Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 31 Jan 1963

Vol. 199 No. 6

Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1962—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. N. Lemass

When the debate was adjourned, I was asking the Minister to examine the implications that might arise if there were a sudden demand for compensation for all the properties affected in Dublin city at the time of the implementation of a town plan under this Bill. I was endeavouring to get some assurance from him that a very severe burden would not be placed on the rates. I realise that as properties are demolished and new properties erected in their place, these properties will be of greater valuation and therefore bring in a greater return for the same poor law valuation than the old properties that were demolished. In time, this question of rates will balance itself out. The only thing I am concerned about is that a majority of the people who might find their property is to be affected in the course of the next 20 or 30 years would claim immediately for compensation because they cannot have any future plans for that property and, as a result, the demand would be enormous and beyond the capacity of the Corporation to pay unless they got assistance from local Government funds.

The local authority in planning matters should not, I think, be allowed to decide on any particular development without acquainting the property-owners in advance of their proposals and in this way give the owners an opportunity of putting forward alternative proposals where practicable. In the general zoning outlined in Dublin no great problem will arise but I am aware of properties in County Dublin which have been zoned for particular development and the owners were unaware, up to a short time ago, that these properties had been zoned and were marked for development as car parks, parks or open public spaces. Therefore, when owners were not concerned with what might happen their properties for some time, the local authority might say: "We are not satisfied with the condition of that property. Unless you do something with it we are going to acquire it and make a car park out of it," or whatever they had in mind, thereby giving the owner an opportunity of saying: "I am going to do some development myself which may fit in with your general planning scheme." I think an owner is entitled to that courtesy. That matter was dealt with under Section 6.

I notice in Section 7 (1) (b) that service with notice can be made by leaving the notice at the address at which a person ordinarily resides or, in the case in which an address for service has been furnished, at that address. That means when you leave the notice you have then complied with your statutory obligation. That is very loose and I think any such notice served by local authorities involving property should be served by registered post. I have taken quite an interest in various local development bodies. There are several in the constituency I represent. Most of them can be congratulated on what they have been trying to do although many of them have not made as much progress as they would like or as I, as a public representative, would like them to make. I ask the Minister to consider, in the provisions of this Bill, the setting up of development bodies which would form themselves into limited companies and these limited companies would have 50 to 100 separate householders as shareholders. Fifty or 100 individuals would buy £1 shares and then you would have what would be required as a limited company of the type I have in mind.

This company would have, say, a Board of Directors of five, say, the then parish priest or some other person whose office would be continuous, a director appointed by the local authority, another by local government and two appointed by the general shareholders. This company, of course, must not be a profit-making concern but I think provision could be made to allow certain expenses and, perhaps, one paid official could be attached to it. Its objects would be those which local development bodies usually have, provision of public amenities, community halls, swimming pools, sports grounds, libraries and other such items which the local authority would like to provide but is slow in providing because of the financial implications.

I believe if such a company or body could be formed that would be recognised by the State, that where some scheme undertaken by them was one which would normally qualify for an 80 per cent. grant as an emergency relief scheme, the local authority could provide ten per cent. of the cost and the local body itself should raise ten per cent. by public subscriptions in its area. Where no grant is attached to the scheme they had in mind, then the State could provide one-third of the cost, the local authority one-third and let the residents raise one-third by public subscriptions. There could be snags in this and I have been trying to think of ways by which they could be overcome and this is the closest I can get to it.

If such bodies could be devised and set up with proper rules and regulations and articles to ensure their activities are in the public interest, then I believe that progress in the development of local amenities would be very much speeded up because citizens themselves would belong to the body responsible for speeding up development. Unfortunately, at present, there is a lagging behind in this type of development. Sportsfields, schools, churches, community halls, libraries and so on are not provided until many years after the Corporation housing scheme has been completed. Initially, we would have buses travelling to the old schools and it would be some years before new schools are open. Every effort should be made to have all these amenities developed within the housing scheme. One way of doing that would be to provide that, when the Corporation or local authority draw up a housing scheme, that housing scheme should include the other amenities required in the area and that the inclusive cost of the entire scheme should be subject to Government subsidy. The subsidy should be payable on local halls and other amenities required. You would then have a much better chance of having these things developed side by side with the housing scheme and you would not have these open spaces which still exist in my constituency where building finished several years ago.

There is provision in the Bill for extending water supplies. These provisions are quite good but I have no doubt that some existing water supplies are below what ordinary medical requirements would expect. I came across a case where a certain industry in the midlands was using a town supply and having had the water analysed, got a report to the effect that the water was certainly not fit for human consumption. Having been surprised to hear that, I made further inquiries and a local official in the area told me afterwards that each year for several years previously, they had been agitating for new filtration beds, etc., but when the rates meeting came at the end of the year they said: "We will cut that out; put it back for another year." They agreed the existing supplies were not good enough. It is not just sufficient to have running water in the area. We must never be satisfied that it is good enough unless there is clean water available to everybody concerned.

The provisions of the Bill allow a certain amount of elasticity. Dublin Corporation were forced by court order to produce a plan and then found themselves bound to that plan. They could not move from any of its provisions in the slightest and as the years went by, they found the original plan needed amendment as new ideas and proposals came before them. The only way it could be dealt with was by appeal to the Minister.

The provisions in this Bill allow any plan drawn up to be changed. If I remember rightly, the provisions are that every three years or so the plans would be looked at and changed if the local authority so desire. As I read them, the plan can be changed for every individual proposition brought forward. You can have a plan and somebody comes along with a proposal that is not in accordance with the plan and the local authority, as I read this legislation, can say: "We will change that under Section 20" and that is all there is to it. In other words, you have not a plan at all. You will still be working in a very loose type of way. There should be a minimum period of from two to three years. For instance, every two years you can look at your plan and at the changes that have taken place during that period but certainly not sooner than every two years.

In Section 21, I notice there is provision regarding advertisement in one newspaper circulating in the area. That could be The United Irishman in Dublin. It could be a paper with a very small circulation which nobody buys in order to read what the local authorities advertise in it. In the paper I mentioned, they do not advertise at all. That is the extreme case.

