asked the Minister for Local Government the reason for his decision to permit office blocks at 44-45 St. Stephen's Green and 18-19 Hume Street and at 46-49 St. Stephen's Green and 1-2 Hume Street, Dublin, to be erected by a firm (name supplied).
16.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Office Development.
15.
asked the Minister for Local Government if he will give the reasons for overriding the decision of the Dublin Corporation Planning Authority in giving consent for office development in the Hume StreetStephen's Green area; the name of the company to which authority has been given to develop this site as office accommodation; and whether the new office accommodation development already in Stephen's Green was sanctioned by him or by the Dublin Corporation.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 15 and 16 together.
I would refer the Deputies to the statement already issued by me on this matter which is as follows:
"The Minister for Local Government has determined the appeal by the Green Property Company Ltd. against a refusal by Dublin Corporation of planning permission for redevelopment of properties at 44-45 St. Stephen's Green, 18-19 Hume Street, 46-49 St. Stephen's Green and 1-2 Hume Street. Permission for the development proposed by the Green Property Co. Ltd. has been granted by the Minister subject to conditions limiting the floor area exclusive of space used for parking of cars, for tanks and for mechanical and heating equipment to a maximum of 16,000 sq. ft. on the sites of 44-45 St. Stephen's Green and 18-19 Hume Street and to 63,000 sq. ft. on the sites of 46-49 St. Stephen's Green and 1-2 Hume Street. Further conditions require the provision of not less than 50 and not more than 80 car-parking spaces, access to and egress from the car-parking area to be by way of Bell Lane only, the streets facades to be on the existing building line and not to exceed the height of the coping of the facade to No. 50 St. Stephen's Green and the height of the penthouses not to exceed 9 feet over parapet level— the penthouses to be located at the eastern end of each building and to be not less than 15 feet from the facade to Hume Street. The reasons for the conditions are to avoid overdevelopment of the sites and consequent injury to the amenity of the area and the values of neighbouring properties, and to provide limited off-street car-parking facilities in the interests of road safety. Before arriving at his decision the Minister gave long and careful consideration to the complex issues involved in the appeal. He had regard to the evidence tendered in writing and at the oral hearing of the appeal which took 23 hours to hear, and to the report of his Inspector on the proceedings.
The Minister is cognisant of the civic design importance of Hume Street and appreciates the concern of those anxious to ensure that the amenities of the area are preserved. He was obliged, however, to give due regard also to the fact that a considerable amount of redevelopment of St. Stephen's Green had already been permitted, that an outline permission for the redevelopment of portion of the site under appeal had been granted by the Dublin Corporation as far back as May, 1966, and had not been the subject of any objection by way of appeal. The developers hold this permission and could prepare detailed plans for approval based on it if they so desired. There was also the fact that some of the houses on the site had already been demolished making redevelopment a necessity while others were in such poor structural condition that preservation would be costly and unattractive economically. In these circumstances he felt that the permission sought, should be granted subject to the conditions referred to."
The permissions for the new office development already on St. Stephen's Green were given by the Dublin Corporation and were not appealed to me.
May I inquire from the Minister if he and his colleagues are aware of the disquiet caused by the flagrant disregard of the draft development plan for Dublin city and his cynical reversal of the planning decision of the now defunct Dublin Corporation in favour of the Green Property Company? Furthermore, in view of the circumstances surrounding the Minister's decision — he has no concern with the responsible and informed opinions of bodies interested in the preservation and conservation of our essential social environment — would he give the House all the information in his possession in regard to this matter, particularly from the point of view of the total surrender on his part of all the essential planning prerequisites to the Green Property Company?
I do not accept that. I have had regard to all the considerations, including the fact that valid outline permission for portion of the site had been given and was not appealed by any of the bodies to which the Deputy referred, and it was, therefore, a legal permission; and I have also had regard to the fact that the provisions of the draft plan were changed since that time and to the implications of that change in so far as Dublin ratepayers are concerned.
Does this decision on the part of the Minister represent the opening of the floodgates for the complete disappearance of St. Stephen's Green, as we now know it, and, secondly, is this not giving to this development company an enormous opportunity for capital development and the creation of a capital asset from the point of view of land speculation which is bound to follow on this decision? Surely, with the shortage of housing and flat accommodation, or even Government office accommodation, together with the fact that the Government themselves own some of the property, the Government or the local authority are the correct people to develop this area, if it is to be developed rather than left as it is?
There is no question of this opening the floodgates for the disappearance of St. Stephen's Green. This refers to only a small part of St. Stephen's Green. A considerable amount of redevelopment of the area has already taken place on foot of permissions granted by the planning authority and not appealed to me by anyone. In so far as Government policy in regard to the building of office blocks is concerned, that is not a matter for me. So far as I am concerned, I think the Government's policy not to engage directly in office block building is the correct one.
Are any of these buildings owned by the Government and, if so, which? Do the Government propose to sell out to speculators in relation to any of these buildings?
The Deputy should address that question to the Minister for Finance.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
17.
asked the Minister for Local Government whether consent for an office project for the Fitzwilliam Square area, Dublin, has been sought from him or from the local authority.
I understand that an application was made on the 14th May, 1969, to Dublin Corporation for permission for demolition and rebuilding for office use at 5, 6 and 7 Fitzwilliam Square. On the 26th June, 1969, an order was made deciding to refuse the permission sought. An appeal against this decision has not so far been lodged with me.
18.
asked the Minister for Local Government if he will consider acquiring Merrion Square, Dublin, for use as a public playground and recreation centre for the children and adolescents of the surrounding districts in Westland Row, Pearse Street and similar localities.
I have no powers to initiate acquisition proceedings for Merrion Square as suggested by the Deputy. Any question of the acquisition of the square for public recreational purposes would be a matter for consideration in the first instance by the local authority.
(Cavan): Dublin Corporation.
Have the local authority the necessary powers to do that?
Yes. They can proceed for acquisition, if they see fit.