At Question Time to-day, I gave notice of my intention to raise the subject matter of Question No. 21, standing in my name. It concerns a matter affecting some 400 or 500 families who live on the Maryfield Estate, Coolock, North Dublin. This House, the Minister and his Department should long ago have taken steps to protect the interests of those families in the context in which I speak.
A group of developers, known as the Gallagher group, should not be allowed to contravene planning legislation and to avoid their admitted responsibilities as developers. Repeated applications for sanction for development, and appeals, should not be tolerated in respect of an area already earmarked by Dublin Corporation for playing fields and for public recreation purposes. In their efforts to obtain sanction for development of the land in question, this group are acting purely out of consideration for their own profit. Their action can only prejudice some ordered and reasoned development in housing estates and, if successful, would deprive the children of some 400 or 500 families of the amenities in the Maryfield Estate in North Dublin to which they are fully entitled. To deprive these children of playing fields in that area could have serious consequences. The nearest suitable large space for recreation is at Coolock-Harmonstown which is across the Malahide Road and near a dangerous roundabout at which a child was killed some months ago.
This is a situation in which a group who are interested purely in their own profit are neglectful of their manifest duty to the people living on the Maryfield Estate. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will examine the situation in the light of the fact that the people on this estate have provided themselves with their own homes in which to rear their families. Hardly a month goes by that some spokesman of the Government or of a local authority or even a Deputy does not praise the prudence of these families who, since 1954, have gradually been occupying houses on the estate in question, paying their rates and their taxes and bringing up their families but, all during that period, the commitment of the developers to clear the site and provide proper recreational facilities in this area has not merely not been carried out but repeated appeals have been made by them in an effort to avoid leaving the playing space there.
As far back as 1955, an appeal was submitted to the then Minister against the decision of the local authority requiring the developer to leave the space, to fence it and dedicate it to the residents in the area. That appeal was dismissed by the Minister of the day. I understand that the developer has suggested that the open space has been used as a dump. In fact, the developer ploughed up fields that could have been used, at least in a primitive way, for recreation purposes. Not satisfied with casting that reflection on the citizens of the area, the developer has sought sanction for the erection of a further 30 dwellings on this land which would further enhance his financial position without regard to the obligation on him to leave a playing space in accordance with the Planning Acts.
In September, 1965, some 11 months after his previous appeal was dismissed by the Minister, the developer again attempted to get past legislation. Possibly the developer thinks that, as there is now a different Minister in the Department, his application might receive some further consideration. In practically every case where a family on this estate entered into a contract for a dwelling, they were assured by the developer that there would be ample space for recreation purposes. They were shown a sketch plan which indicated that the north-east corner of the area was reserved for playing fields. Consequently the house purchasers, conscious of the danger to their children if they were permitted to cross the Malahide Road to get to the nearest convenient playing space, understood they were getting an assurance that this space would be reserved for playing fields.
We were told in the reply today that on 8th September, 1965, application was made to the Corporation to build 30 houses on the portion of the site designated as a playing field in the plans already approved. A previous appeal by the developers against the conditions laid down by the local authority requiring them to develop this space as a playing field was dismissed by the Department of Local Government. This is a peculiar Planning Act. The developers can wait a few years, do nothing, avoid the obligations of the Planning Act and then submit a new application to build houses on a place that has been designated as playing fields. We are aware the Minister has some judicial authority in these matters, but in ordinary consequences, it should be made clear to the developer that this kind of activity will not be countenanced. Or is this Minister going to change his mind? Is there some reason?
So far the only comfort given by the Department is that the Corporation have refused permission to the builder to build houses in an area designated as a playing field. An appeal by the developer against that was dismissed. Yet the developer comes along and makes another appeal in respect of the same plot of ground. Again there is a refusal by the local authority. That shows that at least in this instance they have some regard for their responsibility to the families in this area. The appeal comes again to the Minister. The only cold comfort he has for the residents' association is that it will be open to both parties to be represented at an oral hearing in the near future. The Minister has a responsibility to give something more than that reply. All these families are taxpayers and ratepayers. They are trying to educate their children to be decent citizens. Surely they are entitled to more from the Minister than a reply that they can be represented at an oral hearing? The matter should have been disposed of ten years ago.
We are told a number of objections have been lodged. That is certainly true. Out of 400 families here, at least 320 have written personally to the Minister appealing for his help and protection. But the public at large should be aware of this attempt being made by the developer. It is not the first time developers in the city have failed to live up to their obligations. Some of them act as if they are doing the community a service. They are getting very well paid for it. If they buy the land and lease it, they get the ground rent. If they develop it and build houses, they get the profits from the building. In addition, in most cases the houses are built with assistance from public funds. I want to impress on the Parliamentary Secretary that something more than the assurances and information given today should be forthcoming from his Department. I shall conclude now because I promised Deputy Byrne a few minutes.
