Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 May 1963

Vol. 202 No. 9

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

Debate resumed on the following amendment:
In subsection (1), page 6, to delete lines 8 to 11.—(Deputies Jones, T. Lynch, and McGilligan).

Would the Minister explain how painting could materially alter the external appearance of a structure? I agree it could superficially change the appearance of a building. Would the Minister also enlighten me as to who will decide this matter as to whether a material alteration has been made in the structure?

As an example of where a material alteration could be made by painting, you could have a terrace of cut-stone houses or, say, Georgian houses, and some person, for his own good reasons, decided to paint one house in the terrace. Regardless of colour, I should imagine, that could be a type of case where material alteration would probably be determined to have been made. As to who determines what is a material alteration in such a case, in the first instance, it would be the planning authority and in the final analysis, on appeal, it would be determined by the Minister for Local Government. That would be under Section 5 of the Bill as now proposed.

A terrace of Georgian houses has been mentioned here already. I seem to remember that the Minister quoted such an example. The protection for such cases has come, not from any authority, but from public opinion.

With regard to the measure of control the Minister envisages, this Bill will come into operation on a certain date; he will then find himself applying this part of the Bill at different stages in different parts of the country. In the meantime, there will be in force an Act which prohibits the doing of any of these things in those areas in which the Minister declares the provisions of the Act to be applicable. Local authorities will have three years in which to implement the provisions of this Bill and to make a development plan or enforce controls. In the meantime, does the Minister envisage a form of interim control and who will operate this interim control? Suppose an individual decides, between the passing of this Act and its implementation by the local authorities, that he will alter the aspect of his house in some way, is there a danger that at a later stage someone may come along and tell him to change it back again? Again, should he seek permission or approval after the passing of this Bill, how is it envisaged that he will get the permission or approval if there is no plan?

In the Bill, there are exemptions in relation to certain developments and these exemptions will certainly be extended under the regulations that will be made. With regard to the interim period between the passing of the Bill and its coming into force, which is, I think, what the Deputy has in mind——

There will be an interim period since the local authority will have a period of up to three years between the passing of the Act and its implementation.

While it is true that the mere passing of the Bill makes it immediately applicable all over, the Bill envisages, as the Deputy is aware, the continuation of the existing controls under the law at present. If any alteration or development is carried out in accordance with the existing law, it will be quite legal and no action will be necessary. New plans made under new legislation cannot affect the situation, provided the change is in accord with existing legislation. With regard to the future, if there were no planning authority and no plan in existence, developments or alterations for which the individual was not obliged to have permission would remain legal, since they would not conflict with any plan, even though they might appear at a later date to be contrary to the terms of the new planning scheme.

With regard to painting, presumably the Minister intends to apply this Bill, in the first instance, to the larger built-up areas, and Dublin in particular, but, up to this, people in rural areas did not have to apply to the local authority for permission to paint or plaster. Does the Minister envisage that all will have to seek permission after the passing of this Bill? Even within the next three years, will a person be obliged to apply to the local authority for permission?

If painting, plastering, or external repairs, or even new construction, comes within the law as it then stands, then people would be obliged to seek permission; otherwise, they would be acting illegally.

And, otherwise, they could be made to change it subsequently.

That is what I wanted to get from the Minister. Individual responsibility and freedom will be changed somewhat with the passing of this Bill.

Not materially changed. It will be only in extreme cases, and these will arise but rarely, in which it may be held that a material change has taken place because, for example, a Georgian house or a cut-stone house has had its facade materially altered to such a degree as to offend against aesthetics and interfere with neighbouring structures.

This will bring about bad public relations all over the country. It seems rather extraordinary that a man who owns a house should have to apply to the local authority if he wants to paint it or do something to the front of it. We have had experience in reconstruction schemes of how long it takes to get permission. A very difficult situation could arise. An architect might decide that a particular colour was not suitable. I admit that the position is different where Georgian houses or those which might be classed as ancient monuments are concerned. Naturally, these must be preserved. I suggest it would be much easier if the Minister put in a clause with reference to the preservation of period houses or dwellings classed as ancient monuments, and so on. It is those the Minister is really trying to protect but, under this legislation, a net will be cast over the whole country.

On the last occasion we were discussing this, it was said uniformity would be a good thing. I think we should try to get away from uniformity. It is something from which people have been trying to get away. There was a time when there was practically nothing but long rows of drab houses, all painted the same dull colour. Now the people have painted their houses in brighter colours. Possibly there might be a colour one would not immediately care for, a colour the Minister might not like, or his officials, but, after all, it is a matter of taste and a matter of opinion. The man who owns the house might like the colour. It is a brightening up of the country which should be encouraged and not a regimentation of colour all over the country. We should have more respect for the intelligence of our people.

I should not like, any more than the Minister, to see areas or amenities destroyed or disfigured. Even if a man paints his house a ridiculous colour, there is more than the law of this land entering into the picture. He will have to sustain the criticism of his neighbours and that is something that it is very often very hard to live with. The Minister wants to make sure that Georgian houses and the magnificent squares in our cities and towns are preserved. He can do that by protecting period houses or buildings which might come in the category of ancient monuments.

It is in these cases the people should be compelled to apply to the local authority and it will be enough of a headache for the local authority to have to make decisions in such cases, without having every tenant of every house all over the country having to seek permission for this, that and the other. That will only end in chronic wrangling. It would be all right if it were only one or two cases, but, as the Minister knows, people are improving their houses now every day and they paint them oftener, especially coming on to this time of the year. They cannot be running down to the local authorities for every fiddle-faddle. I would appeal to the Minister to insert a provision in this section with reference to the type of buildings I have mentioned.

I am enthusiastic about the general provisions of this Bill and applaud the Minister for what he is endeavouring to do in the planning of the proper and co-ordinated development of building generally throughout the country. However, we are wasting quite an amount of time on this amendment, although it is a serious intrusion into the rights of the ordinary individual. I would preface my remarks by appealing to the Minister to cut out this word "painting" altogether. It is a stupid suggestion. The Minister can make many arguments in favour of its inclusion and give examples of how a terrace could be ruined by a person wanting to paint his house green, yellow or some other colour. Those are exceptions but if we were to legislate for all such exceptions, it is not a Bill of this thickness we would want but one as thick as the width of this House.

It is ludicrous to suggest that people should get approval from a local authority for the colour of paint they put on their doors. Deputy Lynch is perfectly right when he says this will mean more red tape in the approach to the local authority as to whether the paint people put on their doors or windows will be green, white, yellow, blue or whatever colour they want to put on them.

A valid case can be made for the inclusion of the word "plastering" because that is a major job and the local authority should be satisfied that the plastering is a regular type of plaster or, if not regular, at least is in conformity with the plaster in the terrace or in the row of houses concerned. However, when it comes to officials from the local authority deciding what colour a door is to be painted, there will not be uniformity in their opinions as to what will or will not interfere with what is described as the character of a street or of an area. I have an example, as Deputy Desmond had the last time he spoke on this section. It is the case of a house on the Wexford-Dublin Road which has a front door with what I regard as an atrocious colour. I told the owner but he did not agree at all. He thinks it is a "wow". Everybody else thinks it is awful but that man is entitled to his opinion, and I do not believe the Minister, the officials in the Department of Local Government or any engineer who comes in from some other county should tell that man what sort of paint to put on his door.

We are going too far in this regard. The Minister has the goodwill of the House-at least he has the goodwill of myself and my Party—but he will lose it if he legislates for these petty things which only annoy people. It is a bit much if we are to tell the housewife—and many housewives do paint the doors of their houses, in my town anyway; not that the men are lazy but the women like to do the external and internal painting—what colours she will use. They would certainly resent any borough engineer or county engineer telling them that it must not be purple or pink. If they want to have purple or pink doors, they are entitled to have them and should not be interfered with.

I should like to be absolutely clear. We are not concerned with the colour people put on doors or windows in ordinary circumstances. Ordinary painting which would undoubtedly give rise to all sorts of frustration and annoyance and would clutter up the planning authorities with applications and the Department with appeals will not arise at all. It is only painting or plastering which is inconsistent with neighbouring structures. We are not concerned with the painting of mere doors and windows of the structure but probably with the external front of the house in such a way as to affect materially the character of that house or houses in the same terrace.

The House, I think, is misinformed in another aspect. This very control has existed where the planning code has been adopted since 1934 and there is nothing new, additional or more burdensome in the present Bill.

May I interrupt the Minister? I agree that it has been embodied in the 1934 legislation but it was never put into operation. Is that not correct?

Why put it in now when it has been a dead letter for the past 29 years?

It was the intention in the 1934 Act that it should be contained where appropriate in the scheme adopted by the local authority. Whether or not the local authority opted to use or to ignore it was a matter for their own discretion. Also the question of painting the whole house will not arise at all in the isolated cases down the country. It will arise in the case of terraces or squares in towns or built-up areas and only then, if the houses concerned are incorporated in the scheme of the local planning authority. Positive action by the planning authority to apply this even to terraces and squares will be necessary before this provision in its present form would in any way affect even that which would be incongruous and out of character in a square or terrace. Its application to houses generally in regard to their total painting will not arise at all. It will apply only in squares and terraces and not as a result of the passage of this Act, but as a result only, following this enactment, of the drawing up of a plan by the planning authority including such squares and terraces as must be preserved from the type of spoiling that could take place by painting that would be out of character with the building or adjoining buildings. It is not the wide, all-embracing measure that I fear the House have taken it to be.

It could be. What we have heard is the Minister's view. I think the Minister would approach this himself if he were the local engineer as any of us would. Recently, in my home town, I saw a terrace of ten houses built about 30 or 40 years ago. They were good-class houses and all had grained varnished doors which were very dull-looking. One occupier took off the varnish and painted the front door yellow——

Good luck to him.

Yes, but if this section had been operated by Wexford Corporation, I guarantee the local engineer would have told him to go back to the varnish. But this breakthrough has meant in this terrace of ten houses that one has a blue door, another a purple, another pink and another white and it has brought up the whole area and it looks very attractive. But there is the possibility that somebody would think that the pink door among all the varnished ones has ruined the character and tone of the place and if he wanted to invoke this particular subsection, he could tell the man to go back to the old varnish again.

The type of outlandish case of the kind the Minister says will never arise and does not want to have, will arise. I know local officials and local engineers and they will invoke any line, word or section, if they want to prove a point or want to get something which they themselves believe in. It is ridiculous to leave this subsection in. We are spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar in spending so much time on a ridiculous suggestion, which is in print, that the local authority should control the type of paint to be put on somebody's door.