It could be that in some of the areas where there is a local newspaper that local newspaper is not the paper most extensively read in the area. Provision should be made that such advertisements should always be placed in the national newspapers, that is, in the three morning national newspapers. There might be circumstances in which there are substantial papers that are more or less national papers and that certainly have a very extensive coverage of the areas in which they are principally circulated. The description "one newspaper circulating in the area" could be tidied up. That might require examination. People can come along with the genuine plea: "I never saw it. I never had that paper at all. There is nothing in it but local gossip."

Mr. J. Brennan

A national newspaper might not circulate in the area.

Mr. N. Lemass

In Deputy J. Brennan's area, I had great difficulty in getting what I considered to be a national newspaper.

Mr. J. Brennan

That is casting aspersions on my area. We have all the newspapers in the world circulating there, even the News of the World.

Mr. N. Lemass

There are also provisions regarding car parking space and open spaces in the measure. I should like to know what the Minister considers is reasonable. I have come across a case in point. It is now subject to appeal to the Minister, having been rejected by the Corporation. A man proposes to build a new public house. He is in an area acquired by the Corporation. He has retained his licence and he is to build a new public house in the suburbs. He has acquired a substantial site in a populous area where the population increase has been sufficient to merit the transfer of the new licence to it. His difficulty is that the Corporation want ten parts of the site devoted to car parking space and one part of the site devoted to the public house and stores. That, to my mind, is quite excessive considering that there is a cinema adjoining this property where I would say there is car parking space for about ten cars and the cinema, I am sure, can hold 800 to 900 people. There are other public houses in the area that have no car parking facilities at all. Because we want to improve the situation, I do not believe we should change it to the extent that we now say we want ten parts car parking space and one part building space.

Again, a lot of local Government legislation is largely permissive. It is up to the local authority to interpret it. However, if something is incorporated in the measure there should be some indication of the Minister's view and intention in regard to it. As I said in my opening remarks, if all the various authorities have prepared their local plans, then the Department, to my mind, should examine them with a view to having what we might call an overall national plan so that we would not have any great variations between one administrative district and another.

Under the provisions of Section 37, the local authority may come in and say: "We do not want that factory there. We shall acquire it. It is not suitable according to our plan." They may come in and acquire it. What is not provided for in the Bill is what use should be made of the building afterwards. I know some factories in my constituency that will probably be affected under this section as it stands. I know buildings which would make excellent communal halls. Once they say: "We shall acquire that factory because it is a nuisance" we may well ask: what is it suitable for? What is the Corporation's authority to dispose of it? Will they just say: "This is money spent for planning reasons" and level it or can they utilise it by giving it to some association for more desirable purposes? On that point, I should like to hear the Minister's views.

In Part 5 of the Bill, I think the word "areas" is rather too broad and that we should always stick to the principle that each proposal should be considered on its merits. To my mind, each owner in the area referred to in that section should be notified by registered post.

Regarding rights of way, I think there might be administrative difficulty. It may be said that such and such is a right of way but somebody might wander off the particular right of way, as defined, if it is not clearly marked. Under Section 49, they can be quite severely dealt with. I should like also to be sure that the owner of private property will in these sections be protected in some way. I know what the section is designed for. I know it is designed to prevent landowners from closing up our beaches and other beauty spots and that is a most desirable thing. However, so long as the provisions in the measure do not go too far, I am quite happy. Perhaps the Minister will make some comment on that when he replies.

I wonder if Section 51 might lead to the end of certain political meetings, certain church processions where amplifiers are used and interfere with the mass X-ray service which uses amplifiers? These are things we must consider. Some way or other, the permissible functions under this section should be itemised. In that regard, I do not know why CIE should be the only people who, I understand, are entirely excluded from these provisions.

I wish to refer now to Section 83 under which the local authority has compulsory powers to come into a man's front garden, dig it up and lay down whatever services need to be put through the front garden. There is no provision I can see whereby the local authority must come back and put that front garden into a proper state of repair. It is certainly necessary to have powers available to enable development to be carried on but there should be adequate protection for the owner of private property to ensure he will not be at financial loss or be seriously inconvenienced as a result of our planning provisions.

The Bill still recognises the right of appeal to the Minister. I have heard it said—I am sure there is no truth in it—that if a certain developer goes over the corporation's head and gets a plan approved on appeal, he is then treated like a bad boy by the planning officers and difficulties are put in his way because he had the nerve to go over their heads. I do not believe the officials I dealt with would act in such a childish way, but if there could be the slightest suggestion that that kind of thing might happen, then there should be some other form of appeal available to developers than a direct appeal to the Minister. This appeal to the Minister can only lead to charges of political corruption, charges of favouritism, and so on. They can create a great deal of work for a local representative who might believe that a certain amenity should be provided but which, according to the experts, is absolutely out as far as good planning is concerned, and when his efforts with the Minister fail he is then held up to ridicule by the people on whose behalf he was making representations.

If there were a right of appeal to some form of inquiry or court where the matter could be threshed out by somebody adequate and competent to judge such appeals, then a lot of unwarranted talk could be completely done away with. Any provisions which can lead to suggestions that belittle the dignity of this House and the members in it should be avoided if possible. There must be some provision for an appeal, I agree, but as the Minister for Justice last year did away with the practice of restoring licences taken away by the courts, the Minister for Local Government should now consider a different form of appeal in regard to town planning. The more these appeals are considered in public the better it is for the administration and for relations between the official and the ordinary member of the public.

These are the matters that occurred to me when I read this Bill. I realise that a Bill of this nature could not be compiled that would have complete agreement at once from everybody. However, the Minister has made an honest and genuine attempt to deal with all the weaknesses in our previous town planning legislation which have become apparent. I sincerely hope he will get the co-operation for which he has asked from all sections of the community in his efforts to ensure that a really first class piece of legislation is passed in this regard.

Mr. Booth

First of all, I should like to say that, in general principle, I fully support this Bill. I have been worried for a long time about the deficiencies in the planning legislation generally and I feel that our whole conception of planning has been virtually non-existent as regards national government or even local government planning. It is something with which we have only toyed instead of dealing with in a really businesslike way. In this connection, I was delighted to hear of the action of the Minister in initiating a series of lectures by prominent authorities, most of them cross-Channel, I think, on the whole subject of planning for the benefit of the staff of local authorities and elected members of those authorities as well.

