asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state specifically on what grounds he has authorised the ESB to demolish historic Georgian houses in Dublin in contravention of the decision of the Dublin Corporation.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Georgian Houses.
23.
The position is not as stated by the Deputy. The Corporation granted general permission to the ESB under the Town and Regional Planning Acts for the rebuilding of these houses, subject to the condition that the Board should submit detailed plans to the Corporation illustrating their proposals before any work of a constructional nature was put in hands.
Appeals against the Corporation's decision were received by me from a number of parties and, having fully considered the appeals, I decided that the Corporation were justified in granting permission and I disallowed the appeals and made an order on 10th July, 1963, confirming the grant of permission.
Subsequently, the Board lodged with the Corporation detailed plans of the new building, the design of which had been awarded first prize in an international architectural competition promoted by the Board. The Corporation decided that the plans of the proposed new building were not acceptable for a number of reasons and on 23rd May, 1964, they made an order refusing permission for the rebuilding of the houses in accordance with the plans. The issue then was not whether or not the ESB should be allowed to demolish the existing houses. That was settled in 1962 by the Corporation's general permission to rebuild and by the confirmation in 1963 of that permission on appeal. The question that remained to be decided was the design of the new building to be erected on the site.
The ESB appealed to me against the Corporation's refusal to grant permission for the erection of the new building in accordance with the plans lodged by them and I decided that permission should be granted, subject to certain conditions aimed at bringing the new building more into harmony with its surroundings. I made an Order accordingly on 30th September, 1964.
The Minister still does not give any reason why he made this Order. I should like to ask him is it not a fact that the general permission referred to as given by Dublin Corporation for the building of new offices for the ESB does not envisage the complete destruction of these houses? It was not so envisaged. Is it not a fact that in the course of the debate in Private Members' Time, I have amply proved that? Would the Minister take some time off to develop this in greater detail during the course of the discussions in Private Members' Time?
I do not agree with the Deputy's interpretation of what was intended by the Corporation's permission in the first instance. Therefore, giving further time to it would not, I am sure, add anything to the discussion.
The Minister has not yet said why he allowed the appeal of the ESB in defiance of the expressed wish of Dublin Corporation, although he himself in a recent debate on the new Town Planning Bill said explicitly that he would be guided in these matters by the wishes of the local authority concerned.
So far as guidance is necessary, and so far as it was taken in this matter on a really vital question, I took the guidance from the Dublin Corporation.
Surely that could not be so.