Deputy Corish has raised a very important matter. The Minister has given his interpretation of the subsection, but once it is written into the Act, the local authority can apply it to any house, as I see it, and need not restrict it to the Minister's interpretation. That is why I think it is dangerous. It is all wrong that an alteration should include either plastering or painting. Suppose I have a stone-built house which looks wonderful outside but is letting in damp and is a terrible house to live in, have I not the right to decide to put on a coat of waterproof plaster on the outside of the house? Not only is this preventing the type of improvement we all want but it limits rights of ownership. If I cannot decide to improve my own house, either by plastering or painting, the house has not to me the value it had heretofore.

If I want to sell my house and believe that if its appearance is altered considerably, it will increase its value and the sale will be much better, somebody could say "no". Again, if I own a house, how am I to decide in advance whether some improvement I am going to make will materially alter the house or not? Much depends on the interpretation of the words "materially alter". If this were carried out according to the Minister's interpretation, very few people would object to it but I do not think it will be.

I agree completely with Deputy Corish and I appreciate the sincerity of the Minister's assurance. He does not intend the Act to go as far as Deputy Corish feels it could go.

If we look at the definition section and see the definition of "structure", I think a door could be a structure, and if Deputy Corish's friend in Wexford did paint his door in some colour that some local engineer did not like, the man could find himself coming within the ambit of this measure. I appreciate the spirit in which the subsection is offered to the House but the House should be very careful. When it comes down to matters such as the colour which a man may paint his door, we should be careful not to interfere with the rights of individuals because any of us who are, or have been, members of the local authority know that even with the truncated powers local authorities have at present, very capricious decisions have been taken by planning authorities and the rights of individuals have been greatly interfered with. I know there must be a certain amount of interference for the common good but I appeal to the Minister, so far as he can, to remove objectionable features such as this from the Bill.

As Deputy Corish said, we all appreciate why the Bill is being introduced, but we must be terribly careful that we do not ride roughshod over the ordinary rights of ordinary people. I am afraid we are going to do it, because this is much too wide in its terms. The definition states:

"alteration" includes any plastering or painting which materially alters the external appearance of a structure so as to render such appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures;

That is open to an interpretation which would mean that a town planning authority would be literally walking into everybody's house in order to interfere with people's rights. I would appeal to the Minister. I think he will agree that Deputy Corish was reasonable in his suggestions, and I want to be reasonable, too. If the Minister will not accept the entire amendment, at least he should use some words other than "structure", because "structure" is much too wide. According to the definition section of the Bill, it could mean anything.

This situation is far from being as wide open as the interpretation put on it by the Deputies who have spoken against it would suggest. I appreciate their approach is not one of destructive criticism, and I trust we will be able to get through the Bill as a whole in that spirit, because it is necessary that we should have the most suitable Bill. The dangers enumerated here, particularly interference with the general public, are just not possible. I know it is possible for engineers with small minds to exist, but there are very few of them. The idea, however, that under this Bill such an official could ride roughshod over the public is sheer fantasy.

In addition to the exemptions already enumerated in the Bill, the Minister will be empowered and intends to make regulations further enumerating the exemptions from this section. The type of exemption that would cover painting and external plastering is intended to be covered in the regulations by a statement to the effect that anything not included specifically by the planning authority in their plan will not come under this section at all. In other words, unless it is stated by the planning authority in their plan that this terrace or square is to come under the section, the section will not apply at all. Assuming the planning authority go too far or make a mistake, the first thing is that the plan will be drawn up. If certain terraces or squares are to be included, that plan must be adopted by the elected members of the local authority concerned before it becomes a legal instrument at all.

Supposing, however, that, despite those safeguards, an engineer through some loophole is enabled to do what is obviously wrong—perhaps he is one of those queer fellows you meet in every walk of life—it is the function of the county manager to make the decision on any case in the first instance. Suppose an individual is affected by what the engineer proposes to do, the local authority prepare a plan and the manager approves, it is still open to the person so wronged to appeal to the Minister.

Is it suggested that those who prepare the plan, who would be technical people on the council's staff or people brought in in a consultant capacity, will prepare something wrong? Secondly, is it suggested that the local members will accept what is wrong? Is it suggested that if an engineer makes a wrong decision, that decision will be backed up by the manager, that it will come to the Minister for Local Government of the day and that he will back it up as well? I do not think we can envisage that set of circumstances operating to the disadvantage or annoyance of any individual. I do not think it is humanly possible to envisage those five things happening in sequence in respect of any particular case.

I think the fears of the House are absolutely groundless. If I were not so satisfied, I would have long since agreed with the views of the House. However, I am satisfied as to the overall effect of this section and our approach to it. I have not given away, not because I do not want to but because I believe there is no necessity. By taking out that section we would be weakening the fabric of this planning code which, in the general interest, must be preserved and brought into operation.

I am assuring the House that, as far as the regulations to be made under Section 4 are concerned, only those terraces and squares named by the planning authority in the proposed plan will come under this section. In other words, the regulations will say that anything not named will not come under the section or, alternatively, unless it is named in the plan of any planning authority, this section will not apply to it at all. In view of that and the other safeguards mentioned, I am completely satisfied. Taking all things into consideration, and the regulation in particular, I am saying here and now that no damage at all can possibly follow. I am completely satisfied about that and if I were not, I would be just as concerned as any other Deputy because of the possible consequences.

I appreciate what the Minister says in regard to events that will happen after the passing of the Bill, but may I take it from the Minister, in regard to the period of interim control that will follow after the passing of the Bill, that the exemptions we have been talking about will apply to the areas where the Act will not be implemented until such time as planning authorities have been set up therein? Does the Minister intend that these exemptions will apply to such areas and that in the interim, they will have the safeguard of a development plan being drawn up by experts and submitted to the elected representatives for approval?

That would be a great safeguard for the people within the administrative areas. With the passage of the Bill through the Oireachtas, we will have then, as the Minister said earlier, a control imposed and individuals in areas where the Act will not be applicable in the first instance will find themselves with a period of time in which they will not have to apply to the local authorities for permission. If the people in such areas had an assurance that the exemptions mentioned here would apply to such works as they would contemplate, it would go a good way towards meeting the point we have been trying to make here. Again, during the period from the date the Minister decides to apply the Act in any particular area to the date the Act can physically be brought into operation in that area because of the existence of a development plan, will the individuals within that area have the benefit of such exemptions so that they will not have to apply to a local authority which had not really prepared a development plan at that stage?

If exemptions are envisaged then those exemptions, and all who might be affected by them, would apply in the circumstances mentioned by the Deputy, but it is not true to say that from the date of the passage of the Act until such date, up to a maximum of three years, as a proper and full plan has been prepared a sort of vacuum will exist in which there will not be any planning control at all. That is not so, and it would be a very grave weakness in the proposed measure if it were so because much could happen in three years that could do irrevocable damage.

Under this Bill, local authorities would have three years to prepare.

It does not follow that during the time of preparation of a plan there will not be any controls at all or that anything and everything will be exempted during that interim period. Subsection (7) of Section 2, which we will be coming to later on states:

The references to the provisions of the development plan shall, until that plan is made, be construed as references to the provisions which the planning authority consider will be included in that plan.

In other words, they would have regard, during the interim period, to what they intend doing and what they intend doing will undoubtedly guide them in so far as their administration under the planning laws is concerned. That will be dealt with at a later stage.

We will have something to say to that later.

I do not want the Minister to think I am being "cussed" about this. All I am concerned about it is that I should be of some assistance. I feel sure my colleagues, like me, want to see this Bill go through because we think it will bring about great improvements in our building projects and in the look of the country. At the same time, we want to make sure that the rights of ordinary citizens are looked after. I am under the impression that when a town plan is brought before a local authority, meaning the elected members, they are the people who will have the power to say such a thing will be done or will not be done. However, I have seen legislation go through this House giving the Minister power to set up bodies, only to discover that later, after we have adopted legislation, we have no more authority and neither, apparently, has the Minister. When we put down a question the Minister may say: "I have no function".

The Deputy is getting away from the amendment.

The Minister has said that the citizens would have rights, that the local authority would adopt plans in the first place and that even if the engineer were a crank the matter could be brought before the manager. We have been told that even if the manager were a crank there will be the right of appeal then to the Minister. What I am trying to point out is that once the local authority adopt a plan en bloc they have finished with it; there will be no appeal open to the citizens at all. The plan will be sent in and the expert is the judge.

I want to be constructive on this. The Minister tells us that a local authority might mention certain areas when dealing with a plan. That is the key to this whole business and it is on this point that we might meet each other. It should be made more specific there that the particular areas—a square, a street or perhaps a terrace— scheduled for planning would be brought before the elected representatives, sitting in council. That would take away what might be a cause of great confusion. There could be terrible confusion if plans in respect of certain areas were adopted without these areas being specified at the time. You might have a man living in such an area who would know nothing at all about the plan and who might, say, go ahead with the painting of the front of his house.

It seems to me to be necessary that when planning proposals are put forward in areas such as Limerick, Cork or Waterford, the details of the areas scheduled would be mentioned. Here in Dublin, if we intended including Fitzwilliam Square or Merrion Square, these districts should be mentioned. Otherwise a man living in one of these areas, not knowing his property was in the plan, might go ahead and disfigure his house, in the opinion of the planners. All this man could say is: "I did not know anything at all about it. How was I to know anything about this? I saw the people in such a street plastering the front of their houses and painting them the way they wanted to and why should I not be able to do the same?"

The Minister's officials could easily notify these people by post and say: "You cannot do this." This is the way to go about it. The danger I see is that we are legislating for the whole country and the Minister has actually said it, and we are as one with him, that he does not want these beautiful houses or terraces destroyed. We agree that there should be some uniformity but if that is the Minister's opinion, and it is our opinion, it would be better to have it in the Bill.

The Minister said that this subsection would apply only when the planning authority had decided it would apply to a specific street or terrace. If the local authority decided that it should not apply to any street in their area, are they free to do so? That is the way I should like to see it.

Let me put it another way. They do not have to decide that it will not apply. The obligation would be on them to decide where it will apply and if they should reach a decision that it should not apply, then it would not apply anywhere.

In regard to Deputy Lynch's point, we are getting on to common ground. The position really is that in so far as the preparation of the plan is concerned, and the inclusion in it of certain squares, terraces or houses by specific reference, the intention to make it will have to be published. That is part of the obligation of the local authority. If the local authority wish to give additional publicity to any particular aspect of the plan, they will be free to do so. If they should feel that, in fairness, they should notify the residents or occupiers of any terrace or square, they will be quite free to do so, but the idea of the local authority creeping up on the people in a square or terrace will not arise and in fact I would rely on the local authority members to see that such could not be said afterwards.