Mr. Briscoe

And the staff of the Department of Local Government.

Mr. Booth

I was invited to one of these lectures but, unfortunately, I was unable to attend. However, I believe it is one of the first steps that require to be taken in order to get across this whole idea of planning into the public mind and, in particular, into the minds of those who are entrusted with the details of local administration.

The idea is now being accepted that proper planning is an economy rather than the reverse. Previously, planning was regarded with considerable suspicion and was regarded more as something for cranks and idealists. Now it is being accepted as a realistic policy to have wholehearted long-term planning. If we can get a planning scheme in full detail and put it into operation at once, it will result in economy because the amount of money which would otherwise have to be spent on compensation will be avoided. All the time we are waiting for proper plans. Consent has been given for the erection of new buildings which, it is more than probable, we shall subsequently regret. Then we shall be faced with the very painful decision as to whether we shall pull down these comparatively new buildings and pay very considerable compensation or accept a plan which is far below our ideals.

I am glad, in particular, that this Bill makes much better provision for the enforcement of plans and for the punishment of those who offend by erecting buildings, either without proper approval or in defiance of an existing town plan. Up to now, it has been comparatively easy for those with enough money and enough nerve to carry on with the building in blatant defiance of the local authority and of a town plan. This has been particularly noticeable with regard to the erection of petrol stations. In that connection, I must refer to the fact that I have a personal interest in this matter, as a member of the motor trade, operating a petrol station myself.

On this matter, it is common knowledge that the larger petrol companies, as a matter of policy, have been erecting, and are still erecting, petrol stations all over the country. In some cases at least, they have been constructed in outright defiance of the local authority. In my own area, in Mount Merrion, there was one case where permission was withheld and the station was erected literally overnight. As darkness fell, there was no sign of a petrol station, and as the sun came up, it was discovered that trees had been felled, petrol tanks had been sunk in the ground, pumps had been erected above them, and everything was complete.

There was another case in Blackrock where, in spite of my warning to the Minister that something was afoot, in defiance of town planning, a petrol station was erected in deliberate breach of the town plan for the Borough of Dún Laoghaire. Not content with that, an effort was made to dig up the footpath to give a wider access to the petrol station than was permitted by law. On the first occasion, that effort was stopped in time. The petrol company concerned made better provision on the second occasion.

On the second occasion, they chose a Saturday afternoon which was the occasion of an international Rugby football match at Lansdowne Road. About 3 p.m., when all the officials of the local authority were away from their office, an assault was made on the public footpath. It was broken up; a new entrance was laid to the petrol station; and a new footpath was put down giving an entrance to the petrol station which was far in excess of that permitted. In due course, the company were prosecuted and a nominal fine was imposed.

I have received numerous complaints in that regard. There are others of my constituents who are owners of private houses, or small shops, who have always done everything in their power to comply with the requirements of the local authorities when making any addition or alteration to their premises. They have come to me and asked me why the petrol companies can act in this defiant way and get away with it. All I could say was that the legislation was defective, as it undoubtedly was. I hope that under this new Bill, when it becomes law, we will have no further cases of similar acts of defiance in the future.

I am not quite clear as to the significance of Section 87 of the Bill which refers to the granting of licences for the erection of petrol pumps on or near a public roadway. This is probably a matter with which we can deal in greater detail on Committee Stage. At this stage, I should like to say that I hope the Minister has something in mind for controlling the erection of petrol stations, because the multiplicity of such sites means that a considerable additional hazard is being created on the public roadway by the multiplicity of entrances and exits on to and off the public road. Motorists using the roads are constantly being taken by surprise by cars leaving the filling stations and coming out on the public roadway. Again, a hazard is also created by motorists constantly slowing up in a fairly fast-moving stream of traffic in order to go into the petrol station.

In the United Kingdom, much stricter regulations are in force, particularly on the new motorways. I hope the Minister is keeping that legislation in mind with the intention of introducing something similar here as well. On the British motorways, anyone wishing to open a petrol station has to comply with very strict conditions. A petrol station may not be erected anywhere, and there is a strict limit on the density of petrol stations generally on those motorways. Any petrol station which is in operation on a motorway must give complete service to the motorists. He must be able to give a proper selection of fuels and lubricating oils. He may not tie himself to the supply of one type of petrol only.

These are matters which are of very great concern to the motor trade in this country, because an effort, which is approaching rapidly very near to success, is being made by the petrol companies to get complete control of the retail distribution of petrol and diesel fuel. That matter has been dealt with to some extent by the Fair Trade Commission, but, to my mind, the action taken so far to impose some sort of control falls very far short of what is required. The Minister has inserted in this Bill a definite provision for the licensing of petrol stations. I would urge him to consider very carefully making that section effective in controlling not only the siting but the number of petrol stations to be erected in future.

With all this new legislation, it will be necessary to have a considerable number of extra staff, both in the local authorities and in the Department. I know that many people object very strongly to any increase in the Civil Service. The call always is that we are overburdened by civil servants and red tape. To my mind, the curious thing is that simultaneously the same people often say to me: "Why do the Government not control this, or stop that, or do something else?", quite forgetting that if the Government are to interfere more and more in the rights of private individuals and the activities of industrial concerns, they must employ additional staff.

At present the lack of speed with which plans are passed or rejected by local authorities is quite appalling. In many cases, delays are well-nigh intolerable, and that is a direct incitement to people to go ahead without consent, in the hope that they will not be found out, or in the hope that even if they are found out, the local authority can be persuaded not to take any action in the matter.

On the question of appeals, I think it essential that there should be a bigger staff to deal with that matter. Anyone trying to carry out any worthwhile addition or alteration to his premises has obviously taken a long time in preparation before he gets to the stage of furnishing a detailed plan for approval. Once he reaches that stage, he is in a hurry. If he finds that his plan is being passed from one official to another or if he suspects that his plan is right at the bottom of an enormous pile and will not be taken for weeks or even months, he is apt to become nearly desperate. I hope, therefore, that it will be appreciated that additional staff will be necessary, so that when the Minister and the Government are criticised for increased expenditure, we will be prepared to take part of the responsibility, if not all of it, ourselves. I for one am perfectly prepared for such additional expenditure and I feel that such expenditure would be well worthwhile.

