Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 May 1968

Vol. 234 No. 5

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Recreation Ground.

20.

andMr. Moore asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state the provisions of the Dublin development plan with regard to the CUS recreation ground at Bath Avenue, Sandymount, Dublin, which has recently been purchased by the ESB in competition with local sporting organisations; and if he will ensure that the ground will be used for recreational purposes only and that no building will be allowed on it.

The draft development plan prepared by Dublin Corporation contains no specific reference to the CUS grounds, but provides generally that development control will be exercised to ensure that private open spaces used for recreational purposes will continue as open areas.

It is a matter for Dublin Corporation as planning authority to determine the development objectives for their area and to ensure that conflicting development is not allowed.

Can we take it for granted then that if the ESB make an application or an appeal to the Minister to put buildings on this ground, he will turn it down in view of the fact that they used their unlimited resources to purchase this ground over the heads of many other sporting organisations which required it for what it has always been, a recreation centre for the people in the area?

No such proposal has come before me yet and I cannot indicate what the attitude would be. The position is that the draft development plan generally provides that such open spaces will be continued.

Would it not be true to say that this area is shown as an open space in the draft plan?

No, the draft development plan provides generally that such open spaces will continue as open areas, but there is no specific reference to this open space in the draft development plan.

Would the Minister not agree that the ESB's unlimited supply of money, referred to by Deputy Foley, could be better used?

It is not for me to express an opinion on that.

(Cavan): Is it fair to pursue this in the absence of Deputy Burke?

That seems to be a separate question.

I do not think Deputy Burke's name is on this question at all.

Top
Share