asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware that (1) on the 8th June, 1964 the Dublin County Manager refused to implement a section 4 requisition for the purchase of building land near services in Rush on the law agent's advice that it had not power under section 82 of the Local Government Act, 1946 to acquire by agreement land for which it has no foreseeable requirement, (2) the estate owner put the property on the market and the council needed only part but could not obtain the building land without acquiring the whole, (3) the Land Commission acquired it and allocated the open lands nearest the town services in 54 allotments while fully aware of the council's needs, and (4) the residue of 23 acres of open land now available to the council is nearly a mile from the town services; and if he intends to amend and extend the powers of housing authorities to avoid a repetition of this nature.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Dublin Building Land.
I would refer the Deputy to my reply on 13th May last to his previous question in this matter. As I explained then, I am satisfied that the wide powers of local authorities to acquire land for the purposes of their functions, including the power of acquisition for future use, are adequate for all purposes. These powers were sufficient to have enabled the County Council to proceed for the acquisition, by compulsion if necessary, of any part of the estate in question prior to its acquisition by the Land Commission some months ago.
As regards the question of part of the estate being made available at this stage to the county council for housing or other development, this must be settled between the Land Commission and the council. My information is that the county council has already agreed to take over 31½ acres which is located within about half a mile of the village of Rush and that the possibility of acquiring a further 64 acres is at present being investigated.
Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the land which at present is being offered to Dublin County Council, being under trees and scrub, is not the most suitable type of land for development for housing, and that is was unfair that the Land Commission should have given away the portion nearest to the village which would have been suitable? Would the Parliamentary Secretary at least ensure that that sort of nonsense is not carried on?
The county council have already agreed to take over 31½ acres.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that is scrub and timber and would require more than the cost of the land to clear it? The useful portion was given to somebody else.
I understood the Deputy to be referring to the 64 acres.
That is way out.