Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Apr 1963

Vol. 202 No. 1

Financial Resolutions. - Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1962—Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete subsection (2) and substitute the following subsections:

"(2) This Act shall come into operation as follows:

(a) this section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act,

(b) sections 84, 85 and 86 and subsection (5) of section 89 shall come into operation on the day fixed for that purpose by the Minister for Local Government by order,

(c) if an order is made under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section, the rest of this Act shall come into operation on the day appointed by that order,

(d) if an order is not made under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section, the rest of this Act shall come into operation in an area on the day appointed with respect to that area by order made under paragraph (b) of that subsection.

(3) The Minister for Local Government—

(a) may by order appoint a day to be the day appointed under this Act, or

(b) may by orders appoint two or more different days to be, with respect to different areas respectively, the days appointed under this Act."

The purpose of the amendment is to enable the Act to be brought into operation in stages, and possibly on different dates. I can visualise, for instance, the Act being brought in on one date for the city of Dublin, and possibly in counties which up to the moment have not had any planning control in operation, it might be that we would consider it desirable to bring it into operation on a different date for reasons that might have to do with administrative or technical personnel. The amendment is intended to enable us to do that rather than under the Bill as it now stands bringing it into operation on the one day for the entire country. The purpose of the amendment is to enable the Minister, if circumstances so warrant or demand, to bring it in stages, and to apply it to different parts of the country on different days, to be appointed.

I think there is agreement to take amendments Nos. I and 4 together.

Yes, one is a corollary of the other. I am glad this amendment has been put down by the Minister. When speaking on Second Reading I think I mentioned the fact that this was an urban as well as a rural Bill, or at least it should be an urban as well as a rural Bill, affecting not one area but two distinct areas. I said we had two distinct problems, one a peculiarly urban one. Dublin is preeminently an urban problem, much more pressing than an area like Cork where you have the next largest concentration of population, or the other large centres like Limerick, Waterford and elsewhere. In the light of the experience gained in operating the Act in Dublin the other areas could benefit considerably.

The effect of so delaying the application of the provisions of this Bill to the country at large would be to give the local authorities throughout the country an opportunity of assessing the problem with which they will be faced in the light of experience gained in Dublin because now, with the passage of this Bill, each local authority will be under notice to carry out certain developments in their areas. It will be necessary for them to appoint planning consultants and decisions will have to be taken in regard to the broad outlines of a plan within each urban and rural area. The fact that the Bill can be implemented in stages throughout the different areas in the country would have that advantage. For that reason I think the application of this legislation by stages throughout the country, instead of bringing it in at once everywhere, is an improvement.

(South Tipperary): I wish to express my agreement with the Minister's amendment. When I spoke on this matter before, I went so far as to suggest that the Minister might even consider introducing a Bill in the first instance to deal with Dublin alone as it was a tremendous problem to try to provide legislation of this nature and carry it through in respect of the whole country in one fell swoop. It presents a difficult administrative problem, and a financial problem which I do not think anybody at the moment is capable of calculating. It would be largely guesswork to calculate what all this will cost, so the Minister is being administratively prudent and financially prudent in bringing it into operation in stages. In certain areas officials will be better able to cope with the problems than in others and the element of urgency enters into the matter far more as far as Dublin and Cork are concerned than in my constituency and in most other rural areas.

I should like, however, to have an assurance from the Minister that when he names a day for the operation of this legislation in a particular area he will give full consideration to representations from the local authority in that area. What I mean is that he should hear representations not only from the so-called authority —the officials or the manager— but that he would be prepared to listen to representations from the councils and, if necessary, receive deputations if the council members foresaw difficulties or if there were differences of opinion between themselves and the manager.

I should like to get it quite clear from the Minister that his amendment means that if the city of Dublin, which has already adopted the old Town Planning Act and certain limited controls, is itself ready to proceed under this Bill when it becomes law that Dublin would not necessarily be held up in proceeding with development when other areas may not yet be ready to begin. What I am seeking is an assurance that areas which have adopted the previous Act and which are ready would not be precluded from beginning their operations simply because other areas are not ready.

That is specifically the reason for this amendment and, in addition, to facilitate local authorities that might be ready to go ahead because of their work in the past, their knowledge and their staff arrangements. It is also vital that areas which did not opt to operate the old Act, and have, therefore, no planning controls whatever, should be brought in under this Bill at the earliest possible moment. The difficulties of local authorities is one of the factors which moved me to bring in this amendment. Places which already have controls, and which are, therefore, ready, could be allowed to go ahead and other places where there are no controls would be brought under the umbrella of the legislation as soon as possible. That is the object we have in mind when we talk about bringing in different places at different times. As Deputy Hogan suggested, views expressed by the local authorities, by both council and officials, will undoubtedly be given full consideration by my Department and myself before we bring in a county, town or area. I should point out, however, that we do not intend to allow a large number of years to elapse between the operation of the legislation in the first areas and its operation in other areas throughout the country. We shall, of course, take due cognisance of the difficulties existing in the different areas.

As Cork has been mentioned, I should like to know if Cork means the area within the jurisdiction of the Cork Corporation or if it includes the county.