When we come to think of a general scheme of planning for the whole country, there is a temptation to feel that the best thing would be to have one central planning authority, but the Minister in this case has very properly decided that the preparation of plans shall be left to local authorities, in the first place, at any rate. No one would like a plan imposed on them by the central authority. It is far better that the local authorities, both the elected representatives and the staff, should satisfy themselves on the point and then carry out the necessary work for the preparation of the plans and thereafter accept full responsibility.

On one point, however, I feel there is justification for an exception, that is in the case of the planning of roads. In Dublin, there is no doubt that the planning of roads, as far as we can see from outside, is virtually non-existent. As the number of vehicles increases, and shows signs of continuing to increase, we will rapidly reach the stage when the traffic in the city and parts of County Dublin will grind to a halt. This is not far-fetched imagination on my part. Anyone who has travelled on roads in Great Britain will know that that is what is happening there. I had not travelled in England for some time, but I did so last year. I consulted the Automobile Association on the question of a suitable route and suitable stopping places for hotels. They assured me that anyone who could maintain an average speed of anything like 30 miles an hour on a cross-country trip, otherwise than on one of the motorways, would be doing extremely well.

On our roads, an average of 30 miles an hour is the sort of speed that the driver of a heavy commercial vehicle would think nothing of, but driving in England at the moment, otherwise than on the motorways, is an ordeal which anyone would seek to avoid, if it were conceivably possible. The roads are grossly overcrowded, far too narrow and the town and city entrances and exits are literally appalling. Until the advent of all these new motorways, it appeared that virtually nothing was being done to relieve this pressure. I would not like it to be thought that I am very keen on putting maximum speed on the roads—far from it. This question of roadways should be treated in exactly the same way as we treat the question of flooding in some of our rivers. It is no use clearing part of a river in order to obviate flooding. It is essential to start at the mouth of the river and work your way up, so that as the flow is eased, there is no question of its silting up and overflowing lower down. There is no point in starting at the top or the middle and that is what we are doing on the roads in Dublin. Every now and again, there is a sudden burst of activity and a certain stretch of road is widened, but the road leading into that wide stretch is narrow and consequently traffic coming from the narrow portion, when it reaches the wide portion, splays out right across it, just like shot from a gun.

There is one example of that in my constituency, between Williamstown, at Blackrock College, and Merrion Avenue. There is a very wide stretch of road there, with a bottleneck at each end. It is known locally as "Death Mile". Certainly that is what it is known as to the ambulance drivers who frequently pick up casualties there from crashed cars. It is a very wide stretch of road with a beautiful surface. It shows that this hit-or-miss attitude of widening and improving roads is proving a source of danger and the only way to reduce the danger, if not eliminate it, is by having roads of equal width so that motorists will not be encouraged to splay out across a wide stretch, racing neck and neck to see who will get into the bottleneck first. That is a cause of accidents.

To my mind, the local authorities have far too much on their plate already and they are unable to produce a comprehensive plan for the solution of the road traffic problem of Dublin city and county. If we take the northern side of Dublin along the coast, we have a very good road running through Marino and along the front to Clontarf. There is a beautiful stretch of road along the old tram line and then there is a very moderate road from there on. That again is a source of danger because that beautiful stretch, which has no junctions, is a direct incitement to any motorist to put his foot down so that cars tear along in perfect safety until they come to the end of it and then they are in trouble. If we take the main road to the north, there is a very slow run out through Whitehall and Santry. I know there are plans for by-passing Santry altogether but those plans have been in existence for a long time. A wide stretch of land has been left vacant between two large blocks of houses to allow the road to go around Santry on the eastern side.

Although that plan has been in existence for many years and although, so far as I know, the land has been acquired, all main road traffic going to Belfast has to filter through the very narrow bit of road round by Santry itself and some quite dangerous bends. Then one comes out on to a very nice stretch of road just before the Airport and suddenly the road narrows again and, I am sorry to say, it is only when one gets outside the Dublin County Council area that there is evidence of road planning at all; the road improves enormously.

Due west, there is little or no adequate road for heavy traffic. The road is quite well surfaced but it is not nearly wide enough and the width of the road varies quite dangerously.

So far as the Naas road is concerned, the approach to it is bad. Any traffic going to Cork or Limerick must either work its way up through the maze of traffic in Dame Street and out through the bottleneck at Inchicore or else work up along the overloaded quays, turn off around Kingsbridge Station and work its way out in that way.

Of course, the Bray road is the classical example of bits and pieces of excellent road interspersed with bits and pieces of road which are an absolute menace to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.

I feel, therefore, that the Minister should now take matters into his own hands, at least as far as Dublin city and county are concerned, and set up some central road authority which will have the sole responsibility, not only for planning a new road system, but for carrying it out. Whether that is to be done entirely from central funds or with some contribution from local authorities is a matter which we could discuss more appropriately elsewhere. It is only in this way that we can get rid of the danger which is always present at the entrances to and exits from the city.

The traffic position in the centre of the city is appalling. One reason, of course, is the congestion on the bridges over the Liffey. It is almost inconceivable that Butt Bridge ever handled any traffic at all in the condition in which it was 20 years ago, but even the wide bridge that it now is is hopelessly congested, not only by traffic travelling from north to south of the city but also by traffic trying to get from the north quays to the south quays.

The traffic congestion at O'Connell Bridge is nightmarish also. It is high time that we not only seriously considered but actively planned and executed at least one proper tunnel under the river. If the entrances to that tunnel were properly placed, it could mean that traffic going from the south of the city to the north could start down the tunnel possibly as far out as Merrion Square or Mount Street, or somewhere in that area, and not come up again until somewhere round about Clontarf. That would ease the traffic position in the centre of the city enormously. Also leading into that tunnel there could be minor tunnels running from the north quays to the south quays.

It is easy to say that this is highfalutin' nonsense and too idealistic for words but, if we do not start planning and acting now, it will be far more expensive to do it later on. The cost of materials and of site acquisition will go up and up and every year that passes means that we are passing on an additional load to those who will come after us.