I am quite sure that the publication of the intended plan, and in particular, of any special notice regarding a terrace or square, under this section, will invoke representations to the councils and that they will raise the objections on behalf of those who have approached them. These could not be better set out than by local councillors. The council will make a decision to accept the plan in this way, or accept it and delete the inclusion of a terrace or square. There is no fear whatever of what Deputy Lynch said being likely to happen because of the method of going about this. I am sorry that we could not have got this whole picture across from the start because then we would not be at cross purposes but I think we are getting on to common ground now.

The Minister will agree that it has been a useful discussion?

I quite agree.

It is better to do it now.

I agree.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move amendment No. 4:

In subsection (1), page 6, lines 12 and 13, to delete the definition of "appointed day" and substitute the following definition:

" `appointed day' means—

(a) if a day is appointed under paragraph (a) of subsection (33) of section 1 of this Act, that day, and

(b) if a day is not appointed under that paragraph, the day appointed under paragraph (b) of that subsection with respect to the relevant area;".

I think this amendment was discussed with amendment No. 1.

That is right. It is a drafting amendment and is consequential on the subject matter of amendment No. 1.

It just gives the right to the Minister to apply this in stages.

Instead of being obliged to put it all in in the one day, I may, if circumstances warrant, bring it in here and there.

The Minister did not make it clear what would be the degree of interim control that may be exercised by the local authority.

That is coming up in subsection (7) and it would probably be better to leave it until then.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman

Amendments No. 5 and 26, and possibly amendment No. 101, can be taken together.

I move amendment No. 5:

In subsection (1), page 6 to delete lines 18 and 19.

In subsection (1) it says that " `development' has the meaning assigned to it by Section 3 and `develop' shall be construed accordingly and `development plan' has the meaning appropriate in accordance with subsection (7) of Section 19". At a later stage, we have "developments" defined and it is set out in Section 33. It says that "development" in this Act means, save where the context otherwise requires, and so on. I should like to hear from the Minister why he considers it necessary to have a meaning assigned to "development" at this stage when it is defined in Section 3.

Probably I do not see it any more clearly than the Deputy, but I am assured by the drafting office that it is a convenient cross-reference to the definition section. These people are doing this sort of thing every day and regard it as not only convenient but desirable and, as such, I must bow to their wishes. I do not see that it does anything that is not going to be done anyway and if they say that this is the way to do it legally, I am not going to dispute it.

The Minister appreciates, as we do, that an attempt has been made in this House to avoid in legislation as far as possible this system of cross-reference and having to refer from one Act to another. Within the lifetime of this Dáil, a measure has been brought in to attempt to coordinate various laws and avoid this business of cross-references. In a piece of legislation such as this, one would imagine the appropriate thing would be to define "development" as it is defined in Section 3. In the definition section, the word "development" is defined and then there is a further definition of it in Section 3. In recent times, this House has looked with favour on the codification of legislation to avoid reference back to earlier Acts.

I agree with the Deputy that the avoidance of reference back to earlier Acts is the wish of all of us. I am afraid that is in a much wider context than a cross-reference within the Bill itself. This is a local matter within the confines of the Bill itself. It in no way conflicts with our general view of trying to consolidate our laws in order to render the present law understandable.

The Parliamentary Draftsman considers it a desirable cross-reference within the Bill. We do not feel we should query the matter further. Materially, it alters nothing. He says it is useful and desirable and he knows better than I do, anyhow, in this respect.

In the light of what the Minister says, I withdraw this amendment, with the permission of the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 6:

In subsection (1), page 6, to delete lines 20 and 21.

This is practically the same thing. The question of "development plan" is referred to in Section 19 (7). Can the Minister say that this definition of "development plan" is being inserted for the same reason?

For exactly the same reason. It is necessary as a cross-reference and for the convenience of anybody looking through the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 7:

In subsection (1), page 6, to delete line 22 and substitute " `exempted developments' shall be those set out in section 4".

"Exempted development" according to the meaning here has the meaning specified in Section 4. This is a drafting amendment.

My advice, again, on this is that after considerable thought and investigation of the actual amendment it is considered that the Bill is better as it is than if we agreed to the amendment. Some of the exempted developments mentioned elsewhere in the Bill might be caught if we agreed to the amendment. Some developments already exempted in the Bill could, I am advised, be caught under the amendment and instead of being exempted could be brought in again. Therefore, it would probably be better to leave the situation as it is. I am sure it was not the intention of those proposing the amendment that anything exempted should be caught.

The Minister writes into the section what exempted developments shall be. The meaning specified is not the same as exempted developments. A person may take a word or words or a section and say it has a certain meaning. We should like to know what "exempted development" is.

I suggest that further exemptions may be made by regulation, which are not set out. They could be excluded if we accepted the amendment. The amendment would restrict us to what is stated in Section 4 but there is the question of the powers given in Section 4 by way of regulation.

Therefore, certain things may be included which are not stated in the section. That is the very danger one envisages. If you do not confine yourself to the section and to the exempted developments then, later, it can be said that something else is an exempted development and has the meaning of an exempted development. Furthermore, the regulations would provide for exempted developments and they would not be defined as they are here. Perhaps the Minister might give us some examples of other exempted developments which might have to be included later but are not now included in the section?

The use of land, for instance; advertisements, farm buildings, and so on. I understand the approach of the Deputy to this. Those Deputies who have been at issue with me on some of these matters have been seeking to restrain me from controls if they can be avoided. The idea of regulations in and under Section 4 is to enable the Minister to make further exemptions—in other words, to make more free the things that may be done under the various heads and which at the moment we do not necessarily see. It is a freeing, an exemption of certain things under the power in Section 4 whereby the Minister may make regulations.

I am advised that this amendment could, and I am afraid would, be read legally that only those things actually stated as exempted in Section 4 would be exempted in the future. It would take from the Minister the power to make further and wider exemptions than are stated in Section 4, so, in the last analysis, it would be a contracting of the rights of the public which this House has rightfully been guarding in every respect. I think we should leave it alone because it enables the Minister to make regulations exempting certain further developments than those stated in Section 4. If we accepted the amendment, we would be confined to the exemptions stated in Section 4, and would be restricting the rights of the public in certain matters.

The Minister has the public interest in mind at this stage. He wants to be able to make these exemptions in the public interest?

Looking at it from a more liberal point of view, we want to be able to exempt certain things additional to what may be stated in the Bill. I am advised that if we accept this amendment, further exemptions would not be legal.

I appreciate what the Minister says about having the right and power to make these types of exemptions. I take it that the definition of "exempted development" has been drawn pretty widely. If the Minister feels that the amendment would confine his discretionary powers, I do not want to pin him down.

That is the view.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 8:

In subsection (1), page 6, line 27, to delete "any structure and".

I cannot at the moment understand why the definition of "land" includes "any structure". I take it that if a building is on land, it is a structure. If it is a structure, it must stand on, or be on or under land. Our amendment suggests that we should delete "any structure and". We define "structure" at a later stage and I cannot understand why it is included in the definition of "land". Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me.

Land which is used for agricultural purposes might perhaps be made into a dirt-track, a dog-track or race-track. Under this measure, that would be a change of the use of the land and would not in any way concern a structure as such. It is necessary that we should have some control over the change of the use of land as distinct from the structure which is normally erected on land. We want to have "any structure and" included in this definition so that we can divorce it and deal with it separately which, if we were to agree to this amendment, would probably not be possible, and certainly would not be easy. We could not deal with it separately as we wish to. It is necessary for us to have control of the change of the use of the land. Agricultural land could be changed into a dirt-track or a dumping ground.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 9:

In subsection (1), page 6, lines 40 and 41, to delete "in the opinion of the planning authority" and in page 6, line 42, to delete "in their opinion".

An "obsolete area" is defined as "an area consisting of land which, in the opinion of the planning authority, is badly laid out or the development of which has, in their opinion, become obsolete..." In this, we are taking a very subjective view. There should be a more objective definition of land which is badly laid out than "in the opinion of the planning authority". That is the opinion of an individual. An individual on a planning authority will determine if land is badly laid out. That is leaving it to an individual to make a determination in regard to a person's land, that the land which he owns is badly laid out or, as defined in the subsection, has become obsolete.

The Minister owes it to the Bill and to the rights of the individual, that there should be a far more objective approach to this matter, and that there should be a more objective determination of land which is badly laid out or has become obsolete. The type of power which is being given in this definition is very wide and again— perhaps it is an inordinate fear of ours —we are concerned with the rights of the individual to his property. Those rights are being invaded, I believe, in this respect. We are leaving to an individual the right to determine that land is badly laid out or obsolete. It is much too subjective. It is not sufficiently objective to cover the rights of the individual. I invite the Minister's comment on it.

First, I should say that the terms of this section, in my estimation and that of my advisers, are absolutely fundamental if any redevelopment of our city centres and towns is to be carried out in future. I repeat that it is fundamentally necessary that we should have this section in the Bill, if we are to have any serious redevelopment in future. I hope we will have serious redevelopment in the not too distant future.

To spell out what an obsolete area is would probably take half a day and we might not be any wiser afterwards than we are at the moment. Probably we could substitute "redevelopment area" for these words. It is merely a choice of a number of words to describe what is intended.

As to the objection on the basis it is the view of one man, presumably, the manager, who, in the last analysis, would have the responsibility of determining what in the context of this measure, is an obsolete area, it is entirely wrong to suggest that in determining an area and the property or lands contiguous or adjacent to it to be obsolete, the manager decides himself. He does take responsibility for it but in such a matter he would have the best technical advice available to him. It may be said that these people are all officials and may be technicians and that what is good technically may not be good socially, and so on.

In that regard, I would suggest that Section 19 is most relevant. For the provision in regard to an obsolete area to have any effect, Section 19 will have to come into operation because in order to utilise an area described as obsolete it will be necessary to draw up a redevelopment plan to absorb that area or to utilise that area under this section. Section 19 requires that the elected members of the council should approve of that redevelopment plan. So, I am putting it in reverse, that if a redevelopment plan for a given area is not approved and agreed on by the elected representatives, this section might as well not exist. The danger that Deputies might see in the section is safeguarded by the fact that these dangers could arise only consequent upon the operation of Section 19 which requires the approval of the elected members to a redevelopment plan applying to the area that would be described as obsolete and the land contiguous and adjacent to it. So, there is no danger that an official, or officials, only, will have a say in the matter.