It means the county borough area.

The Minister mentioned the necessity for local authorities to have proper consultants. I do not know whether the supply of consultants is sufficient to go around, but I take it the Minister will take heed of what Deputy Hogan suggested— that there should be consultations between his Department and the interests concerned.

In regard to the question of Cork, the problem of all cities is the fact that they are growing into the county areas. We have in this Bill areas contiguous to others and the interests of the County of Cork would be affected by any growth of the City of Cork. If Cork City were brought in on planning at an early stage it would mean that the people with responsibility for Cork would have to plan for its growth because these areas are growing outwards. In Dublin there is the proposal for renewed building in a large central area but in the large provincial areas the growth is into the countryside and they are spreading over their own boundaries at present. Therefore, I take it they would be affected by the Planning Acts as they are. I should like an assurance from the Minister that in this matter there would be consultation in regard to the appointment of advisers for the planning of these things technically in an efficient way.

So far as that aspect of the matter is concerned the House is probably aware that we already have under way, with great assistance from Dublin Vocational Educational Committee, a training course open to, and intended for, serving engineers and architects of local authorities on the subject of town planning with a view to giving them co-operation and assistance and enabling them to do their job better in the counties from which they are drawn. In addition, we have had a series of appreciation lectures and we hope to follow with more of a similar, or even a more advanced, nature in the near future. My Department hope to be able to assist local authorities in various ways as time goes on and as technical personnel are available. We hope to be very helpful to local authorities who may be shorthanded in respect of expert knowledge in the matter of planning.

I do not want read into this amendment more than is intended or any suggestion that because of the amendment my mind has changed in any way about the application of the Bill if it becomes an Act to the country as a whole as soon as possible. There is no change of mind in that respect and this is merely to facilitate the easy introduction of it in stages. Regard will be had where necessary to any difficulty arising for the local authority that may find that the impending date will be too soon for them for any reason. We shall take cognisance of that and give due weight to any consideration put forward and we shall probably be able to help in finding solutions to local authorities' difficulties. The overall idea is to get this going as soon as possible even though it may not start everywhere on the same day.

May I ask the Minister one question? In connection with these courses we realise that the county or city manager is solely responsible for staff. May the managers select a certain individual on the staff without discussion with any member on the council and send him up for this course without informing the council or corporation whether such a person holds the qualifications suitable for this course? Also, who is paying for the attendance of the official—not that I am objecting—in Dublin for a long course?

The county council pays the subsistence of the person sent forward. By and large, this would be a staff matter and as such, it is the manager who would determine who should attend. On his return, the assignment of the person who attended the course would be a matter for the manager and he would be a very foolish manager if he did not send the appropriate person to the course. He would be asking for trouble later on and would not be helping himself or his local authority. I should imagine that any manager in these matters would be largely guided by the advice of his county engineer who would have the knowledge to say who on his staff was working in some capacity related to town planning or showed some aptitude in that direction. I imagine the advice of the county engineer would be sought and considered, if not acted on, by most managers. There will be another course in the following year and it may well be that a manager would send an individual this year knowing that another could go next year.

It is usual to consult the various committees, vocational and otherwise, if a member of the staff is being offered the advantage of attending a course and for this matter to come before the local body to ascertain if they are in favour of a certain official attending. That has become the practice. Has that happened in this case? I am not questioning any particular county manager but there is a principle involved and I am afraid that city managers might select certain officials and send them forward without adverting to this principle and without asking the views of the members on the matter, especially as there is expenditure of money involved?

I am afraid I cannot add to what I have said.

I am not trying to call anything in question myself but since there is expenditure involved, does that not leave it open to the members if they wish to do so, to question the manager in regard to the selection of a person to attend the course?

I imagine that the local aspect of questioning the manager would apply just as in regard to other action the manager might take involving the council, its finances or staff. I think it is a matter for the manager and he would be foolish to send the least appropriate man to the course. Although it does not alter the objection that might be raised I should say that part of the salary of the engineer or architect attending the course is paid by the county sending him and the other part by arrangement with Dublin Corporation who have been kind enough to employ these officials on actual town planning work while they are at the same time attending the course. In that way it has been possible to operate this scheme at much less cost, about half the cost, that would otherwise have to be borne.

This is a staff matter and, by and large, one for the manager and I do not think I can go beyond that. Certainly, any member of a local authority will not be debarred from inquiring and kicking up a row if he thinks something wrong is being done.

(South Tipperary): In my area a man was sent forward last autumn and the matter did not come before the local body until an item appeared in the Estimates at the rates meeting when the expenses had to be submitted. We were then presented with the position that if we did not want to pay we could recall the man. I think that was a wrong way of doing business. How do the local body stand who find themselves with an officer of that sort? If the officer is back after being trained at the expense of the local body he is still a free man and can offer his services somewhere else. How does the local body stand after spending money on him?

