Vol. 226 No. 8
asked the Minister for Local Government if and when he proposes to rescind that part of the Exempted Development Regulations, SI No. 236 of 1964, under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 which exempts demolition of houses from the ambit of town planning control.
26.
asked the Minister for Local Government the reasons for the Exempted Development Regulations, 1964 which removed demolition from the scope of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963; what limitations are now exercised over demolition; and whether this part of the regulations weakens the Act.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take questions Nos. 25 and 26 together.
The Exempted Development Regulations were made before the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, came into operation and are at present being reviewed. The purpose of these Regulations was to avoid any unnecessary restrictions on property owners and developers and to reduce as far as possible the number of applications with which planning authorities would have to deal. It was necessary to define development in the Act in a comprehensive way to ensure effective control and then to grant specific exemptions.
Demolition of buildings was exempted in order to avoid double control. It was expected that property owners would normally obtain permission for redevelopment before destroying any building which still had a useful life. I am not aware, in any case where it was claimed that preservation on artistic, architectural or historical grounds was desirable, that demolition was carried out until permission for redevelopment had first been obtained.
A further reason for the exemption was that a considerable amount of demolition is constantly going on which is of no great planning significance. In so far as this work facilitates necessary urban renewal, the exemption is fully in accord with the objectives of the Act.
The provisions of the Act are primarily related to new building and changes of land use. If demolition were subject to planning control the enforcement provisions could, of course, be applied but this would hardly satisfy those advocating preservationist policies. If a property owner chooses to demolish a building, all that could be done to restore the position would be to require him to replace it with a similar but new building. This effect can be achieved at present inasmuch as new development is subject to control.
Nevertheless, the exemption for demolition work is subject to limitations. The regulations provide that the exemption does not apply to any building which a planning authority decide to preserve. They can make the demolition of such building subject to planning control by including in their development plan an objective for the preservation of the building. During the period prior to the making of the plan, the same result can be achieved by a resolution declaring their intention to include such objective in their plan.
Accordingly, this provision in the Regulations reinforces rather than weakens the Act. The objectives listed in the Third Schedule to the Act include preservation of buildings of artistic, architectural or historic interest but there is no mention of the prevention of demolitions generally or even of the demolition of habitable houses. Each planning authority will have to work out their own policy, identifying the buildings they wish to preserve and considering the condition of the buildings, the costs involved, integration with other planning objectives and the means to be employed, including planning control.
A review of the Regulations is at an advanced stage and I am hopeful of some indication from Dublin Corporation as to what the extent of their policy in regard to preservation will be. They have been studying the recent report by An Taisce and have also recently obtained preliminary advice from their consultant in this matter.
Is the Minister not aware that the regulation which excludes demolition from the control of the planning authority deals with trivia such as painting shutters and carrying out minor repairs, and that the position now is that in time of an acute housing shortage, a building speculator from Soho or elsewhere can acquire a perfectly good building, submit a scheme for its destruction and replacement by an office block, and while the planning authority is considering the expediency of allowing such demolition in view of the housing shortage, go in and smash up the building and present the planning authority with a dilemma: "Either you let me build an office block on this site or you can go and cut the thistles on it because the house is down"? Surely the Minister will rescind this regulation so that the planning authority may have some authority to say: "With the present acute housing shortage, we will not permit you to demolish that building."
The planning authority can decide to preserve any building they wish to preserve.
Is this the speculator's charter to defeat the planning authority by smashing a perfectly good house and then telling the planning authority they can grow thistles on the site?
The planning authority can decide to preserve a building, if they so wish.
They cannot decide.
I have already told the Deputy they can.
No, they cannot.
Is the Minister saying, therefore, the onus for the blitzed condition of a good area of Dublin is on the corporation?
It is their responsibility.
May I remind the Minister of the trouble Deputies went to in putting the Planning and Development Bill through the House? Under this regulation we are told: "You can plan for paintwork but you cannot plan for demolition?" Is this not a strange state of affairs? Will the Minister take some action immediately to cancel this regulation which makes nonsense of the Planning and Development Bill?
Strike the word "demolition" out of the regulation. That is all. This is the speculator's charter.
I have already informed the House that the planning authority can decide that any buildings which they see fit to preserve shall be preserved.
Is the Minister saying, therefore, that Dublin Corporation are responsible for what is happening in Dublin at the moment in the way of demolition?
I am saying that if there are houses in Dublin which Dublin Corporation think should be preserved, they are at liberty to declare their intention and include such a provision in their development plan.
Will the Minister not agree that the Act as it stood and as passed by the Oireachtas was an effective way of stopping the speculator from demolishing buildings and that the Minister's Order has nullified that?
I do not think it desirable that I should have to decide what should or should not be demolished all over the country.
The Minister was never responsible for that.
Will the Minister not agree there are many large fortunes being made at the moment through his remissness in this regard?