Another safeguard is that, at the outset, in the preparation of a plan which incidentally will be, by obligation, subject to review at least every five years, it may well be that an area that we would regard for the purposes of this section as an obsolete area will in fact be determined and outlined in the original plan as prepared and approved by the locally elected members and, if not in the first initial plan, on review at any stage, the plan may include an area that the body would feel had become obsolete and needed redevelopment. Generally speaking, between the preparation of a plan, the acceptance of the plan and its next revision the likelihood of the manager and his technical people taking effective action under this section that would dissolve the structures in this allegedly obsolete area is quite remote because these things take quite a long time and would be difficult. In fact, inquiries would be necessary if there were objectors. If there were no objectors I do not think any of the dangers mentioned by the Deputy would arise. In view of the fact that inquiries would have to take place and revision of the plan must be carried out not less than once every five years, it is unlikely that any such obsolete area projected for redevelopment would in fact be redeveloped without its being considered either at the outset, in the preparation of the original plan, or in the revision of that plan. In that event, of course, the local authority would come into the consideration. If the other should happen, Section 19 is the safeguard in regard to the elected members and the public having their say in that it requires the approval of any redevelopment plan by the council members, without which the obsolete area provision in this section does not mean anything

Is it absolutely clear that nobody can override the decision of the elected members who may, for instance, refuse to agree to an obsolete area redevelopment plan?

Is it redevelopment or development?

Development of an obsolete area.

That is redevelopment.

I have only glanced at Section 22. Is there no provision there for the Minister to insist or for the planning authority, in this case, the manager, to insist that an obsolete area be redeveloped in accordance with the desires of a manager?

Yes. The Minister may direct that that be done.

That puts a different light on it. We are against that.

If it is as simple as all that, it does not appear so to me.

I was nearly in the box with the Minister until Deputy Corish brought this in. It says here: "if in the opinion of the planning authority it is obsolete or is badly laid out or the development of which has in their opinion become obsolete." That is all right. The local authorities would have a say in it. With all respect to the public officials throughout the country, they are usually not natives of the place where they are operating.

That is something that has been generally forgotten, especially with regard to development.

That is right. It is good to talk about these things in this way. I am sure the Minister will bear with me. Public officials are all very good men, with good qualifications, but they have not the feel of a place in which they have not been born and reared. They would have no regard, possibly, for some old portion of the town that could be deemed obsolete by an up-to-date young engineer. If a proposal for redevelopment comes before the local authority, as the Minister says, and the local council is appalled and turns it down, it could happen that the officials could appeal to the Minister, as the Bill says, meaning that they could appeal to the officials in the Custom House in many of these cases and the will of the local authority and the local people might be flouted.

I have in mind a place in my constituency that many people have condemned from one point of view or another but which the local people regard as beautiful and want it kept in the way it is. For instance, if there are one or two trees that may interfere with motorists doing 80 miles an hour, perhaps it is a good thing to leave the trees there. If this were brought before the local council under this Bill, the local council would turn the proposal down and would not consider that the area in question was an obsolete area, but, as the Minister says, it could happen that the officials concerned could say: "All right; we will jump the gun on the local council and will go to the Minister and the Department." They would get permission. That is one of the things that creates so much friction all over the country; the will of the individual is being flouted. If people want to make a mistake, that is their democratic right. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this question of appeal.

I should like to ask the Minister to indicate at what stage the manager is obliged to consult the local authority in regard to declaring an area an obsolete or badly planned area. I want all such intentions on the part of the manager or the officials of local authorities to be communicated at the earliest stage to the members of the local authority. I want to ensure that managers do not present local authorities with a fait accompli by presenting them with the intention of declaring an area obsolete or badly planned in the final stages and when the aggrieved persons will have very little redress.

I am, God forgive me, in agreement with Deputy T. Lynch this morning.

I shall have to examine my conscience.

The Minister was chairman of a local authority for quite a long time. Here in this House we have a democratic right to make a decision. Whatever Government is in power has that right. Decisions are debated here. Now I am anxious to ensure that local authority representatives have a bigger democratic say in matters of this kind. This should not be just a managerial function. This is a good Bill——

——and one which was long overdue. There are some wonderful provisions in it. It is a credit to the Minister, his advisers and his Department. I want to ensure, however, that public representatives have the democratic right to express their views. Deputy T. Lynch is also a member of a local authority and I agree with him that local men are more experienced and more familiar with local conditions. Even if someone does make a mistake, what about it? Public officials and county managers have made mistakes.

Hear, hear.

I am sure the Minister appreciates that the more power and responsibility local authorities have, the more interest they will take in local affairs. Let me say here that in Dublin city and county we get on very well with our managers and assistant managers. Under Section 4 of the Local Government Act, we can now pass a resolution directing the manager to do certain things. I am very anxious now to ensure that members of local authorities shall have the democratic right of an official say in these matters.

It reminds me of an unfortunate man in County Dublin who had a little bit of money and who decided to give carte blanche to an architect to build a house for him. The man happened to be earning his living in another country and when he came back, he found that the house cost four times what he had thought it would cost. The architect went wild on it. I am not saying he did anything wrong. It was a beautiful house but far beyond the means of this unfortunate man to pay for it.

In matters like this, we must advert to the democratic rights of the public representatives. Even if one man in that council makes a wrong statement or sees something the wrong way, there are 20 other men who will not agree with him. There is a democratic vote and that settles the matter. The Minister, as chairman and member of a local authority for a long time, knows what I am speaking of and I am sure he will consider all the points that have been made here.

It is rather refreshing to see democracy at work and I welcome Deputy Burke's statement here. There is a very important point in question, the rights of the local authority, and the Minister should see to it that the local authority will have the final say in a matter such as this. It is they who will always have the feel of a place and the idea of the local people's attitude towards a change which might be a big change in the planning of a town or village.

The Minister would want to take into consideration everything that has been said here because it is important and constructive. Deputy Treacy referred to the importance of the county manager or the city manager coming before the local body and saying: "It is my intention to declare such an area in this or that town obsolete," before any big outlay had been incurred. The danger is that a local authority would be faced by an enormous outlay which would have to be written off. It is all very fine to say that the manager would have the best advice technically. The best advice technically is not the best advice. A famous landlord at one time in Ireland had the best advice technically and economically but it only meant driving 17,000 people off the land.

That is scarcely relevant.

It hardly relates to this but it points a finger. However, it gives me a certain amount of satisfaction that we are all approaching this debate in the right way. The Minister is very tolerant with us. When we have a Deputy of the standing of Deputy Burke, with his experience as a representative in the city and county of Dublin, agreeing with us over here, it is refreshing and it is something to which the Minister should pay special attention.

The main point in this discussion is that even though the local authority might decide against an area under their jurisdiction being declared obsolete, the danger is that the officials could go over their heads and, in spite of their wishes and in spite of the wishes of the local people, a whole series of planning developments could be carried out of which the local people would not be in favour and would not live with. These are the things that make for bad relations between the officials and the elected representatives of the people and, I might say also, bad relations between the elected representatives of the people and the Minister's Department.

In the light of the discussion that has taken place, it seems this amendment is very appropriate. In the first instance, the opinion of the planning authority will be the opinion of the expert who has prepared the plan. Perhaps the Minister could inform us what is envisaged in this regard. Will the planners of the future prepare a plan, having looked over the area, and then submit it to the authority as the development plan for that area? This stipulation in regard to the opinion of an individual is very wide. It is not to be the opinion of the local authority employing the planner but the opinion of the individual preparing the plan. The point made by Deputy Treacy in this regard is a very important one and perhaps the Minister would consider it.

Surely the House will agree that in dealing with matters such as this, the statement whether an area is obsolete or not must depend on somebody's opinion. It is not some fact that can be stated for certain. There could be different views as to whether or not an area is obsolete. We are just saying straightforwardly here that, in regard to people who are locally and immediately concerned in this matter, it will be in their opinion, having regard to all the circumstances of which they will have the best knowledge as to whether or not an area was obsolete. I do not think the change suggested would be of any material advantage because ultimately somebody's opinion would determine whether a given area is or is not an obsolete area.

The Minister's explanation is too simple. The gist of his argument is that it must be somebody's opinion and this section says it must be the planning authority's opinion. The opinion that will be given first will be that of some local authority engineer, then his superior and then the manager will give their opinion. It must be somebody's opinion but why not the opinion of the representatives of the local authority? He says the local elected representatives will have the power to approve or disapprove of the development plans. That may be some consolation to them but why should they not have the power to say whether or not an area is obsolete? I thoroughly agree with Deputy Lynch and other Deputies when they say that more and more we can see the opinions and the views of the elected representatives of the local authorities being completely flouted.

Section 22 to which the Minister refers shows that no matter what the public representatives might say in respect of the obsolete area or its redevelopment, in the heel of the hunt, their decisions may be overridden entirely and an area may be declared to be obsolete. There may be a new development or redevelopment plan in which they may have no say whatsoever. We could save ourselves a great deal of trouble if the members of the local authority were the people who decided whether or not an area was to be an obsolete area. There would be very few cases where this Minister or any other Minister will insist on redevelopment plans being engaged in. But supposing, on the advice of engineers and architects, it is decided an area is obsolete and a redevelopment plan is prepared and put before the council who reject it, a lot of useless work has been engaged in and a lot of money has been spent. If the elected representatives decide, in the first place, whether an area is obsolete or not, there is no development plan, no money spent and no time wasted, unless a Minister for Local Government wants to insist that an area is obsolete and that it must be rebuilt. However, I suggest that in few cases would the Minister for Local Government act in that way.

It is in relation to the Minister's statement that it must be in the opinion of someone that this change takes place that we disagree with him. We feel that if an opinion is to be sought regarding radical changes of the kind proposed here, it should be the consensus of opinion of the majority of the people in the town or city, speaking through their local representatives. The manager, as the planning authority, will be obliged to consult his local engineer or architect and it is on the basis of that individual's view this decision will be made. It could then be determined that an area of land was obsolete or badly planned on the advice of an architect or engineer.

These are very fine people, trying to do an excellent job, and we respect them in their professional capacity but sometimes they make bad mistakes. Sometimes they are prejudiced. We have instances where the rights of the people to utilise land or property were violated, where the aesthetic feelings of the people of the town or city were completely ignored and where bulldozers were sent in to destroy places of historical interest. Old walls, castles, monuments and beautiful buildings have been wiped out as a result of such plans. The opinion of the man concerned would be based on a practical viewpoint. He will not have regard to sentiment which is a very important thing in a community.