Not only do we need proper facilities for crossing the river, but we also need far better facilities for getting around the city generally. There is quite an amount of traffic which wants to move from the south to the north of the city. There is the road along the canal which is referred to as the south ring and there is the North Circular Road which is referred to as the north ring. A ring road normally is and should be a road which has no intersections but the ring roads which I have mentioned have many traffic lights, crossroads and intersections of all sorts, so that progress along them is an appallingly painful procedure.

We are far behind continental practice in this respect. My experience, in even not very large cities or provincial towns in France, Italy and Germany, is that the authorities would not consider having a by-pass road, unless it was properly equipped with fly-overs so that traffic proceeding around the city or town proceeds without interruption whatsoever and traffic that has to cross the ring road goes either over or under, with connecting roads for the needs of those who wish to join the ring road halfway round.

Here, again, we could look for enormously high speed. I want to repeat that I am not advocating speeding. I dislike it and would discourage it in any way we could. We want to ensure, however, that traffic will proceed in a constant flow and not in fits and starts. The waste caused in the city by engines turning over for four, five or 15 minutes while the vehicle is stationary, waiting for the traffic ahead of it to clear, is enormous. It is a waste of time, money and material. It increases air pollution. By ensuring that traffic is kept flowing, a tremendous amount of that waste could be avoided.

That can only be achieved by an overall plan. Therefore, I would appeal to the Minister to consider very seriously having a central road authority for the city and county of Dublin. If that were done, I would hope that that central road authority would act in a reasonable way by giving priority to certain roads and having those roads completed from end to end. If it can do two roads together, so much the better, but let us get rid, once and for all, of this appalling habit of doing spasmodic improvements on short stretches of road, which tend to increase danger instead of reducing it.

Personally, I should like the Minister to go even further than that, although perhaps that is asking too much. I hope not. I would hope that at least the main roads in the country should be made a national charge and put under national control. Here, again, there is ample evidence that this is the modern trend and that it can pay dividends. The autostrada of Italy and the autobahn of Germany are marvellous arteries of traffic. They carry a tremendous weight of traffic with great safety and while the speeds are not exceptionally high, the average speeds are far above anything we can hope to have in this country. On the Continent, these motorways, which are of constant standard of road surface, have a uniform width throughout, and even off the motor ways—this applies even to England—there are stretches of what they call clearways where parking or stopping are not permitted.

On a number of our roads, we could introduce that very rapidly because many of our roadways are unusable, by reason of the fact that so many cars are parked along the sides. Take the Merrion Road, for instance. For most of its length, it carries one lane of traffic in each direction, even though the total width could carry at least two lanes of traffic each way without any trouble. However, anyone who gets into the near lane is apt to get into trouble because of parked cars. If anyone tries to increase the flow of traffic along that road by doubling up, he would be in a lot of trouble when he tries to pull out into the second lane of traffic.

I should like to see this scheme of main roads under central authority covering, say, the roads from Dublin to Waterford, Dublin to Cork, to Limerick, to Galway, to Donegal and the midlands, with national main roads connecting the provincial towns and cities. Let the by-roads, by all means, stay under the local authority. In many cases, the local authorities are doing extremely well and the general standard of road surfacing and road planning outside the city of Dublin is excellent. But as a motoring correspondent in one of our national dailies said recently, the city and county of Dublin are the worst serviced areas as far as roadways are concerned. If we could have this national road authority to plan and carry out these roadways, and to plan them well ahead, with a proper system of flyovers rather than intersections, we would be investing money very wisely and very well.

I cannot see that any planning legislation can be successful, if we do not regard the preparation and execution of a good road network as top priority. Once we know where the good main roads will be, we can then plan where we wish to place our industries, where we wish to have our open spaces, our dormitory areas and so on. At the moment, we are in a tangle, with one local authority working at cross-purposes with another. There is no proper scheme so far as I can see, in the planning of roadways.

In general, I am in absolute agreement with this Bill. I hope it will be a success and that on the next Stage, when we get down to details, it will be made clearer to me and other Deputies that proper provision has been made to ensure that the planning has been carried out. Once the planning has been carried out, all the development from then on will be in conformity with that plan, and anyone, whether a petrol company or anyone else, who attempts to defy that plan will be punished in such a way that, having tried it once, they will make good their default and will never try it again.

Mr. Briscoe

I do not think anybody in this House can do anything other than welcome this Bill and admit that its presentation at this time is the result of much thought, consultation and collaboration between the Department of Local Government and the appropriate officers of the local authorities all over the country. While this Bill is a comprehensive one and seeks to deal in a general way with the legislation thought to be necessary for proper planning, we must not lose sight of the fact that the interests of local authorities vary.

Reference has been made to lack of planning in the past under the old town and city planning legislation and to hold-ups, difficulties and so forth. I think it is opportune at this moment to put on the records of this House this particular fact, and in this connection I speak for the Dublin City Council, of which I have the honour to be a member. An Act was passed in this House which could have been opted for by local authorities. Once opted for, they were to proceed with a town plan, for adoption and approval by the Minister, but there was one unfortunate phrase in that Bill which decreed that they must proceed with all possible speed.

Since the passing of that legislation and its adoption by the city of Dublin authorities, the war intervened and all ideas of planning for the aftermath had to be shelved. Nobody knew what was happening and immediately after the war, there was a scarcity of materials with which buildings could be repaired, improved or even new constructions proceeded with. We in the Dublin City Council were brought to court for neglecting our duty because we had not adopted a town plan with all possible speed. Had we so proceeded, it would have meant a heavy cost to the city. If we were to proceed, we had also to produce as accurate an estimate as possible of the cost of the liabilities in which we would involve ourselves.

Notwithstanding our explanation to the court as to why it would take time to work things out, having regard to the impact on the ratepayers and on the community, the Dublin Corporation, each one of the 45 members, was told: "Finish your town planning within so many months or you will find yourselves in Mountjoy Jail. The lot of you will be deemed to be in contempt of court." The town plan was rushed through and presented to the Minister. Fortunately, good sense prevailed and the Minister did not adopt this rushed plan, done under difficult circumstances, a plan which we admitted quite openly was neither the plan we had hoped for, nor the plan we desired, and certainly was not a plan representative of the conclusive views of the officials and representatives of the corporation in conjunction with, if you like, the Department.

