Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Mar 1966

Vol. 221 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation Bill, 1966 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed) and Subsequent Stages.

The following motion was moved by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle on 15th March:
That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The County Borough of Waterford (Extension of Boundary) Provisional Order, 1966, provides for a change in the Waterford city boundary by taking into the city an adjoining area lying on the present western boundary, and comprising a number of complete townlands and parts of others totalling, in all, some 520 acres of which, I may say, Waterford Corporation already own about 43 per cent. Under the terms of the Waterford City Management Act, 1939, the Provisional Order already made requires, in order to be effective, the confirmation of the Oireachtas. The Bill at present before the House is to secure such confirmation. The objective is to make the extension effective as from the 1st April, 1966.

As we know, Waterford is an ancient city which dates back to the 9th century, a city which has down the centuries occupied an important position in our history. In 1840 Water-ford's area was only 650 acres. An extension in 1896 increased the area to 1,438 acres; at that stage the population of the city was of the order of 20,000. In the post-war period, Waterford Corporation has erected 1,548 houses, and in order to cater for this building programme and its necessary social and economic concomitants further extensions became necessary in 1944 and 1955 which brought the city acreage up to 2,096. By the early 1960s, the position had again been reached where this community required more space to expand and develop. The area within the city boundary had become closely built-up, and if the local authority's housing programme were to continue, it was necessary that additional land be acquired. Moreover, the building programme in the private sector had to be provided for and provision made also for the needs of industrial enterprise.

This background brings into perspective the steady economic and social progress which has been taking place in Waterford. It may be expected that this growth will be accelerated by the recent decision of the Government designating Waterford a development centre. It is accordingly vital to ensure that this expansion is not hampered by lack of space. Not alone must provision be made for housing and industrial expansion for approximately the next 20 years or so but the need for schools, churches and many other essentials of a large and expanding urban community must be catered for. Provision must be made to rehouse people from insanitary houses and overcrowded conditions in central city areas while at the same time providing for new housing needs arising from population and employment growth. In this connection I might mention that the estimated population for the city for 1966 is 28,700 approximately.

As Waterford city grows in size and prosperity, it should provide employment and a market for a growing hinterland and not alone bring economic and social advantage to its own citizens but also radiate prosperity over a wide economic catchment area. The proposed extension has been agreed in detail between Waterford County Council and Corporation and there were no objections to the extension at the public local inquiry held into the matter on 1st December, 1965. The compensation to be paid by the corporation to the county council in respect of the added burden on the county rates to which the extension will give rise is agreed at the sum of £19,000. This settlement has been ratified by the two authorities.

In order to reduce the impact of the full city rate on ratepayers in the proposed added area a graduated scale of rate payment has been devised so as to bring the new city ratepayers on to the full city rate by stages spread over a period of six years. Article 13 of the Provisional Order and the Second Schedule thereto give effect to these provisions.

Following the extension, agricultural land in the added area will cease to attract the agricultural grant. A sum corresponding to the reduction of grant to the county will, however, be paid to the corporation and in turn the proportion of the valuation of the land in the added area to be assessed will be seven-tenths, as is the case of all agricultural land taken into the city. In addition, the sliding scale of rates I have referred to will operate in these cases.

Finally the Provisional Order contains the usual standard provisions which are normal in such cases and are designed to give smooth effect to the extension and to introduce legal savers where necessary.

This extension is desirable and necessary; it has been agreed to by the county council and I think that it should recommend itself to this House, too.

In this case the Minister is able to assure the House that complete agreement has been reached between the two local authorities concerned, that is, Waterford Corporation and Waterford County Council. A short time ago, we had a similar proposal before us in respect of Cork and there was a great deal of objection raised, particularly by the people on the county side of the border, and recent events indicate fairly clearly that the objections of the people on the county side of the border were fairly well justified. I understand that the recent increase in rates on the county side of the border in Cork is something in the region of 14/- in the £ and this is the direct result of the loss of income from the portion of the county that has gone into the city.

I have always felt that in any of these adjustments the people on the county council side have got the worst of the bargain and have suffered a considerable loss. I know the loss is abated over a period of years but, nevertheless, it represents a substantial loss. There is a six-year period here which can be stretched in certain instances to ten years. However, it is a loss that will never be fully recovered by the people on the county side of the border. It is a matter of surprise to me that the county council have so quietly agreed to the adjustment.

Progress cannot be halted and, as the Minister says, this is an ancient city that must be allowed to grow. The population increase has been fairly large in recent years. What struck me about the history of Waterford as given to us by the Minister is that the adjustments have been very frequent, and a number of adjustments have taken place in fairly recent years. Since this has been made a development area by the Government, the area now being taken in may also prove to be too small. I think it is right to say that it is felt in Waterford city that they may have made a mistake, that most of this added area is on the southern side and that a similar area could well have been taken in on the northern side of Waterford. I am not sufficiently conversant with it to say whether this is right or wrong, but since it is a developed area, since we expect considerable building and industrial development there, we may not be taking in a sufficient area and may have to come to the House in a short time again for another extension, which would seem to be rather unnecessary and undesirable if we are able to anticipate accurately the needs of the city for extension in the time to come.

