Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Dec 1964

Vol. 213 No. 3

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - House Reconstruction Grants.


asked the Minister for Local Government the cause of the delay in the payment of a reconstruction grant in the case of a Portlaoise applicant (name supplied); the dates on which this work was inspected by the housing inspector; if it was passed for payment; and, if so, why payment has not been made.

An application for a grant was received in this case on 4th March last. A previous grant was paid in November, 1963, to a person of the same name and address and applicant was asked on 11th March, 1964, whether the new proposal related to the same house. He did not reply to this query.

Following representations made by the Deputy, arrangements were made in July last for inspection with a view to consideration for payment of a special second grant. The inspection was carried out during the week ended 22nd August, 1964. For the purpose of furnishing the special report required in cases of this kind, the Inspector asked for the earlier file on which the first grant was paid, and furnished his report on 16th October. It appears that the applicant has carried out an enlargement merely of the additional accommodation provided in the first instance (kitchen/living-room). In these circumstances he is not entitled to a second grant payment. He has been informed accordingly.


asked the Minister for Local Government the cause of the delay in payment of a reconstruction grant in the case of a Portarlington applicant (name supplied); the reason for so many inspectors in this case; the dates on which the inspections were made by the housing inspector; the dates on which these reports were received in his Department; the date on which the work was passed for payment; and the cause of the delay in sending the applicant this grant.

Five inspections in all were carried out in this case. At the first inspection on 7th June, 1963, it was found that the applicant had not decided on the extent of the works he wished to carry out. A second inspection was made on 6th September, 1963, at the applicant's request, and grants of £100 and £140 were allocated for works which included the conversion of the house into two separate units. Following representations received from the Deputy on 12th October, 1963, a further inspection was carried out on 8th November, 1963, when it was found that all the works specified were not completed.

On 16th January, 1964, the applicant notified the Department that the work was completed and the Inspector again visited the premises on 8th February, and reported that certain outstanding items still remained to be done. The applicant was advised to carry out these works and to notify the Department on completion.

The applicant did not notify the Department of completion, or return the allocation form claiming the grant, and the final inspection was made on 29th September, 1964, following further representations from the Deputy received on the 2nd idem. The payment form was subsequently returned by the applicant on 9th October, certified by the inspector on 30th October and payments issued to the applicant on 20th November, 1964.

The delays and additional inspections in this case were largely due to the failure of the applicant to advise the Department at the appropriate times in relation to the extent of the works to be carried out and the date of their completion.


asked the Minister for Local Government why a person claiming a reconstruction grant is not permitted to roof a back kitchen with asbestos; and why it is necessary to use a felt roof made outside the country.

In the case of back kitchens it is not normally possible to provide the required minimum roof pitch of 30º, due to the restricted area generally available. The most satisfactory solution is to provide a timber and felt roof at a very low or flat pitch. The primary consideration in regard to the acceptance of any material for roofing purposes, is that such material should have the longest possible lifetime and, in view of the shortcomings of corrugated asbestos roofs in this respect, their use is not permitted for grant purposes.

The felt used on such jobs is required to be of Irish manufacture.