If only one local body spent money on him it would be quite foolish to train a man for every other local authority. The pool is much too small at the moment for our needs. Local authorities have been urged to avail themselves of this course as soon as possible and this course has been set up since before Christmas. What would be one county's loss in the case cited as possibly arising by Deputy Hogan would be another county's gain. Likewise, it could be Tipperary's case to gain rather than to lose. They might get someone who attended this course and get two rather than one: also, they could finish up with none. We want to try as fast as we can to enlarge the pool of qualified town planners, engineers or architects with a certain rudimentary knowledge of planning in order to get ourselves off the ground as soon as possible. I agree there may be losses and gains but if you take it all over the country you will agree that——

(South Tipperary): What is the position of counties with existing planning officers?

They are very lucky to have them.

(South Tipperary): But when they proceed to train a second one?

If they need a second one they train him. If they do not need a second one they do not train a second one.

Deputy Desmond mentioned the question of Cork boundary —the city as distinct from the county. The Minister may say: "Bring in Cork on a certain day" or "Bring in Limerick on a certain day" or anywhere else. Within the past year there was a movement in Cork, say, to extend the borough boundary. Take the same kind of intention and move, for example, in Limerick. Would it be the Minister's intention to bring in the area adjacent in Cork and Cork County and in Limerick and Limerick County?

I would say, in normal circumstances, yes.

That system is already in existence in Cork. The representatives of the corporation and of the contiguous areas, with the engineers of each authority, meet, say, monthly. The practice fell into abeyance for some time but that consultative committee is being reorganised and is working on the lines suggested.

We Cork fellows will not fight about it. There is an awful lot to be desired but we will straighten that out below in Cork, as we hope to straighten out the borough boundary.

That is right.

There is a difficulty in relation to the county and city of Cork. In Waterford we have a difficulty because we have in existence the Borough of Waterford and on the north side we shall be extending into Kilkenny. Waterford people and Kilkenny people are reasonably friendly and a lot of Kilkenny people live in Waterford. There is great rivalry between Waterford and Kilkenny. A few years ago we endeavoured to extend the borough into Kilkenny and we had a famous Kilkenny hurling county council saying: "not an inch". Therefore, you see the borders exist in our own bailiwick as well as they do up, say, around the Six Counties.

Deputy Desmond raised a point about a manager appointing an officer to come to Dublin and the council being told about it a month or two afterwards. That is always a matter of friction between a manager and his council. The Minister said the manager would only be looking for trouble to do such a thing but some managers do it. The managers are in charge of the staff. However, it is a matter of ordinary common courtesy, and I think it should be done, that when the manager appears before the county council he should say: "it is my intention, gentlemen, to send Mr. So-and-So to Dublin for this town planning course" and talk to the council about it. That is the kind of thing to put into legislation. It will take away a lot of friction which occurs between managers and elected councils.

I hope the Minister will not take too much notice of that suggestion. We in the city of Dublin, in our council, have a manager. Fortunately, we get on well with the manager. We recognise, first of all, that he is in complete control of the staff. You might as well say, if we were to follow the line that has just been suggested, that he should not have the right to move an officer from one section to another without consulting the council. Where he does consult the council is if there is a matter of increased expenditure or the appointment of an official which would mean an additional expenditure.

We find that everything works smoothly in our City of Dublin because we mind our business and we expect the manager to mind his business. One of the essential parts of the business is to have complete and absolute control of the staff and we have nothing to say about them whatsoever. If the manager wants to increase their remuneration, however, he comes to us and makes a case for recommending increased remuneration or if he wants to add a number of officials to a particular section he then comes and asks the council to approve of this additional number being engaged because it involves additional expenditure.

I would certainly hope that the Minister—I have not waited for him to reply—would not include in any legislation the suggestions made by the Deputy who has just spoken because that would only bring chaos.

The state of affairs that exists in Dublin city might be all right ar far as Deputy Briscoe is concerned. I have no doubt it is all right. Surely, however, it would not be chaos for a manager to do what the chief executive officer of the vocational education committee does when he appears, as Deputy Desmond said, before the committee and says: "Gentlemen, it is my intention to send Professor or Dr. So-and-So to the University in Cork or Dublin or to the Gaeltacht or to such and such a place for a course" and so on?

Because it costs money. That is why.

It is costing us money now. We are to pay the money. I am not talking about the money but about the principle.

Yes, definitely.

As it is, Dublin Corporation will not be sending these officers anywhere. They are here in Dublin. The Dublin Corporation are kind enough to employ the officers who will be sent up. Therefore, I do not think it will create anything like chaos. However, it will create an awful lot of goodwill if the managers come to their various councils and notify the councils and say: "It is my intention to send Mr. So-and-So to such and such a place." In 99 cases out of 100, Mr. So-and-So will be sent without a word. What annoys the council is to hear about it for the first time maybe two or three months later or to read about it in the newspaper or when somebody comes along and says: "I believe you sent the county engineer or the assistant county engineer to such a place. Why did you do it?" It is a matter of courtesy that the council should be informed by the manager and it should be done.

(South Tipperary): I wish to correct the impression Deputy Briscoe has given. He said a manager has no obligation to bring these matters before a local body unless it involves increased expenditure. Whatever about what is paid to the man who is sent on a course, he has to be replaced and increased expenditure is, therefore, involved. Therefore, the matter should receive the attention of the council beforehand. Secondly, apart altogether from expenditure, it is bad public relations.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.