We are faced now with this new Bill. I have read the Bill but I have not been able to study it. Indeed, I think it is beyond the capacity of any one individual to study this measure on his own. There are, however, a number of things in it which will have to be dealt with on Committee Stage. I anticipate that the Committee Stage will be a very full one. We have already agreed in the corporation that we will have all sections of the Bill examined in detail by various committees with a view to discovering what the impact will be on the financial side, what the impact will be on our own ideas of immediate town planning development requirements, and, if these things are not covered as we would want them to be, all Parties in the Corporation, irrespective of political affiliation, will come together and jointly try, by reasoning with the Minister, to prevail on him to accept amendments.

One of these will, of course, be concerned with the financial aspect. The Bill, when it becomes law, will make the corporation liable for very large sums of money, particularly with regard to the acquisition of property, street widening, new development, and so forth. We would like to be told to what extent the Department will assist the local authority financially.

Sections 16 and 42 concern us also. We recognise that Portmarnock Strand is the playground of the citizens of Dublin. We recognise we have a responsibility to try to develop that strand, to make it clean and safe, and to provide proper amenities. For many years, we have been prepared to produce a substantial amount of money for that purpose. There is, however, a difficulty. The city of Dublin goes out as far as Howth. It includes Baldoyle. We have already done certain development work at Bull Island. In connection with this Baldoyle-Portmarnock area, we feel that where one local authority is prepared to spend a considerable amount of money in an adjacent authority's area, being responsible for subsequent maintenance, there should be provision in this Bill permitting the local authority making the investment to take over the area in which they are so vitally interested. I just mention that. I am satisfied we will make the best case we can for the inclusion of a provision on the lines I have suggested for the acquisition of property from another authority where there are good and valid reasons, without having to go through this long-drawn out process of regarding it as an extension of the city boundary.

I wonder if we will be able, when this Bill becomes law, to control the ESB. Under existing legislation, that body can do what they like. If we are considering proper planning, which will include the appearance of the city, then there must be an amendment of the Electricity Supply Acts to enable the local authority to decide whether or not wires should run overhead or whether buildings should be constructed in certain areas. All too often these buildings are eyesores.

Reference has been made to all kinds of improvements. In the Dublin Corporation, we are prevented at the moment from spending money on cleaning out dirty laneways because these laneways have never been taken over by the Dublin Corporation and are, therefore, not in their charge. Some cannot be taken over because no one knows whether the owners are alive or dead. Objection was made to the posting of a notice when one otherwise failed to find these people. If we cannot find the owner, and if we cannot make him comply with what is expected of him on the basis of his responsibilities as owner, then we should be permitted, if a search has not been successful, to take over these laneways, following the posting of a notice.

We want the present position remedied. We want this difference of opinion between lawyers as to whether we have or have not the right to take over clarified in this Bill. If that is not done, we will not be able to do our work properly and beautiful, clean areas will continue to be surrounded by rat-infested laneways, in which people dump refuse, and which we cannot go in to clean because they do not come under the control of the Dublin Corporation.

We will want, too, to have power under this Bill to acquire property, compulsorily, not for street widening and housing alone but so that we can have an area we can clear and put aside for industrial development. We will then be able to regulate areas for industrial development and end, if we can, the building up of industrial undertakings in the midst of residential areas.

Another thought of my own is this. I have not consulted anybody on it and I suppose I will be regarded as something of an extraordinary revolutionary. There will be an impact on the valuation of property if this town planning proceeds and succeeds. There will be increases in rates. I want to stake a claim that from this moment on we should think in terms of differential rates. How many Deputies know that business houses and industrial concerns are allowed as overheads for income tax purposes the full cost of rates? Yet a person living in a private house cannot recover a halfpenny allowance from the Revenue Commissioners. His rates are just part of his expenditure and are non-recoverable. I want to point out I intend to consult my colleagues and discuss with other people to see if I can at some stage get agreement that there shall be a differential in rates, so that the person who occupies his own home—the workman who owns his own home—shall be relieved to a certain extent as compared with the big industrialist who, in fact, does not pay it at all. It is the State who pays it, because he claims it as overheads for income tax purposes.

I was listening to my own colleague, Deputy Booth, almost with an open mouth in complete amazement. He spoke with regard to roads in the city and county as a person with a great deal of theory but certainly without any knowledge or practical experience. I would object very much to the limited powers of local authorities being reduced from what they are by a takeover and by the State having control and management of our roads. We would have then another State body. I do not know how we would ever get through our business here because there would be about 500 questions a day concerning the management of roads.

We have tried to study the road problem in Dublin. All we have learned from that study over a great number of years is that, with the great growth in the users of roads and with the movement of people in different directions, nothing is static. We have learned that it would be advisable, and was advisable, for us to get experts to study our traffic situation and to envisage a town plan that would cure some of the elements of our congestion and make recommendations.

Butt Bridge was referred to. I do not know whether Deputy Booth knows there were officials as well as students from the Universities for many months standing at various bridges, including Butt Bridge, counting every car that went each way, trying to find out what were the peak traffic periods, trying to follow up where they came from and where they were going, and then trying to decide where you will have a bridge, if a bridge is necessary. That kind of study has been going on for years. Our officials have given us lectures on this matter, including the difficulty of making decisions.

We are ready to bring a road from George's Street right up into Liffey Street and to widen the Metal Bridge, as it is called. We need a town planning Bill in order that we can acquire property. At the same time, we must take into account what consideration we will get by way of assistance from the State, either from the Road Fund or from some other source, in order to make this development possible and as less costly as possible to the citizens of Dublin. It is something that will undoubtedly benefit the country as a whole.

Deputy Booth spoke of a tunnel—a dream of a tunnel, starting somewhere and coming out somewhere else, with byways and sideways in it. The idea of a tunnel is not new. It was discussed in Dublin Corporation at least 15 years ago I would say. One of our officials went to the great trouble of studying the details required for a tunnel as compared with a bridge at the very same place—further down the Liffey from Butt Bridge towards the mouth. A tunnel under the Liffey anywhere in that area would have to start somewhere at Ballsbridge in order to get the decline. Then it would come up God knows where, probably around Phibsboro. With the subsoil we have—we are not built on a rock like New York—it would cost umpteen millions, if anybody knew what umpteen meant. It is beyond our calculation of worth. A bridge is also a difficult thing to construct and decide on. These are all in our terms of calculation as to the future.

