Vol. 209 No. 9
»
Debates
»
Find a debate
»
Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 12 May 1964
»
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unservic...
asked the Minister for Local Government the amount of local government grant, and the local authority grant, which entered into the cost of providing an unserviced rural cottage (particulars supplied), the date on which the dwelling was completed, and the reason why no septic tank was provided by the local authority.
51.
asked the Minister for Local Government if he will now sanction the local authority proposals to erect the single rural cottages mentioned in replies of 3rd April 1963, and 18th July 1963, in view of the subsequent provision of an unserviced rural cottage (particulars supplied) by the local authority.
I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 50 and 51 together. I understand that the cottage at Balcunnin to which the Deputy refers was completed in June, 1963, at a cost of £1,806. The cottage was provided in replacement of an existing privately-owned unserviced cottage which was demolished as part of a road improvement scheme. The full cost is being defrayed out of the main road improvement grant for the scheme. The house plan was not submitted for my approval.
With regard to the other single rural cottages to which he refers, I indicated in a reply to the Deputy on the 2nd July, 1963, my reason for not approving proposals for unserviced cottages on this site. I understand that the housing authority is now investigating the feasibility of providing fully serviced dwellings for the applicants and I shall await their further proposals.
Does the Minister not agree that it is rather peculiar that when a local authority is erecting a house, it fails to provide the necessary water and sewerage facilities, while the Department of Local Government insists it must be done if houses are being provided for those in condemned or overcrowded dwellings?
This proposal was not sent for my approval and therefore my approval was not at any time given. Furthermore, the contract for this house was signed some time in October, 1962. No grants of any kind have been, or can be availed of in this case, so far as housing is concerned.
In view of the fact that the entire cost of the house was provided by the State and there was no question of grants, would the Minister not consider taking the matter up with the county council concerned and finding out why they should have one set of rules for one type of house and a different set for another?
I take it that since this was a replacement, there was a predetermined deal in regard to the acquisition of the land on which the house was then sited. That, I take it, would be a matter of negotiation as regards the value of the house to replace the old one. It is a matter into which I was not brought at any stage. While it is true that moneys from the Road Fund, to the extent of 100 per cent of the cost were used, these came from that county's Road Fund allocation for that year so that, in a sense, it was their own money they were spending.
Surely the Minister will agree that since the money came from the Road Fund, there is no point in talking about a grant from the Department of Local Government and surely he agrees the council should not be allowed to erect a sub-standard house?
The only possible solution I see in the matter is that we might dock the grant by the amount the house cost.
The Minister might also consider having the necessary facilities provided. That might be a more Christian approach.
It would be something between the council and the person concerned.