I move amendment No. 2:

In subsection (1), page 5, line 35, to delete "announcement or direction."

With the inclusion of the words "announcement or direction," the provision could be applied very widely. A public authority might decide to make an announcement that there was an outbreak of disease in a particular area, an epidemics and that could be taken to be an advertisement within the terms of this section. I am not using levity when I suggest that the wideness of the scope of the provision could include notices like "attested area." There is also the question of "direction." A local group might put up a notice pointing in a certain direction to a bazaar which was being run for a charitable purpose. The section as it stands is much too wide. An advertisement in the accepted sense ought to mean something which was used for the purpose of advertising by whatever method is used, model, balloon or poster. That is wide enough. It is unwise to write into the Bill something which could be misconstrued at a later stage. That is something we ought to avoid in legislation.

I would draw Deputy Jones's attention to another phrase in that section and I wonder why he has not included it. It says here: " `advertisement' means any word". What does that mean?

Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to what "any word" might mean.

Under Section 4, subsection (2), there is power being taken, if approved by the House, to make regulations exempting from the provisions of Section 2 certain signs such as those outlined by the Deputy; in fact, the three or four he enumerated would clearly come within what we intend to exempt from the terms of Section 2 and we believe it is the only way to do it, not to leave it as wide open as the Deputy's amendment would make it. This will enable the legitimate and necessary signs and directions to be used. It is quite conceivable that if the amendment were conceded, there would be advertisements formulated as announcements or directions. There would still be advertisements which should not be allowed but, which by the very form in which they were phrased, could get by the law. What we are doing is closing the door and then allowing the exceptions through by way of regulations under subsection (2) of Section 4.

Might I ask, without being discourteous, what exactly the Minister had in mind in regard to announcements and directions which ought to fall within this section, other than those which have already been used? What does he envisage as announcements or directions, other than pure advertisements?

If you take the ones that are in existence even now such as: "Petrol 100 yds. ahead"; "Restaurant half a mile," and so on, that sort of thing is already widespread throughout the country and should not be allowed to be so widespread and to develop in a haphazard way as it has been allowed to develop over the years.

Take carnivals organised for charity, for a church, school or such purposes. They are advertisements of a kind also. Sometimes a banner is put across a road when the road is narrow; sometimes there are posters along the road at various points or direction signs to where a carnival is being held. Would these all be exempted?

Provided the entertainment in question was of a legalised type, something organised for a worthy cause, as has been mentioned by Deputy Burke, the regulations would enable such direction signs to be used without cluttering up the countryside.

The Minister has met the point.

I think you are quite safe there.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 3:

In subsection (1), page 6, to delete lines 8 to 11.

Amendment No. 23 is related and may be taken with this amendment.

The definition as it stands is much too wide. It could mean that a man whose house had been plastered 25 years ago would be prohibited from plastering the gable end of his house, without seeking permission, because some official thought it was inconsistent with the pattern of the houses round about that house. The type of plastering he might propose to do might be different from that of the houses round about. There will always be forward thought in regard to these matters. It is a good thing for the march of progress that advances in different types of plastering are applied. Surely it is inconsistent that we should prevent a man from doing such a job on his own house unless he gets permission from an official, who might say to him: "This would be inconsistent with the other houses around about; it would change the character of the house and bring it out of line with neighbouring structures"?

The work carried out by such an individual might be the start of a series of improvements. Even if it were inconsistent with the neighbouring houses, it might well be that others would think the improvement of such a nature that they would follow what had been done. For that reason, we think that the provision concerning an "alteration, which includes plastering and painting ..." is extending the scope of the restriction too far and taking away from the individual a right which people traditionally have had—the right to be different from somebody else—and which has been exercised by people all the time.

Within the recent past, visitors to this country have commented on the fact that the Irish are afraid of innovations in the matter of colour. One of the things much sought after in this country in the design and treatment of buildings is that there should be the type of variation which actually removes uniformity and makes the thing more beautiful. A new type of plastering could indeed be something like that. When in other countries the type of plastering known as stucco was indulged in, it was quite new and different. At that time it was a complete innovation. Even within recent times, a new type of dash has been used on houses. To decide now that an individual may not treat his house in that way without seeking the approval of an official is going too far. For that reason, I move the amendment.

Deputy Jones seems to abhor the suggestion that an official should have to be consulted before a man may carry out necessary repairs to his house by way of plastering. Yet how many of these people fail to come along voluntarily to seek an inspector of the Department to vet their work in order to get a grant? What is wrong with an inspector from their local authority coming along to vet what they propose to do, to see whether or not it might be improved by suggestion, or whether the work would not seriously damage the adjoining houses? The adjoining householders have their rights. Take the Georgian houses we hear so much about. Not so long ago, and not more than 100 yards from here, one of those houses in the centre of a long terrace of Georgian houses was plastered. In the minds of the people interested in Georgian houses, that was the last straw. Yet it happened not 100 yards from here.