Under the old Bill, we had more or less decided to do certain things in four stages over five years. The first thing one thinks of is roads. I want to show Deputy Booth and put on record that one speaking here should be careful to know what one is speaking about. He said the cost of roads should be borne by the national authority, as if that were not already so. All the money we spend on roads—I am sure the same applies down the country— except for maintenance comes out of the Road Fund by way of 100 per cent. grant as to cost. It is not the Government are causing the holdup; it is the ability to spend it. We are told in Dublin that we are not going quickly enough. The Department are on our necks telling us: "There is £500,000 you have not spent."

I remember on one occasion we were rushed into urgent expenditure on the roads. We were doing one end of the Stillorgan Road and doing another road parallel to it at Ballsbridge. The then Taoiseach, the present President, was coming into Leinster House. He could not get through the Stillorgan Road and he could not get through at Ballsbridge. He had to make a detour because we were blocking the incoming traffic. We can only do so much at a time; otherwise, we will only add to the existing confusion.

Many of these road operations have to be done in collaboration or in conjunction with our neighbours in the county because if we widen a road and they do not widen the continuation of it, we are creating a new bottleneck. However, I am not afraid that local authorities throughout the Twenty-Six Counties will not be able to do their work. I believe, once this Bill passes through the House with necessary and suitable amendments to meet the different concerns of different areas, that we can then get down to doing something satisfactory in local authorities with the financial help, guidance and approval of plans by the Department of Local Government.

This has nothing to do with planning but I notice in reading the definition section the term "statutory undertaker". I wonder is he going to bury somebody? I suggest that the Minister might call him a "statutory operator."

There are many things in the Bill that have yet to be clarified to me and my colleagues in Dublin Corporation by our own officials. There have been many meetings between local authority officials from all over the country and the headquarters, if I may call it that, at the Custom House. There has been a friendly understanding on both sides and this measure appears to be the best that can be produced up to the present. I believe it will be a good measure when it finally emerges from this House. Although there are many more matters to be discussed on Committee Stage, from the point of view of accepting the Bill in principle, I do so without hesitation but with the reservation that there will have to be certain amendments.

Mr. Timmons

I welcome this very comprehensive and complex measure and I wish to pay tribute to the Minister's staff for the thought and energy they have put into it. As a member of Dublin Corporation, I also welcome the Bill as it will help the corporation by removing the rigidity from its present planning decisions. As Deputy Briscoe pointed out, the corporation a few years ago were forced to produce a plan. It was a very hurried measure. Staff had to be assembled and a plan produced in a couple of months. Then a hurried meeting of the corporation was held. Unfortunately, in the circumstances, the plan did not receive the consideration it deserved. Overnight, property owners affected by the plans were notified by circular and in the atmosphere of a Christmas period then existing, hurried meetings of interested traders and various associations were called. Some meetings were poorly attended. Some people had not an opportunity, because of business commitments, of calling such meetings to protest against the plans passed by the corporation.

Since then, because the corporation itself was committed to the plan, numerous proposals had to be turned down. Each month, the manager reports to the council with a page-and-a-half of proposals rejected, mainly because they are in conflict with that plan adopted by the corporation. I think this Bill takes that rigidity out of the corporation plan. The Bill proposes that the local authority within three years can make a plan. That has to get the approval of the elected representatives. We have the situation where local authorities, administrators and planning experts in association with the local representatives, can produce a plan for local requirements in an orderly way. That is very desirable.

The Minister has invited local development associations to give their views on any feature concerning their district and that is also very desirable.

The question of appeals has been mentioned. It is a matter of contention among local representatives and local authorites, particularly the corporation as it stands, that so many appeals have been made to the Department. One of the unfortunate consequences of that is the long timelag in determining appeals. I understand the Department has only one planning officer and that is one reason why appeals are so long delayed. When this Bill comes into effect, it will impose a big burden on local authorities in the recruitment of skilled planners. I do not know how many planning experts there are in the country. Somebody says 60. I hope there will be an adequate number to carry out the requirements and the purposes of this Bill.

I welcome the section dealing with unfinished estates. Most city Deputies are very much concerned with this problem. It has been an irritating feature of local government in Dublin and contiguous areas in County Dublin for several years. The Bill will ensure that in future development suitable safeguards will be provided for the completion of these estates. I do hope that something will be done about the existing unfinished estates in the city and along its confines. There are a large number of these estates. Some of them lack properly developed open spaces; some are without lighting, and so on. They have remained like that for many years. It is a source of concern to the residents in them, some of whom have very high rateable valuations. They have to pay their rates every year and naturally there is constant agitation for the services for which they are paying but which they do not enjoy. I trust the Minister will come to the assistance of the local authorites who are faced with that problem.

I also welcome the Bill inasmuch as it attempts to deal with eyesores that spoil our amenities fringing the city, particularly seaside resorts. I had occasion some time ago to visit a seaside resort in County Dublin. On a Sunday afternoon, I found young men erecting wooden structures there. I do not know whether they had planning permission but I doubt if they had. I do not believe any responsible local authority would give permission for the erection of wooden structures. Not alone were they erecting these wooden structures but they were spoiling a very nice view. Whether this Bill will prevent that type of development in the future or whether it will meet the situation as it exists at the moment in regard to these eyesores, I am not quite clear. I should like the Minister to deal with that point.

Our road pattern was raised by Deputy Booth in his reference to the inadequate road pattern of our city. Within recent weeks—and I congratulate him on it—the Minister drew attention to that problem to the Dublin Corporation. There is an urgent necessity to develop the approach roads that serve our city and the corporation are concerned with the problem. They are awaiting their consultant's report before anything can be done.

A Deputy referred to the traffic counts on our roads. A continental traffic consultant firm undertook that matter and I understand that the report is now being examined by the corporation officials. Having examined the report and the recommendations, some steps should be taken to relieve the growing traffic congestion in our city.

