the occupier”. Is a distinction drawn between “occupier” and “owner”.

Mr. Ruttledge

That was not intended as a description of derelict houses. There must be something more definite than what appears there.

Mr. Cosgrave

I was wondering whether a person would wish to have a site declared derelict if there was any neglect on the part of the occupier as distinct from the owner.

Mr. Ruttledge

I understand what the Deputy has in mind.

Mr. Brennan

Or where all the buildings are in ruins and might be an eyesore. The section appears to have been hastily put together.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for August 7th.