On the other hand, I am inclined to agree with Deputy Jones that a proposal to do up a house by plastering or repairing it in a general way and not making a major operation out of it can have the effect of persuading others to follow. But what is wrong with going to the local authority, seeing that the work is worth while and good from every point of view? If they come along with such a proposal, they will get approval. The job will then be done with the authority of the local body and with the benefit of the advice of their officials. Others may then follow suit and do their job to conform with the change. Far from its being any obstruction to them, householders who consult their local authority may receive definite assistance from them, which may enable them to do the job even better than they originally proposed. They may be advised that they are not doing it the right way, that their house may look a bit out of line or something like that. I can see no reason whatever for exempting these things from securing the permission of the local authority. Great damage can be caused by certain repairs which may be termed necessary repairs, but which, in the manner in which they are carried out, may result in injury not only to the house itself but to the surrounding houses.

It is also proposed by this amendment that the alteration of the external appearance of a structure be exempted. Surely the Deputy will agree that to allow the alteration of a house, particularly in a built-up area, at the whim and fancy of the owner at a particular time would be tantamount to scrapping any thought we had of planning control. If we look at this in its proper light, we will see it is not an unfair imposition. If this amendment were carried, an applicant who had been forced to change the appearance of the structure by the verdict of the court could later on alter it back to the original form. In that way, we would have a complete negation of the terms under which an applicant must apply to build a new structure.

I would appeal to the Deputy to consider the matter in that light and not solely on the basis that doing a necessary repair job is something everybody should be encouraged to to. I agree wholeheartedly they should be encouraged to do necessary repairs. In 99 cases out of a hundred, it is as easy, and very often no more costly, to do the necessary repairs by having regard to the amenities of the area generally and particularly to those of the people living next door. It does not follow at all that because he may have to get permission, it will cost more or that it will have to be done in a way he does not like. In 999 out of 1,000 cases of such repair jobs, there is no hesitation in applying for a grant and about having an inspector down from the Department and another from the local council. Most of the complaints we receive are that the inspectors do not come quickly enough.

I do not like this arrangement of having to ask the local authority for permission to do every small bit of work that has to be done. Take the case of a plasterer in some scheme or other who is free from his own job for a couple of days. Another man has a job to be done and that plasterer could do it in the couple of days he has to spare but it would take a month to get permission to have the work done. The doing of the work depends on the availability of inspectors.

I also think it is all wrong that the local authority should be regarded as the sole judge of a colour scheme for a man's house. Surely we are carrying things too far if we are to put a local authority in the position of telling a man that he must paint his house such and such a colour. If we do that, we will leave people in the position that they cannot turn in their own houses and cannot have a flower box if the local authority does not want it. This provision is wide open to that sort of thing. I think it is entirely wrong to say that a man cannot alter the colour scheme of his house without having to go to the local authority and tell them that they have to be the judge of it, that he knows nothing about it, although he may know ten times as much as anybody in the local authority.

When the official comes back after having gone through this course here in Dublin and finds a house under his jurisdiction the painting and plastering of which he believes is not right, can he then cause the owner to change it? I am speaking about a job that has already been done.

The first thing which should be said about this matter, and which appears to have been overlooked, is that these plastering and painting jobs come into question only when they largely alter the external appearance of the house. Deputy Clinton has made a point that the man who owns the house and who has to live in it is the best judge but I do not agree that this is always the case. Certainly he should have a very big say in it and if he does not want to do it, he cannot be compelled to paint it in any particular colour. What may actually happen is that some outlandish decoration, and these are not entirely unknown, may be proposed. It is to prevent anything like that that this provision is in the Bill. We are not prepared to allow a man to do these outlandish alterations, if they are going to alter the appearance of the whole place.

If the alteration proposed is not going to be an eyesore to your neighbours or to other people, then the outlook of the local authority or the planning authority will be far less stringent, but if a man proposes to do his house up in colours that will blind the people next door and the general public, then it will not be allowed. People coming home late at night or early in the morning may see enough things without seeing a colour scheme of that nature. There are certain of these things that have to be prevented and it is to have control over them that we have this provision in the Bill.

Suppose that six houses in a row are painted red and someone in that row wants to paint his house yellow, what does the Minister think of that?

I am not a planning officer. The choice of colours does not appeal to me but it could be an improvement and in such circumstances, it would be allowed. On the other hand, it could be an absolute outrage.

One of the bad things about Irish houses is that every house in a particular terrace tends to be painted the same colour. If I want to paint my front door pink, I should be allowed to do it.

I have already said that the houses all over the country are too much alike. We are doing this to prevent a colour scheme of an outrageous nature that would be an eyesore to everybody passing by.

I have in mind a particular house, not in my constituency, the gable-end of which has been altered. It has been that way now for a couple of years and I must say that I envy the owner of it. If the official goes back to that county, having done his course here in Dublin, and if he considers that house is not suitable, can he say to the owner that it will have to be altered?

I do not know whether the Deputy considers this house good or bad.

To my mind, it is excellent.

If this house the Deputy refers to was altered within the provisions of the Planning Acts that have been in operation over the years, it is all right, but if that structure was made without permission under the planning regulations in operation in that area, it would be an unauthorised structure. These provisions are all subject to the proviso that the local authority planning officer and, ultimately, the Minister on appeal, are fully satisfied that a structure is objectionable and should be removed.