There is just one small point on which I should like to hear from the Minister. The Minister says that the land going into the city area will no longer rank for agricultural grant and there is an adjustment being made to compensate for that. I assume, however, that there would be quite a number of buildings in this area and I should like to hear from the Minister whether or not it is the intention of the corporation to revalue for rating purposes the buildings going into the added area of the city. If this happens, certainly the ratepayers who are now being pushed into the city will have to pay a substantial additional sum to the corporation. It may be right to say that living on the fringe of the city for a number of years, they have had the best of both worlds, but if their property is now to be revalued, they will receive a great shock when they find themselves under the corporation of Waterford instead of under the county council. However, as I say, the increased area seems to be needed and we certainly raise no objection.

We have no objection to the extension. There has been unanimous agreement by all concerned that this should be done. In cases like this, however, if there is any question of disagreement at all, the Minister should hasten very slowly. We have found that recently quite a number of towns have been casting envious eyes on the areas around them, areas which have been built up not by urban councils or corporations but by county councils. When a transfer such as this occurs, it sometimes happens, and Deputy Corry made full use of this during what I call the Cork debate, that quite a substantial amount of local authority money has been expended on the houses in the area by way of loan and grant; these houses pass out of the hands of the local authority responsible for building them and into the hands of another local authority.

One of the arguments in favour of assisting house building, apart from the humanitarian side of it altogether, is the fact that there is the eventual possibility of recovering through rates portion of the money expended. If another local authority takes them over, there is no prospect of recovery. It amuses me sometimes to see the anxiety of corporations to take over land beside their boundary, while in the centre of the area under their control there is a considerable amount of land which could be built up if the corporation took the trouble to do so. I do not know whether or not that is the case in Waterford. The fact that there has been unanimous agreement makes it appear that everything is satisfactory there. However, I would suggest to the Minister that, when applications are made for an extension of boundaries—further applications will be made in the not too distant future—by either corporations or urban councils these bodies should be asked to prove whether or not they are making full use of the land within their own boundaries before they are permitted to extend. I do not want to be accused of stopping the march of progress, but there is another side to it. Even in the city of Dublin there are examples of what I have been saying; the city is stretching out into the countryside while in the heart of the city there are several derelict sites. That sort of thing should not be encouraged by the Minister.

With regard to Waterford, my information is that it is very closely built up and all land has been fully utilised. I can assure the House, therefore, that in this case the extension is required and there is no question of their passing over land in their possession which could be used. It is only to be expected that urban authorities would look out beyond their boundaries to areas in which building has been done by adjoining local authorities. That is only to be expected. Whether or not they may go further than just looking out is another matter.

That is right.

One of the safeguards when an extension is sought is the fact that a public inquiry is held and all interested parties are invited to give evidence. If any investigations are required as a result of statements made at the inquiry, the areas are inspected to see if the authority seeking the extension has in its own possession suitable lands and it is only after the fullest investigation of all the evidence tendered that the Minister is recommended to make a decision permitting the extension in whole or in part, or, indeed, disallowing it. That is the practice.

With regard to the number of ratepayers who will come into the city area under this extension, the number is small. There are 24 ratepayers involved. There is no reason why, because of this extension, there should be any general revaluation of these 24 properties. The normal procedure with regard to revisions will govern their cases naturally, but not by virtue of this extension. It does not follow that they will be revalued; neither does it follow that they will not be revalued.

With regard to Cork, the matter raised by Deputy Clinton is still undetermined. There is little I can say about it except that the financial adjustments and arrangements by way of compensation, and so forth, are being pursued by the two authorities, so far without any final conclusion. With regard to the rate impact on the county area this year, that does not take into account the compensation they may hope to get and it is true, therefore, that the impact would be greater in this year's rate than it necessarily would be, had the agreement on compensation been concluded before the striking of the rate.

It will be there at a later stage to relieve the ratepayers.

I should imagine so. It is unlikely, of course, that the whole of it will go towards a direct remission of rates. This will be something for the authorities themselves to determine. It will not be thrown in immediately in order to reduce the bill.

That is the danger. It becomes a credit balance.

It will be better than the balance at the moment, whatever way they handle it.

Is there any time limit for determination?

Apparently there is no time limit, so they can keep going for quite a while. I do not want to go into the figures alleged to be attributable because the matter may come back to me again.

Deputy Corry would be very interested in them.

I do not want to go into them at this particular juncture. We have already had enough bother without creating any more. However, the present extension is necessary; it is very desirable in fact. The two authorities have agreed in all respects, including compensation. They had agreed before it ever came to me and this is indicative of the absence of any likelihood of there being any subsequent recriminations.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill considered in Committee.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill".

In relation to the register of electors, I want to inquire if the register for the present year has been prepared in anticipation of this adjustment. Has the adjustment been anticipated in the preparation of the register?

I do not know, really, if it has been anticipated. We do not reckon that there will be any bother in having it so prepared, after the formal passage of this Bill, in time for the issue of the new register subsequent to 15th April.

It is not anticipated that we shall have another register before the local government elections?

You never know.

It is a good question.

The answer is good.

The Minister has already nailed his colours to the mast this year in regard to the local elections.

Which year?

After the Budget, I do not think he could possibly——

It is before the next Budget. He probably——

Do not complain too much about two elections in the one year.

Question put and agreed to.
Preamble and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share