I come now to the question of private house development in estates and the lack of open spaces there. I hope that under this Bill it will be possible to increase recreational facilities in housing estates. The position over the past few years is that certain sites are developed without due regard to proper recreational facilities for children. On the other hand, the corporation give generous open spaces for such facilities. Indeed, the Department of Local Government should insist on that in any planning requirements for corporation housing estates. I should like to see it extended to future development of private housing estates. I realise a financial problem is involved in the high cost of building sites.

I should also like to see some curb on the price developers have to pay for land for house building. I think that high site prices are responsible for the high cost of building today and developers find it is not an economic proposition to devote more space for recreational facilities which are necessary for a normal community living in private housing estates.

I hope that when this Bill reaches Committee Stage any points of contention will be discussed and, where deemed necessary, suitable amendment made. The corporation itself, as Deputy Briscoe pointed out, is considering the measure in its various committees. A representative committee of these has been appointed and they will formulate suitable amendments.

Housing in Dublin city has also been adverted to. This Bill will give the corporation great assistance in reaching a solution of our housing problem. In that connection, I should like to advert to the point about co-ordination of planning schemes. If Dublin is to cope with the economic trends that are apparent today, co-ordination is very desirable. I have in mind industrial activity, the demands by industrialists tor more space for the extension of factories, the erection of new office buildings and so on. Associated with that is the demand for housing, both private and local authority housing. If these problems are to be solved, I believe there must be closer co-ordination, concentration and co-operation between the Dublin Corporation and the Dublin County Council. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that both bodies should be integrated because of the overspill.

The tread has been to move more out into the county. Today, there are very few sites available for Dublin Corporation housing. That is a matter which should be given some serious thought. I believe it will help immensely the future of the corporation's housing problem and programme if such integration can be brought about. Certainly, closer co-operation between the two bodies is essential, if the major problems facing the city are to be solved.

In conclusion, I congratulate the Minister once again on the introduction of this measure which I trust will have a very easy passage through this House.

Mr. J. Brennan

I want to intervene briefly at this stage to make a few references to this measure which I consider is a most important one. It is a comprehensive Bill which is bound to have a very great impact on the social and commercial life of this country for many years to come. It is a Bill into which a great deal of planning and research has gone. In the light of the experience of the 1934 and the 1939 Acts, it was designed to be a measure that would deal adequately with the many problems which inevitably arise in the important matter of planning.

Having listened to some of the speakers early on in this discussion, I think it is obvious that many of our people are inclined to regard town planning as something which merely restricts one from doing what one wants to do, and that sometimes commercial interests try to exert undue pressure for the purpose of overcoming some of the provisions of existing legislation. However, planning as envisaged in this Bill covers a far wider field than merely restricting persons from doing certain things in relation to building and so forth. It takes power to develop and that is an important aspect of the Bill which is possibly overlooked by many people who think of it in terms of the type of legislation which has been in operation in this respect in the past.

The amount of work which is there to be done in the way of development is very great. The sooner a development plan can be formulated so that the public generally will know what the blueprints of planning for the future are, the better. The Bill provides for a statement by the planning authority as to what is envisaged in the way of control of planning. Many people wish to look far ahead, particularly in relation to the value of property and wish to know what the adopted plan for their area is. That is a very important provision in this Bill.

One has only to look at the various obstacles one sees on highways and the many things on our horizons which are unsightly to realise the lack of planning in the past. On the other hand, as is set out in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill, there are many examples of very good planning in some of our past construction work throughout the country. However, frequently going along the countryside on even a moderately long journey, one will discover many places where obstacles are erected which if any reasonable planning had been in existence, could not possibly have been placed in that position. As regards commercial interests trying to obtrude themselves on places considered to be vantage points for the purpose of business which do not always conform to elementary ideas in the matter of proper planning, when personal interests are affected, people seem to think that nothing should stand in the way. I do not believe for a moment, nor does this Bill suggest in any of its provisions, that planning should sweep aside all commercial interests.

Deputy Lynch cited the case of the ESB insisting on having the Fitzwilliam Street buildings demolished and replaced by other buildings and suggested that was an example of where town planning should be able to step in and prevent their doing so. There are cases where commercial interests must transcend any provision of town planning, unless it is completely in conflict with the basic principles of planning as set out in any Act or in this Bill. If we allow the aesthetic mind to run riot and have its way in the matter of enacting legislation of this type, we shall be going too far in that direction, just as, if we allowed commercial interests to dominate legislation of this type, we should be going too far the other way. Anybody who examines this masterful piece of legislation must agree that it makes ample provision for good middle of the road planning which will meet every situation.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Parliamentary Secretary by design use the adjective "masterful"?

Mr. J. Brennan

I could think of a lot of better ones but it is good enough.

Mr. Dillon

I notice he eschewed the word "masterly" and chose "masterful".

Mr. J. Brennan

Flexibility is the operative thing in the Bill. It makes provision for every foreseeable case, if I may use another adjective that is not unfamiliar to the Leader of the Opposition. It does make provision for flexibility which is important.

When the Minister comes to reply to the debate on this Bill, he will possibly cover all the points made by the Deputies but I wish to refer to what Deputy Lynch said. He seemed to take particular exception to what he regarded as the complete lack of authority as regards the local representatives of the people. If anything, this Bill goes so far in that direction that it possibly could be said that it goes too far. The elected representatives of the local authority are the people who will have the full say in the development plan and I do not think anything could be more democratic than that. In fact, it could be going even a little too far because sometimes these human beings are inclined to be influenced a little by their own personal interest and it is only right to ensure there are the necessary arrangements for appeal in cases where that type of thing could possibly happen.

Deputy Lynch deplored the managerial system and regretted the passing of the days when the elected representatives had complete authority. That is something with which I do not agree at all. I shall not follow that line of argument except in so far as it relates to the authority and control envisaged in this case. We have given them in this Bill more control than has possibly been accorded to them in any legislation with which we have dealt here for a long time. I think that is right and I hope they will appreciate their responsibilities in that direction. When it comes to urban councils and other local authorities of that type, I hope they will appreciate that their duty is to serve the general good and not that of the individual and that they will base their plan on that assumption and pursue it accordingly. To have a development plan is an important thing but the duty to pursue the various objectives set out in that plan is also imposed on the authority in the Bill.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 5th February, 1963.