This house to which I refer happens to be in Kildare, between Monasterevan and Kildare, and the Minister and some of his officials must have seen it. I think it is most unique in regard to its colour and its seashells but how do we know that some official coming from Kildare to Dublin will not go back and, showing that he is an expert, say that it is outrageous?

They will not all be experts.

The danger arises in the case of the person who is not an expert but believes he is. I believe that it has the most beautiful appearance of any house between Dublin and Kildare.

Without seeming to be facetious, surely, in all modesty, your view that this house is so beautiful must have some merit and if it has some merit, I do not think any planning officer, whether he thinks he knows his business or actually knows it, is likely to say that it should be taken down.

This is very dangerous country, although I have considerable sympathy with what the Minister is trying to do. I do not like these proposals that a planning officer should decide the colour of my house, although I have frequently looked at houses and said: "My goodness, why did they paint it that colour?" Of course I have frequently met Irishmen from the States wearing ties which I did not like. I know the house to which Deputy Desmond refers. There is colour in it and care has been taken in the way these shells or pebbles are arranged on it. It is a place to which CIE take foreign visitors to see because there is evidence of a great deal of hard work by somebody. Whether it was accompanied by good taste, I am not prepared to say here.

The Deputy does not like it.

I am not so sure that I would——

He may be an expert.

If you walk down any street in Dublin or Cork or Carrigaline, you will see something to hurt your eyes but I do not want the House to empower local authority officials to interfere with the adventurous taste which is sometimes displayed by people who own houses. I think the House might be going too far and I am concerned about this whole section.

I agree that too much interference with the individual leads this State to a stage to which we do not like to see it being led but when the Minister introduced this section, his Department must have had reason for it and evidence from various parts of the country that this safeguard was required.

That is not a good reason.

In the city and county of Dublin, we have a number of colour schemes. We have this yellow dash which is to be seen in housing schemes here and there and there is little variation. If I were in one of these houses which had been painted this sickly yellow and a friend advised me to paint the house another colour, a man with artistic taste who pointed out that it would brighten the house and would be good for the district generally, it should be my privilege to do so. If I do not like the existing colour, I should be privileged to change it. I am not talking about changing the structure of the house but about the painting of it. I agree with Deputy Barry that we have a number of houses all over the country the colour schemes of which are repulsive. Take the Tidy Towns Competetion. Deputy Clinton and I were in Clondalkin recently discussing that competition. Let us say people there wanted to paint their houses which were never painted before.

Before June 1st.

And I said I did not like the colour. I think a good way to get over the difficulty would be——

You could control the paint manufacturers.

The Deputy is becoming hypothetical.

What is that word?

As if any Deputy has been otherwise.

Even the Minister.

We have a number of artists in this city and a number of people in the restaurant and hotel trades have consulted them and have introduced colour schemes in their bars and restaurants. If, along with other public representatives, I decided to enter Swords for this competition, then, if there was an advisory service attached to the Department, they could recommend that the houses should be painted a certain colour, with the advice and co-operation of the tenants of these houses. I should not like to see the initiative of any artistic man being stifled. I know it is essential to prevent the fellow who is going to paint his house red, green, blue and yellow and destroy the appearance of the district. I know that this has to be put in the Bill to prevent the people from being completely outlandish. Has the Minister's Department received any complaints about outlandish colours here and there? I know of some houses in which I would not like to live because of their colour schemes but it would be useful if there were an official who could be called upon, an artist or some man who could give advice to the local authority on what colour houses should be painted so that they would brighten and blend in with the district.

I did not intend to speak until I heard the Minister's comments on the amendment. I am beginning to wonder how crazy can we get in regard to this question of regimentation? I am going to give an example to the Minister of an experience I have had in my local authority area. It is indisputable that the local authority has power to direct tenants of local authority houses as to the colour scheme used in painting houses. A tenant of such a house has no discretion in the matter. In Roscommon, the tenant of a house in a terrace was a painter and being a man of initiative who had a few spare days, he bought paint and proceeded to paint his own house. He was in the act of doing it when he was stopped by the busybody local officials. I had to go to the county manager who took it upon himself to act as, shall we say, a specialist as to what was the right colour or otherwise. He told me that although he personally liked the colour chosen by the tenant, it was a brighter shade of red than the shade on the adjoining houses. The front doors and windows of the adjoining houses had not been painted in the previous 12 months. The outcome was that that skilled painter was prevented from painting his own house. Now we are going to extend that power to allow these same officials, who are described as experts, to prevent the citizen who is not living in a local authority house from painting his house whatever colour he may desire. How crazy can we get? Are we paying people to sit in back rooms in Dublin to plan all sorts of ways of tying up the individual?

I am described here as a person who wants to see social changes and to see the State interfering. I want to see the State interfering to ensure that people have a chance to live in Ireland. Here we have tools of private enterprise trying to regiment the people as to the colour they will use on their houses while, as far as accepting responsibility for giving employment at home is concerned, they are indifferent to the fact that people have to leave Ireland.