My desire is that before any plan of this kind is put into operation by the manager, the views of the local authority will be ascertained at the earliest opportunity. I said earlier that I did not wish to see a fait accompli presented to the local authority who would be told afterwards that by reason of the research and expenditure of money involved in determining that this area should be regarded as obsolete or badly planned and should be redeveloped in a certain manner, they must suffer the loss of x thousands of pounds, unless they agreed with the manager's recommendation. Apart from Section 19, where it is inferred that the local authority has some positive say, we are perturbed that the manager may appeal to the Minister and we are concerned that the appeal of one official to another official may result in the manager's opinion being upheld. That is why we support so sincerely the amendments put forward by Deputy Jones.

Finally, too many powers are vested in managers at present and the Minister would be doing a good day's work and would arouse more enthusiasm for participation in local affairs if he invested members of the local authority with the functions which we now desire——

I am afraid we cannot argue that point on this amendment.

—of having some positive say in the way the town or city shall develop.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 10:

In subsection (1), page 6, lines 42 to 44, to delete "or consisting of such land together with other land contiguous or adjacent thereto".

This amendment relates to the same definition but to the portion towards the end of it. Perhaps the Minister would say, before I proceed, what exactly this means, "consisting of such land"—that, I take it, is what is to be regarded as the obsolete area—"together with other land contiguous or adjacent thereto". How far do we go in this respect? If this definition is to stand as at present, it can be very widely extended. I can understand that a piece of land adjacent to an obsolete area may be necessary for the redevelopment of that area but it can be pushed very far by a planner under this definition. We are back on the ground where the houses and property of individuals may be interfered with and we are not limiting the interference in any way. Perhaps the Minister will say what is in his mind when he uses the term "contiguous" in relation to land, the definition of which we are dealing with, and which is to be regarded as an obsolete area? If the Minister would enlighten us at the start, I may think again.

The fact that an obsolete area may include land contiguous or adjacent to it has no sinister implications whatever. The House will appreciate that an obsolete area as defined and acquired may not in itself, taking everything into consideration-traffic movement, roads, utilising of the land and buildings—lend itself to a proper economic development plan and that a little more land on one side or the other may be absolutely necessary to make the obsolete area a worthwhile site for redevelopment. The House will appreciate that in the housing code acquisition proceedings now and in the past, the strict confining of what might be acquired, particularly in centre city and built-up areas, to narrow categories of property has had very serious implications. It has been a major difficulty in some local authorities, particularly larger towns and cities, in proceeding with the demolition of tenements and the building of properly laid-out blocks of flats or residences. It is from our experience of the shortcomings of the housing code in the acquisition of land as well as the fact that redevelopment, particularly in the cities and large towns, may be much more costly, that we felt we needed this extra elbow room—although it may not be used— in order to ensure orderly and, if possible, economic redevelopment and urban renewal in and around these obsolete areas.

The idea of what is adjacent or contiguous stretching out into the next county might possibly be taken from the form of words used, but we must consider that in doing this, we are merely adding to redevelopment or urban renewal, because the obsolete area is probably in the centre of a city or town. We want this breathing space, if necessary, to ensure proper planning and more economic usage.

I can understand the desirability of securing additional land contiguous or adjacent to a site, especially in a restricted area, in order to implement a proper design plan, but we must have regard to the fact that we are determining an obsolete area. That conjures up in my mind a pretty extensive area. Surely it should be possible for the engineers and architects to plan in conformity with the existing obsolete area, without having to make additions and without having to claim the right to take in land contiguous or adjacent thereto? I am suggesting there is something fundamentally wrong with the planning of the obsolete area in the first instance, if we have to add or claim the right to take in land contiguous or adjacent to it. I could understand it in a restricted area, where additional development is necessary, but not in the case of a plan taking in an obsolete area.

I am a bit alarmed at this because the wording is rather vague. That is why the amendment has been moved. The section says: "lands contiguous or adjacent thereto." I am not thinking in terms of an area in the centre of a city or large town but of places on the edges of our towns and cities. A place might be declared an obsolete area and that would mean that all the land around it would be land "contiguous or adjacent thereto".

This power is far too wide. I am not trying to clip the Minister's wings but we must have regard to the rights of the people and their representatives. If we pass legislation such as this, we will find later our friends and neighbours coming to us saying they are suffering gross hardship under it and we, their elected representatives, will not be able to do anything about it. Now is the time to ensure that we shall retain those powers.

The Minister mentioned the difficulty of securing land and members of local authorities have often experienced difficulty in securing a piece of land. It is always a question of price, and we hear it said: "He wants too much for it" or "He should not get it for that". But the local council should get together with the manager and officials, decide to buy the land and make an offer. Even if they have to give a little more, it is better they should do that than seek powers of compulsory acquisition under this legislation, because that always turns out to be the most expensive way of acquiring any land.

Local authorities seeking to acquire land have not had sufficient flexibility. They must have the land. It is the only cow in the fair and they want it. If the person who owns the land is asking a price—he nearly always is, and why should he not?—more than is usually paid for land, the whole business has to hang fire. The Minister's sanction is awaited. With respect to the Minister and those who decide these matters in his Department, I do not think they are in touch with or have the feel of the people down the country in these areas.

We should omit land "contiguous or adjacent thereto" from this legislation. The Minister should seek to give the powers to the local authority, and by that, I mean the members of the local authority as well as the manager and officials concerned. If the Minister makes local government here true local government, he will be doing a good job for the country.

This is one occasion on which I must disagree completely with the last speaker.

I shall not have to examine my conscience then.

We have to be practical in this. Deputy Lynch or any other Deputy knows well enough that only about three per cent. of people will give land to local authorities voluntarily. If you want to take five or six acres of land from John Jones in County Dublin, he will go to his local Deputies and councillors and say: "That is the very best field I have. What about that field down the road?" The man who owns that field will tell you: "If that field is taken from me, I might as well fold up." You then go down to Paddy Burke, who has a few acres, and ask him: "Will you give it to us?" He tells you: "Oh, my grandfather had that and my father after him. It is the very best field I have."

Faced with that sort of thing, I am completely behind the Minister on this section. Had we not got compulsory acquisition powers in the city and county of Dublin, we would have got nothing done during the years. In fact, I would say that we did not have sufficient powers in this respect. We must be practical. I did support Deputy Lynch earlier when he said public representatives generally could do with more powers, but the conferring of extra powers under this section would be putting the clock back completely.

The Minister has spoken of obsolete areas and urban renewal. It is understandable and desirable that built-up areas should be renewed, and that land and buildings adjacent to them should be used. However, we have here the definition of an obsolete area: "an area of land which in the opinion of the planning authority is badly laid out". But an obsolete area also means land adjacent to the badly laid out area or an area of land contiguous to it. Here we are legislating not merely for urban areas but also for certain circumstances which may arise in the country atlarge.

Here we are legislating for land on the outskirts of our built-up areas, for the newly-developing estates on the outskirts of towns. Here we intend applying this definition of "obsolete" to the thing generally: it is not being confined to areas in the centre of urban districts, not being confined to urban renewal, to what we might call slum areas in towns and cities. Here we are putting in a definition and widening it so that even the most recently built areas on the outskirts of towns can be defined, in the opinion of the planning authority, as "land adjacent". It may be virgin land which, because it comes within the scope of the planning authority, will become obsolete.

It is to the widening of this type of definition that we have serious objection. We agree, and said so at the outset, that this measure was certainly very necessary and that where we had large built-up urban areas, there was a grave necessity for this type of redeployment, but when you push this definition to its logical conclusion and take it to the outskirts and to land adjacent and contiguous, you come upon the seriousness of this matter. The land contiguous may be in depth. It may be laterally on site or on the roadway, but it may be in depth as well. I am with the Minister when he talks about urban areas where it may be necessary and desirable to acquire a parcel of land adjacent or contiguous to an area which it is desirable to redevelop or renew, but I would urge on him the danger of widening the definition we have here.

Deputy Jones said that the logical conclusion one could reach would be that we would go right out into the suburbs when dealing with the renewal of some built-up area, that that could be regarded, in some logical way, as contiguous or adjacent to a modern town centre. I would say it is a misuse of the word "logical"; he should have used the word "illogical". When we look at the problem that redevelopment and urban renewal will create for the country as a whole, and for the cities, particularly the older cities, and if we say that by reason of the action of some mad manager, engineer or other person, we could regard this provision as providing that for the renewal of an area down by the Liffey, we would go out to Ballyfermot and define that as adjacent or contiguous, surely that is so utterly mad that it must be regarded as an illogical conclusion, even though some people might be expected to describe it as a logical conclusion.

Badly laid out.

We are still on the idea of the use of the word "obsolete" in its narrow sense as applied to an obsolete area. What that really means by reference to the word "obsolete" may be confusing. We might, of course, have used "redevelopment areas" as well as "obsolete areas." It is a technical term to cover areas which are badly laid out and which, as such, require to be renewed or rebuilt in the best interests of the community as a whole. I think it would be wrong for us to tie ourselves too much to "obsolete" alone.

As I have already explained, the only reason, and a very pressing one it is, we want to get these "contiguous" or "adjacent" terms in is really for the purpose of doing a better job. What I would be inclined to suggest is that between now and Report Stage, I would seek to find, if I can, some formula of words that will more clearly define the taking in of contiguous or adjacent land and provide that the taking in of such land would be allowed or allowable only in cases where the additional land was required.

To give it a boundary?

Yes. If I can find a formula that will give us some leeway here, without leaving any loophole for mad development, I shall be quite happy to submit it to the House on Report Stage.

I should not like the Minister to think that we are unreasonable or illogical about this because we have approached it as logically as we can. It was not a case of the land stretching from the Liffey to Ballyfermot I was envisaging. I was envisaging a smaller area, or smaller towns or centres of population, where you have, say, some narrow streets or unsightly places which eventually the local council decides are obsolete areas. There might be some virgin land on each side of it, contiguous to it, as it says in the Bill. That is what we want to look after. Deputy Burke referred to the compulsory powers needed and I suppose that does apply to Dublin, and there have been various Acts referring to Dublin, but we are legislating for the whole country. The local authority of which I have the honour of being a member never had much difficulty in acquiring land because our policy has been that when land was available in the green belt, we bought it, whether or not we needed it. We were criticised about this but the land always came in.

As I say, we are not illogical about this. We were thinking in terms of fields or farms or accommodation land from which a man might make a living—a market garden or some such land. When legislation such as this is being considered, we have to take cognisance of these people. They have their rights as citizens as well. As I said before, if there were a better policy of agreement in setting up a machine with local authorities and managers and officials, and giving discretion about buying this land, there would be no need to look for compulsory powers to acquire the land.