If we look at any row of houses for which local authorities are responsible, regimentation is apparent. Some of them have the appearance of the inside walls of a jail. If a tenant puts a bit of colour into a house on a terrace, he may be penalised for so doing.

The authority is there. No matter how amiable officials may be individually, when they act as a body they create fuss. They have to set up some kind of trouble to justify their existence. Personally, I do not accept that they are experts in the matter of painting. I am sure many Deputies read the description of modern paintings last week by a famous statesman—work done by a donkey with a stick tied to his tail. I would not agree with that description. If a modern artist produces something new, it may be the product of his generation; it may be an expression of his discontent in existing circumstances.

As Deputy Dunne has pointed out, because a person has a completely novel approach to the painting or decoration of his house, are we to have that person described privately as being cuckoo? That is how he will be described by people who regard themselves as experts in a particular field. They may be experts for five years. Nobody is going to suggest that they will be thereafter. Nobody can say that in ten years time people in this country will not be living in circular houses. We do not know. I do not fancy the idea but I do not know what somebody 15 or twenty years younger than I am might think of it. The people who will decide to hamstring anybody with progressive ideas are those who will have power given to them by this House. They will not be young people; they will be conservative people who will wield the power.

Unless it is absolutely essential to write this power into legislation, the Minister, who is a man with tons of commonsense, should not provide a weapon for those who are less broadminded than he and who may suffer from ulcers or distortions of mind and allow them to take that out on the public by preventing a lighthearted approach to the painting of a house by any citizen.

I always admire Deputy P. J. Burke in this House because he is always on the ball. He talked to us here tonight about a certain type of house. I suspect that this house is in his constituency and that in that house is living a staunch supporter of his. There are many dreadfully badly painted houses there. There are some badly painted publichouses. The owners, in many cases, are very staunch supporters of Deputy Burke. I have to commend the Deputy for being always on the ball.

Not after today's Budget.

He is trying now to get the Minister to commit himself, not for the sake of the people of the country, but because there are one or two staunch supporters of his in North Dublin. I prefer to consider the people in general.

The amendment relates to plastering and painting.

I am talking of the plastering and painting of a few houses on the way out to the Airport.

The Deputy was talking about Deputy Burke's supporters.

Deputy Burke's approach was very interesting.

The Deputy is not serious now.

It is not to warn the Minister of the danger he is in of treading on the corns of Deputy Burke's supporters that I intervened. The matter with which I am concerned is a little gem of a church. The people responsible for it plastered that church. There are many people who say that that should not have been done. There are many others who say that it saved it. I shall not enter into that controversy. But it is one of the dangers the Minister might find himself in that he might have one of his officials making a decision that this Pugin gem was destroyed and an order would be sent to the parish priest to have him hack off his plaster.

This might look as if I were justifying what the Minister has put into the Bill. The objection I have to this alteration including plastering or painting is that it is just another bit of bureaucracy gone mad. That is the tendency. Deputy McQuillan put his finger on it. Here we are turning power over to the State as to what colour a man will paint his house. We have seen cases in Dublin in days gone by of whole streets being painted the same colour. That is regimentation. This Bill ensures that that will continue. Somebody in a council office may say: "We can get a whole lot of cheap red oxide and we will use that." The houses will look dreadful. There may be some faded yellow paint or some dreadful pink that might be available at a cheap rate. County councils buy their paints through the central purchasing organisation. Paint will be bought in bulk and will be sent out and whole schemes will be ruined.

This section would destroy initiative on the part of tenants of council houses. I will admit that someone is bound to make what might be a mistake, in my opinion, in the Minister's opinion or in the opinion of the experts, but it might not be such a mistake after all because, so far as painting is concerned, it is very hard for anyone to say what is right. I consider that it should be left to the individual to say what is right for himself.

One of the greatest collections of paintings that was ever made was made by an Irishman. When that collection was offered to the city of Dublin, it would not be accepted because a place would not be built for it. It was said to be a collection of daubs, and that it would result in putting up the rates. People woke up when the British had the collection.

I am afraid that is a different type of painting.

That was the Lane collection. There was a difference of opinion about the paintings and people said they were paintings by French crackpots—Renoir, Degas and others.

Where would the Deputy leave the painting of the Tramore railway bridge?

I have often had clashes with the Minister but I will not bring this debate down to the level of the Minister for Transport and Power. The Minister should accept this amendment. We want to safeguard the rights of a private citizen to paint his house the way he likes it. The ordinary private citizen will have to face a more severe critic than the Department, the Minister, or the local authority. He has to face his neighbour, and if he paints his house some outrageous colour, he will be told about it in the local pub, or his wife will be told about it in the local shop. I think the Minister should accept the amendment.

The trend of the debate has been to refer to external decoration, and particularly external painting. I would be inclined to agree with Deputy Lynch that if a man were to go off the rails in regard to a colour scheme, his neighbours would bring him back on to them in a very short time. There is the other aspect of plastering. Nowadays the tendency in modern buildings is to have a rough cast finish. Going through the countryside, we see that the local authorities often decide to plaster the outside of cottages, originally built of good stone, by good tradesmen, and intended to be painted. It is a pity that work of that kind should be covered by plaster. If a cottier or a business man or anyone else decides to dash his house, we should try to influence him against doing so.