One point which I overlooked in regard to this situation of acquiring any man's land is that there is no difference from the codes of acquisition in force at the moment. We merely apply the same system of acquisition as in other cases. The objection and the inquiry and the ultimate appeal to the High Court would still stand in any or all of the transactions. I should like that to be fully understood, that the acquisition proceedings and the rights and safeguards in operation under other land acquisition Acts in the past are still the same and the procedure and formalities will remain unchanged, with the ultimate and final appeal to the High Court, if in fact that which has been decided with regard to acquisition seems to be ultra vires. That should be borne in mind, lest we get the idea that we are bringing in something new and are short-circuiting existing acquisition proceedings. We are not proposing to shortcircuit them or the normal procedures of which we are all fully aware.

There is just one other point, which may be an extreme one, I admit, that is, that this matter of lands being "adjacent" or "contiguous" could arise in the opposite way. It is conceivable and possible that a man's land, by being adjacent and contiguous to an obsolete area on which a new development or redevelopment plan was proposed, could on the completion of the plan, be lessened in value by virtue of that plan. This is something that may not arise often but could arise. In whatever formula we may find, we will have to ensure that we do not prevent ourselves, or the local authorities, from acquiring the land of the man who is adjacent and whose property could be injured by redevelopment, if it were not brought in to the bigger redevelopment carried out. That is the other side of the coin and it is something that we will have to safeguard in whatever formula we may find.

Can such person insist on compensation, whether or not he is acquired under the Act?

I presume he would have his rights in law but I could visualise its being a rather tenuous sort of argument and perhaps a very costly type of case, and, in the ultimate analysis, he would get less in compensation than it would cost him in court. It is just a side to this that we have to have a look at.

I am sorry if the Minister regarded me as being illogical.

No, I think the wrong term was used. I am not saying the Deputy is illogical.

By way of explanation, I should point out that the phraseology used led me to be illogical and if, as the Minister says, another term had been used, it might not have led me to be illogical in this matter and would not perhaps have led me to say some of the things I did say. I still maintain, in view of the definition, and considering the implications of the Bill, where we envisage this type of development plan, and an area being designated as this, that or the other, and instructions being issued after the plan is made, defining what will be put in certain areas, that this is very relevant when you take the obsolete or development area and relate it to land contiguous to it.

At the outset, I did say that I wanted to take, if you like, two views, the urban view, where you need to do so, and equally a view on the type of area which is adjacent to other land. The authority would have a right, as we know from later sections, to do certain things in regard to lands which they have included in the plan. It is thinking in such terms, and of the Bill as a whole, that this seems to us to be a widening of this definition to the point of being dangerous. When the Minister says he will have a further look at this between now and the next Stage and try to find some formula by which he would confine the application of this definition to what is necessary and desirable in regard to urban renewal, he is going part of the way to meet us.

I want to assure him that the amendments we have put down in this respect are not illogical or unreasonable. They are offered as a logical corollary to the type of definition now included in the Bill. We want to ensure, by discussion in this House, that we shall get the Minister's mind on this matter. We want the Minister, from his logic, to put on the records of the House how illogical we are in asserting that such things might happen. It would then be on the record that the illogical aspect was from our side but at least we would get logic from the Minister and know his mind on what is presented to the House.

That is logical.

The Minister will look at this?

Very much so. I feel we should be able to get what we want without any of the dangers of illogical approaches to it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No 11:

In subsection (1), page 6, lines 53 and 54, to delete "whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge" and substitute "as of right and free of charge".

The only places to which the public have access as of right should surely be public places. What exactly has the Minister in mind in his definition of "public places"? How can a person be defined as moving into a public place if he does so by permission? If it is done by permission, it is not public. The public have access to a certain place as of right. What had the Minister in mind in connection with a public place where the public would require permission to enter?

Deputy Jones's point, I think, is that, wherever the public must get permission to enter, the place is not public. There are many places to which the public have access but not as of right or free of charge. Take, for instance, the Powerscourt Demesne. Undoubtedly, the public have access to it in very large numbers but not as of right and not free of charge.

Croke Park——

——Dalymount Park, Lansdowne Road, any of these places they frequent. To a large degree, those places are there for the accommodation and entertainment of the public —not without the players, of course. These places are there to accommodate the public but the public are not there of right or free of charge in normal circumstances. It is to enable control within such places frequented by the public though not of right and not free of charge—to control litterbugs and noise—that it is extended to places such as these. We can exercise these controls in places that are not in the broad sense of the word public places but are places frequented by the public and to which the public have access even though they have no right to be there free of charge but pay to get in or enter by means of a free pass, and so on. It is desirable that we should retain this so that we may apply it to these places which the public frequent.

"Public place" therefore, does not mean public places where the public are there as of right and free of charge?

Not for the purpose of this Bill and these provisions.

I see the point now. In the ordinary way, when we speak of public place our understanding is that the public are there as of right and free of charge.

That is right. That is the general conception of "public place". However, for the purpose of this Bill, it means places to which the public have access as of right, with or without charge.

In the event of its being private property such as Powerscourt Demesne, which belongs to somebody, and so on, is there any danger of interference with the owners of such property?

It would be in co-operation with the owners or the users of the property, as it were. These powers would be there to help the amenities of their park or entertainment. It could not possibly be used to annoy them. The whole idea would be to abate annoyance.

Maybe a county manager down the country might get it into his head——

I would say Deputy Tully may have some weird idea about county managers.

I have met a few of them.

I have a lot of experience of managers. We have had about seven in my local authority. I agree with the Minister about taking powers to control people with transistor radios and litterbugs where they have right of access to the seashore. It is about time something were done.

St. Stephen's Green.

It was an example to the whole country. I commend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, Deputy O'Malley, on his action. I walk there occasionally. He has made it an oasis of peace again. I would say that this is all right. A good deal of our small beaches and public places are ruined by litterbugs. People go on a picnic to a place miles from their home and they leave tin cans and bottles and everything after them.

That applies to tinkers also.

They have been doing it by tradition. Maybe it would be well to bring them in, now that Deputy Tully has mentioned it. We are withdrawing this amendment in view of the Minister's attitude to it. He says he wants the section to stand as it is so that the authorities will have power to protect our beaches and other places from litterbugs and from people who make the air a hell. Sometimes one tries to cut out five programmes at the one time. You may have a traditional singer on your left, Elvis Presley on your right and, perhaps, a famous showband coming from the front. We commend the Minister on this.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 12:

In subsection (1), page 6, delete line 57 and substitute " `the register' means the register kept under section 8.”

Is there some reason for the wording, "the register has the meaning specified in section 8”? Earlier the Minister pointed out that there was a reason for a particular wording, because it might confine the type of exemptions the Minister might make. Perhaps he would tell us at this stage whether there is a similar consideration in regard to “the register” which will be kept under this Bill by the local authorities. Is there any reason why we cannot say “ `the register' means the register kept under section 8?”

I might put the question back to Deputy Jones in reverse and ask what is the difference either way?

We are defining it as "the register is the register kept under section 8” and the Minister's definition is “the register” has the meaning specified in section 8.” Has the Minister any objection to saying “ `the register' means the register kept under section 8”?

I do not mind which is used. They are both the same.

Is there some safeguard in the Minister's definition?

No. The Deputy can have it the way he wants it, or he can leave it the way I have it. It is all the same to me.

Will the Minister accept the amendment for the record?

All right.

That is one up. Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 13:

In subsection (1), page 7, line 15, to delete "meaning that it has" and substitute "same meaning as".

This is a drafting amendment.

It has the same meaning.

Amendment agreed to.

That is two up.

Perhaps amendments Nos. 14 and 15 could be discussed together as amendment No. 15 is an alternative?

I move amendment No. 14:

In subsection (1), page 7, to delete lines 17 and 18.

In the Bill, "seashore" has the meaning it has in the Foreshore Act, 1933, and "special amenity area order" has the meaning specified in Section 43. These are drafting amendments and they are offered in the hope of making clear what we intend.

It is one or the other, and I am prepared to accept amendment No. 15 and let amendment No. 14 go by the board.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 15:

In subsection (1), page 7, line 17, to delete "has the meaning specified in" and substitute "means an order confirmed under".

Amendment agreed to.

Perhaps amendments Nos. 16 and 17 could be debated together? The Ministerial amendment appears to meet the point.

That is so. Amendment No. 17 goes a long way to meeting the proposal in amendment No. 16.

We put down this amendment before we saw the Minister's amendment. We wanted to clearly define what we had in mind. We agree with the Minister's amendment.

Amendment No. 16 not moved.

I move amendment No. 17:

In subsection (1), page 7, line 26, to insert " , or any part of a structure so defined," before "and".

Amendment agreed to.

Other cognate amendments could be discussed with amendment No. 18, if the House so wishes. Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22, 71, 74, 100, 102, 114, 148 and 157 are cognate to the Ministerial amendment No. 18.

I move amendment No. 18:

In subsection (1), page 7, line 41, to insert "on or" before "after."

This is a drafting amendment and the other amendments mentioned are very much associated with it. The purpose of the amendment is to make it clear beyond doubt that an exempted development carried out on the appointed date, that is, the day this Bill becomes an Act, is not an unauthorised development. As the Bill is drafted at the moment, without "on or" before "after," the 24 hours of the appointed day would be a sort of no man's land, belonging neither to the past nor the future. That day would not be caught by the old law or the new law, and it would be a free-for-all. If someone were energetic enough to get up early on the appointed day and carry out a development, he would not be caught by the old law or the new law. This merely closes the 24 hour gap which existed as a result of an oversight in the original drafting. That idea is carried right through the Bill. There is no other change.

It is non-recurring.

If the Minister says it closes this gap——

It is dangerous when he starts closing a gap.

We will not vote on this one.

So long as we are not fenced in. All these other amendments, the Minister has said, are cognate to the amendments we have just moved. It is merely a matter of the interim period. All the other amendments are the same. Does that apply to all the amendments up to amendment No. 157?

It is the same principle right through all of them. The Deputy will probably notice that amendment No. 71 mentions the word "commence" rather than the two words "on or" but that is again in conformity with the whole idea right through of commencing at a given point of time and not just any time during the day appointed. So that the word "commence" may appear in some and the words "on or" in others, but it is with the same purpose in mind, to cover, right through the Bill, the particular day that is omitted from all consideration.

That is the day the Minister is going to apply them.

As the Minister is aware, it has been known that people have on a particular day started at a minute after 12 and decided on matters which were not covered by any town planning and could not be interfered with. I suppose it is better to have it precise.

It is better to have it precise, in any event.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 19:

In the definition of "unauthorised structure", to delete "or" in page 7, line 42, to insert "or" at the end of line 45 on that page and to add the following paragraph:

"(v) a structure which, immediately before the appointed day, had the protection afforded by section 15 of the Act of 1934,".

This amendment is really to preserve certain exemptions which certain statutory undertakers, such as CIE, enjoyed under the present laws and the laws in the past. It is not conferring on them anything exceptional by way of new exemptions but is preserving rights they have. I think it is fair that we should preserve rights they had been granted under earlier laws and which they have enjoyed up to the present. It is merely continuing these into the future. The purpose of the amendment is to preserve that which is already in existence in so far as exemptions for statutory bodies is concerned, not giving anything in addition.

Is it desirable as it is?

It is unobjectionable as it is.

This is one of the powers, again, that these people had, that were given to them. It is a case of doctors differing again. Here is the Minister with his Planning Bill. We are endeavouring to preserve period houses, Georgian houses and so on, and we see bodies like the ESB and CIE or other semi-State companies being exempted by this section. They put up buildings that the proud citizens of Dublin did not like. I think they should not be exempted. They have as great, and greater responsibility sometimes, as the ordinary citizen and even though they have been excepted in the past, there is no use in setting them up as sacred cows or sacred bulls, as if they could do no wrong, whereas the citizens can do wrong. In the past, legislation was enacted which compelled somebody in some of the fine squares in Dublin or in any town or city to conform to certain standards but we cannot so compel these, our servants, the ESB, or CIE or Bord na MÓna or any of our public and State companies who may want to put up blocks of offices or buildings. We should consider this matter.

I have always taken the line that this House should be jealous of our powers; that we should be jealous of the powers of the elected representatives on local authorities. We should be jealous of giving unlimited power to public companies, State companies. I would say to the Minister that this power should not be continued and that it should be provided in the Bill that these State companies should submit their plans and specifications to the local authority just the same as any ordinary citizen or company or industrialist would have to do.

Before we get any further off the line, may I say I entirely agree with Deputy Lynch on that matter? The Deputy has a slightly erroneous conception. I wondered did I do this; was I responsible for it. In fact, these bodies in so far as the future is concerned, are being taken under the Bill but the amendment is merely to rectify a situation that exists as a result of the exemptions they have enjoyed over certain years. Under various enactments, certain structures of these statutory undertakers are already in existence. If I did not put down this amendment or did not provide for it in regulations-which is what I had intended to do at first, but decided to put it in by specific amendment-these structures which were allowed to be built because of the exemption gained from past legislation, would on the passage of this Bill become unauthorised buildings. In other words, they would be subject to being removed, although they were built because of exemptions granted under past laws. Anybody would agree that that would be wrong.

If they were allowed by exemption to do this in the past, we cannot come along now and say that as and from a certain date, the buildings are unauthorised and they may be asked to remove them. This amendment applies only in so far as the structures they have built as a result of exemptions gained in past legislation and in preserving that exemption in regard to existing structures but it is not proposed to continue exemptions for similar structures in the future under the Bill, so that they will be subject to the new Bill. This is to keep us from declaring unauthorised buildings which they have already erected because of exemptions under previous laws.

I welcome this, and I welcome the Minister's attitude in relation to this matter. This is the right way. I always hoped that I would be here in Dáil Éireann when such things as this would happen, when a Minister would be tolerant enough to see eye to eye with members of the Opposition who would bring in amendments as the Minister has done in respect of amendments of this Party today.

I am very glad the Minister agrees with me as far as public companies are concerned. I can see the Minister's point and would not like to embarrass public companies that would have to take down buildings or alter buildings already in existence and which they legally put up and were legally entitled to put up. But it is a good thing that this Bill sees to it that for the future, even though they are State companies, they will have to abide by the law of the land and will have to go to the local authority, the same as anybody else. That is a very good idea and it will make for very good law.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 20:

In subsection (1), page 7, line 48, to insert "commencement of the" before "appointed day".

Acting Chairman

This amendment has been discussed with amendment No. 18.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 21:

In subsection (1), page 7, line 53, to insert "on or" before "after".

Acting Chairman

This amendment also has been discussed.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 22:

In subsection (1), page 7, line 56, to insert "on or" before "after".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 23:

In subsection (1), page 8, line 4, to delete "alteration, repair".

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 23 is related to Amendment No. 3.

It was debated with No. 3.

Might I ask the Minister what, apart from "any act of operation of construction, excavation, demolition, extension, alteration, repair or renewal" could cause a material change? Has the Minister anything else in mind?

There could be a change in use; a factory building might become a cinema, or vice versa, or a dancehall might become a factory, or a factory a dancehall.

If the tenant of a private house wanted to convert that house into a shop, would it come under this?

I have known cases where people who fell on hard times opened a shop in a private house and did all right.

Most people will not open for that reason after the 2½ per cent tax comes into operation.

The point is this provision is not specifically to exclude. It is to enable control of use in the future but not necessarily to prevent use.

Will people have to apply to the local authority for permission?

Yes, for a material change of use.

Supposing it is just a small change in structure, what will be the position? Converting a house into a shop generally means just putting in a big window. That is all that is required and it is a simple matter to change from a shop again back into a private house.

It would not be solely based on structural change. That is not what we are trying to come at here at all; it is the use to which the structure is put. A change of use, for instance, without any change in structure might have serious repercussions on neighbouring properties. This provision is designed to control that.

There is, too, another sad aspect. In the city of Dublin, and in other cities, where housing is scarce, and has been scarce for a number of years, it is hard on the Minister and the local authority to see perfectly good dwellings being changed in their use because of the increase in commercial growth, while, at the same time, they are hard put to it to provide houses. Large private dwellings coming on the market are changed into offices or showrooms at a time when there are still not enough private houses for our people. At the moment that cannot be controlled.

It could have serious repercussions.

The other is having serious repercussions, too.

I saw a row of beautiful houses ruined by one man in the middle turning his house into a business premises.

The whole point is to control that type of abuse in future. The purpose is not specifically to stop anybody doing anything.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 24:

In subsection (7), page 8, line 37, and lines 41 and 42, to delete "consider will be included" and substitute in each case "have decided to include".

As the section is drafted, it provides:

(a) the references to the provisions of the development plan shall, until that plan is made, be construed as references to the provisions which the planning authority consider will be included in that plan;

(b) the references to the provisions of any special amenity area order relating to the area of the planning authority shall be construed as including references to any provisions which the planning authority consider will be included in a special amenity area order relating to their area.

I think there should be a more positive approach here. We were speaking earlier of the kind of liaison we hope will operate as between the elected representatives and the official responsible for the drawing up of development plans or the creation of amenity areas. As the subsection is drafted, the approach here is not a positive one. It says "will be included". Surely when the planning authority gets down to considering the area which falls for administration under the local authority, they will at that stage have considered all these matters and have had discussions with the members of the local authority in question on the final determination.

According to the provision here, until the plan is made, we will continue the approach by stipulating that it may be considered as one that "will be included" in a development plan or a special amenity area. The public will be placed in the position that, until the plan is completed, things may happen of which they will not be aware but which will be in the mind of the planner for inclusion at some future stage. There ought to be a more positive approach and we suggest the deletion of "will be included" and the substitution therefor of "have decided to include". In that way, the reference to the development plan has reference to what the planning authority decide to include.

The first thing I find rather out of line in this amendment is that there was mention earlier of what would happen between the appointed day, the coming into operation of this piece of legislation, and the date of a plan coming into operation in a particular planning area, that since three years are being allowed to do this, there would be a sort of vacuum. If this amendment were accepted, then, until a plan had been decided, nothing whatever could be done in regard to a planning application or, should I say what is more likely, nothing need be done and a planning application may be lying there and no decision need be given until, in conformity with this amendment, a decision had been taken to include this, that or the other in the plan. That would be stagnation at its worst, apart altogether from the annoyance and frustration it would cause to any person or group who wanted to do any particular things that required permission.

The idea is that the planning authority should be enabled to make decisions on applications before and during the interim while their plan is being prepared on the basis of and having regard to what they intend will be included in the plan rather than that they would have to go through, as they would be required to do, the formality of getting a decision which would include the council saying: "yes" and the whole paraphernalia.

It is in order to make it more flexible for the administration but more particularly for the convenience of the public that we put this in, that the local authority or planning authority should take into consideration what will be included in the plan and not as the amendment says, what has been decided should go into the plan, which would leave everything up in the air for considerably longer than if the section is left as we propose.

May I take it that a development plan or an amenity area is something which, having been created by the planners, will have been adopted by the local authority? Is that the accepted sense of the amenity area?

Yes. That is fairly all right.

The Minister says, power is given to somebody to deal with an interim period. Do I take it that, if applications are made prior to the implementation of a development plan, some official-in this case it would be the county manager or his advisers-would give permission to an individual to carry out certain developments?

That is right.

In other words, they would have decided at that stage what was going to be in the development plan prior to the acceptance of it by the elected representatives of the people?

The Deputy has a right point there but he cannot have it both ways. Undoubtedly, in this interim, whatever length it may be, from six months to three years, the adviser to the manager on planning appeals will no doubt be the person responsible for the preparation from a technical point of view of the plan which will ultimately go before the council for their approval or disapproval. If he is engaged on the preparation of a plan, all wisdom will point to his being consulted on these interim applications because of the implications they may have as against what he will propose as a technical adviser.

That being so, it seems much more reasonable that rather than have the individual applicant for permission held up, we should take that little chance of allowing them to be dealt with in the normal way by the manager, advised as he would be, by his advisers and, in this case, probably advised by the man preparing the ultimate plan for the area. That man in giving his advice and the manager in turn in accepting that advice would be enabled to consider what they intended to put before the council—in other words, what they as technical people would put up to the council as their recommendations. Under the terms of this subsection, they would be able to determine an application for permission on the basis of what they, from their examination of the situation, had decided they were going to recommend to their council. The elected council would ultimately determine what the plan was going to be in all its aspects. They could ensure during this interim that applications coming along for their determination should be notified to them so that they could have steps taken that would bring up an appeal to the Minister lest something is done with which they disagree later on.

At this stage we must consider, more than the rights of the elected representatives, the rights of applicants for permission who, if they are to wait the taking of formal decisions, may be frustrated, annoyed and held up in their business. It is a question of one or the other and if there is any appearance of taking something from the council it is because the public whom the council represent are entitled to that little leeway rather than have to stand around until decisions are taken. There is the right of appeal from the decision and the process can go on but the other way would be imposing on the public.