Tradesmen are scarce and stonemasons are scarce. I do not believe there are many in the country who could build houses like the houses put up 40 or 50 years ago. There is a tendency to use stone work on our public and private buildings and we should try to preserve that, if at all possible. The same applies to brickwork. I do not think one could ever get tired of looking at good stone or brickwork, and it is a pity to see it destroyed by plastering. If this section preserves that type of building, I am in favour of it, although I do not like the idea of forcing people to go to the local authority for permission.

In regard to external decoration, the Minister's inspectors, in dealing with reconstruction grants, can play a very important part, and they can influence people in the right direction. People may think that plastering eliminates dampness, but I believe that no amount of plastering will cure dampness. It is a pity that so many fine stone and brick houses are spoiled by the application of plaster.

Would the Minister cut out the word "painting"?

I am thinking of getting a beauty expert to advise us.

Rembrandt?

No, but make-up experts.

Would the Minister consider cutting out the word "painting"?

I will consider it.

We heard that before.

I feel very strongly that this is a very objectionable subsection. I have a definite impression that it will prevent the carrying out of many small improvements which can mean so much, and which are so desirable. I know quite a number of people do this type of work when the spirit moves them, and if they cannot do it when they get the idea, if something intervenes, it is never done. If they have to put it on the long finger, that is the end of it. Perhaps it gives an excuse to a reluctant husband for failing to make the improvements his wife thinks should be made now and again.

There is something sacred about a man's home. He builds his personality into the house, and I believe he is entitled to make his home what he thinks it should be, and not what someone else thinks it should be. It is most undesirable that anyone should have the right to say to a man: "Your house must be a certain colour." That would be enough to drive a man to drink, or to drive his wife and family to drink, because some people have a definite objection to certain colours. They have very definite views about colours, and they are entitled to have these definite views.

We have heard a lot about artists. I have seen pictures which I am sure were painted by very good artists, but they gave me no pleasure. In fact, I disliked them. I believe people have the right to dislike certain colours. If the local authorities are to have the right to decide on colour schemes, I think we are going further than we should go.

The Minister, in reply to the point I originally raised, referred to the fact that people repairing or painting their houses have to seek permission for grants from the local authority anyway at the present time and that this provision would not matter because of that. A great many people do jobs on their houses and never apply for grants and this question of interference with their neighbours and insisting on a pattern need not worry the Minister. It is a very good job that modern artists were not bound by the Italian or Flemish schools of art where you have so much conformity. I read in an American magazine where the modern artists in cubism are now held up as people of wide judgment and great artistic appreciation.

In this section our purpose is to take away individualism in decoration and renovation. The Minister knows that with the amount of reconstruction going on, there will be considerable delay if every person who intends plastering his house has to give notice to the local authority who, in turn, must send out an engineer to inspect the premises to see that it is in conformity with the surrounding area. That is reducing reality to fantasy. People anxious to renovate their houses will have to await permission for so long that they may decide not to do the work at all, that it is not worth doing.

Most houses in the countryside are now getting new faces and a great number of the people responsible never apply for grants. Where an individual does not apply—remember, we are now legislating for something that will apply to the country at large, something that will be spread over the length and breadth of the country— there should be the right of the individual to plaster or paint his own house. I do not know whether the Minister has given thought to the delays and the cost this provision would impose on people. I seriously suggest to him that he look again at the amendment and, having done so, that he accept it. Its purpose is not to be obstructive but to try to add something constructive and sensible to the Bill. I would again appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment; it would add something realistic to the legislation and make the Bill a better one by taking away a subsection which impinges the liberty of the individual.

It has been interesting to listen to the views expressed on practically every subject other than the amendment or on subjects somewhat indirectly connected with it, if one could draw on one's imagination sufficiently to connect them. We seem to think this is some crazy imposition by some crazy Minister and Government and that dire results will follow. In the Second Schedule of the 1934 Act, much more stringent control was inserted. It regulated, controlled and enabled the planning authority to regulate and control the design, colour and material of buildings, along with 101 other controls.

It was not adopted by many local authorities.

This section is but a watered-down version of that provision of an Act which has been in operation for 29 years. Still there is no danger of any of the dire consequences, the suppression of colour, which Deputies foresee following this Bill, arising as a result. If local authorities did not even adopt that Act in the past, surely there is very little likelihood that in the administration of this Bill they will try to prevent anyone from being colourful in the matter of house renovation. This Bill refers only to any "painting or plastering which materially alters," etc. Surely there is a vast difference between that and all the talk we have had about preventing people from being individualistic. What this aims at stopping is the madcap type of renovation which would have, say, Georgian houses, about which there has been so much talk in Dublin, painted purple or yellow or any other colour, thus destroying the appearance of the locality. This does not stop people from asserting their individuality in painting doors or windows. The section as it stands does not represent the serious matter Deputies have tried to suggest it represents.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 24th April, 1963.
Top
Share