While seeing the point the Minister has made, I think he will agree that where there is a development plan and an amenity area and where there is an interim period, there may be people making applications to do certain things. For instance, under the development plan we may locate industries in certain areas or define certain areas as residential areas or areas that should be reserved for the public or should be reserved as green open spaces. Therefore, before the elected representatives or, indeed, the public would have the opportunity of considering this, we would find ourselves in the dangerous situation that it could be opposed.

Perhaps the Minister would examine the implications contained in the wording of this provision? He agrees there is a danger that we are by-passing public representatives of this kind and, in fact, by-passing the rights of the individuals in the area because some official may give permission for something to be done in an area ahead of the development plan, or may give permission which may result in creating or even destroying an amenity. From that point of view, we feel this definition is much too wide and that it should be much more positive. The planning authority ought to have the decision to include it or not.

I fully appreciate the Deputy's concern and I also want to safeguard the situation, but I think that the idea of the council asking the manager—I think they would need to requisition him—to ensure that during this interim period any decisions he may have to take or certain specific types of decisions should be brought to the notice of the council lest such a decision might restrict or frustrate the council's ultimate plan is unnecessary. What I suggest, particularly where an amenity order may be under consideration, is that the council might proceed to get those amenity areas defined beforehand, in fact as the first step, before the adoption of an overall plan. They are entitled to do that with the co-operation of the manager and his staff, which I have no doubt they will get, and so avoid the spoiling of that area or part of it.

There is also the amenity area or partial plan for a particular part of the town or countryside. The council could require the manager to bring to their notice any application that he might be called on to determine during the interim. Even where there is no special amenity area the situation could be safeguarded by co-operation between the officials and the council concerned. These safeguards should be adequate for any normal council and I have no fear whatever that any decision taken, because of the way this matter is dealt with in the Bill, will restrict or frustrate the intentions of the local authority in the future.

Does the Minister suggest that whoever will be dealing with these matters should bring to the notice of the council decisions he might wish to make before giving permission?

That is what I suggest.

How will that be ensured now?

I think that will be a matter for the council themselves. Where I can avoid it I am loath to intervene where the council are quite capable of doing it and should do it themselves by requiring the manager to do these things. Since the 1934 legislation was brought into operation all the decisions reached have been arrived at on the basis of what the local authority consider will be the plan for the future. We have been doing that for almost 30 years in effect. The safeguards in the interim will be even better than what we had in the past 30 years.

The Minister does not think anything better can be done with it?

I do not believe so. I have gone fully into this because it is one of the difficult things to get moving.

He may be able to suggest something on the Report Stage.

If we can find anything better we shall produce it but, quite honestly, I do not think we can.

So long as local authorities understand, as the Minister pointed out, that they have that right now and have had it in the past and that this legislation is not taking it away from them——

No, it is not taking anything from them which they now enjoy but probably saying this here may be useful in itself.

Is it desirable that there should be an obligation on the manager to bring these interim plans before the local authority rather than that the local authority should require him to do it?

If it were not for the fact that the local authority under its existing powers may oblige the manager to do this, I would concede that even for the purposes of this Bill we should put in something that would oblige the manager to do it but, in fact, the council may so oblige him under their existing powers. I suggest they should do that rather than that I should enter into it.

Is the Minister referring to Section 4 of the County Management (Amendment) Act?

No. Section 2.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Would the Minister look at page 5 of the Bill? The definition of "advertisement structure" seems to be all-embracing as it stands but is the Minister satisfied that it includes, in fact walls and gable-ends of houses?

In which words or part?

In Section 3(2) paragraph (a).

The Minister is satisfied that these are covered?

I should be very dissatisfied if I thought otherwise.

So should I.

They are definitely covered.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.

I move amendment No. 25:

In subsection (1), page 8, line 50, to insert ", in, or under" before "land".

This is merely a drafting amendment.

Does the Minister intend to bring quarrying under this?

No, it will be exempt.

What is the reason for the insertion of the words "in or under"?

The amendment is to remove any doubt whatever as to the scope of the term "works on land" in respect of development. It might be a cellar or some such subterranean chamber.

Does the Minister not consider that quarrying can be a very serious disturbance in an area? I had hoped that quarrying would be covered in this section. We have a proposal at the moment to carry on quarrying in a big way in a residential area. Quarrying means the setting up of crushing plants. There may be good reasons for doing it, but under town planning, we should be in a position to control that sort of activity.

Possibly, I should have elaborated further. We were talking in the context of working in or under the ground when I said quarrying, as such, was exempted. I should have qualified that by saying that the work of quarrying should be carried on in such a manner as not to injure amenities and to conform with any orders made under Parts IV and V of the Bill. If crushing plants were erected, they would be caught by the term "structure" already in the Bill. If the quarrying operations were such as seriously to injure the amenities of the people living around, that would have to be considered. The exemption would be conditional on the operations not seriously injuring anybody's amenities.

Perhaps this is not the correct section on which to mention it, but is there any provision in any part of the Bill for the effective fencing off of a disused quarry in the interests of public safety?

Not in this Bill.

It is not appropriate to this Bill?

Does this Bill not cover quarries at all? I thought the Minister gave us some hope a short time ago that he would introduce legislation to enable us deal with the dangerous situation which exists in regard to quarries in the heavily populated areas of Dublin and elsewhere? Is it not possible to embody something in this Bill? It would be an extremely desirable thing to do. We are completely without power to deal with the situation at present.

It is not regarded as appropriate to this Bill. It would have to go under the Sanitary Services Acts.

These quarry holes can be very unsanitary and ugly as well. In view of the urgency of the matter, does the Minister not think that in some way or other local authorities could be empowered to have these places fenced off properly?

If the Deputy gives us this Bill quickly, I would not mind adding a section at the end.

In the interests of the children whose lives are endangered by these open quarries, I would be prepared to play ball with the Minister in respect of all this Bill.

I do not want that to be taken too seriously. I do not want the tragedy we heard of to be brought into this. It is taking us away from what we are dealing with. Although I say this matter is not appropriate to this Bill, that is in no way indicative of my mind on the matter. We are looking at it to see what we can do. If we can do anything before the Bill goes through, we will do it, but I do not think it will be on this measure.

I am concerned about the amenities of an area being ruined by quarrying, not only by the dust from the stone crushers but also by the noise of these machines thumping away all day. We dealt with noise in another part of the Bill, when the Minister gave us the welcome news that he was aware of the nuisance of transistor sets with Elvis Presley singing against our traditional singers, while somebody else listens to a soccer match.

We should see to it that the amenities of our country areas are preserved. Most of these quarries are being set up in country areas. Whether it is a local authority or private enterprise is doing the quarrying, it is important that the quarries be fenced off. The fencing should take place when the quarrying is about to commence. Deputies have seen what happens. They move into the place where they are going to quarry and knock down the existing fences.

Acting Chairman

I do not think the latter portion of the Deputy's remarks are appropriate to the Bill.

It arises on development. Though it may not be completely appropriate, I think if a Deputy wants to point out to the Minister something that is a public nuisance, he should be allowed do so. I would ask you to bear with me in this, Sir. It is very important that these quarries should not be left open to children or anybody else. They are incentives to itinerants to settle in an area. It is as well to mention these points when legislation such as this is going through. I am directing attention to the noise, the dust created by the quarrying and, lastly, to the nuisance caused by local authorities or public enterprise who knock down the fences and start quarrying, leaving the whole place open for trespass.

Might I suggest to the Minister that the question of quarries could be included as appropriately as could derelict or obsolete sites? Surely a derelict site is very dangerous and should be considered in legislation of this sort? While I agree we should not bring into the discussion recent quarry tragedies, at the same time, this is the first Bill introduced which makes it possible to refer to them since they occurred. I know the Minister is as anxious as anybody else to do something about dangerous quarries and he should, therefore, take the opportunity presented here.

I want to get back to amendment No. 25 again — to the words ", in, or under". I was very pleased to see that amendment because I felt here we had something that gave us power to control quarries. Quarrying is a job which is done under land and it is very desirable we should be in a position to control it. At the moment we are not in a position seriously to oppose somebody coming into a residential area, opening a quarry, setting up a crushing plant which need not necessarily be a structure as the Minister said. Such operations can cause a great deal of trouble to ordinary people in residential areas. Many of them feel seriously aggrieved about such activities. At the moment apparently there is inadequate power to deal with it. The value of property adjacent to such operations can be seriously diminished overnight and this seems to me to be the ideal opportunity to introduce control.

Acting Chairman

Is the amendment withdrawn?

Has the Minister nothing further to say on this?

There have been so many irrelevancies on it already that I do not want to add to them. Of course, I quite agree with what has been said on the question of quarries.

Derelict quarries?

If it is derelict, it can be dealt with under another code altogether.

Acting Chairman

This discussion is not relevant to the amendment. Deputies have been allowed considerable latitude and have been given more than ample opportunity to put forward their views, which were not strictly in order.

Surely mine is in order —"in, or under"?

Acting Chairman

We have disposed of that amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 26:

In subsection (1), page 8, line 52, to delete "or other land" and to add at the end of the subsection "and `develop' shall be construed accordingly."

In subsection (1) of this section "development" is defined as being the carrying out of any works on land or the making of any material change. Then the definition section sets out "works" as including any act or operation of construction, excavation, demolition, extension, alteration, repair or renewal. Why does the Minister add at the end of subsection (1) the words "or other land"?

The subsection refers to works on structures and if the amendment were accepted land would not be included. It is probably true to say that if we merely stated "works on land" it would include structures, but saying "works on structures" would not include land, so we put in both.

You say "or other land". Is that not widening the scope of the subsection?

We are dealing with work on structures on the one hand and then we say "or other land". It means works bringing about a material change.

What other structures?

Quarrying, for instance.

That is very useful to hear.

And dumping.

Did the Minister say quarries are covered?

Yes. It is within the section all right.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 27:

In subsection (2), page 9, line 9, after "objects" to insert "save such as belong to the owner of the land and are used by him or any member of his family otherwise than for the purpose of gain or profit".

The section as it stands would prevent a person from keeping a caravan on his land over the winter, even though the land might be his own. Nowadays many people go on caravan holidays during the summer and bring their caravans home to park it on their lands during the winter. Under this section as it stands that would be an offence. If a man wanted to keep his caravan on his land during the winter he would have to get permission from the local authority. Even if he kept the caravan there overnight he might be committing an offence. I suggest that the section as it stands would inordinately interfere with the rights of individuals in that respect.

Caravanning has become very popular in the past few years. A great many families nowadays take their own caravans and move to the seaside during the summer. Naturally, they bring them home to park in the offseason and, as I have said, to do that in future, they must get permission from the local authority.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share