Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Jul 1969

Vol. 241 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - Dublin Office Development.

Mr. Desmond

Today I asked the following question of 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).

The name of the firm is the Green Property Development Company Limited. I feel that the Minister's response to the questions put by me and by Deputy Dr. Browne was less than frank, that his reply was evasive and is open to question in the public interest. The Minister and the public at large are fully aware that Dublin Corporation refused permission to the Green Property Development Company Limited to redevelop these particular properties. The general grounds for refusal were that the particular plan submitted did not accord with the extended draft development plan for Dublin city as envisaged at that time. I would point out to the Minister that the draft development plan clearly set down that all the properties in Hume Street had been listed for preservation under schedule B of the plan, with the exception of Nos. 1 and 10 Hume Street which had been listed for schedule C. I would further remind the Minister that notwithstanding the democratic decision of Dublin Corporation to refuse planning permission he ignored this quite democratic local sanction arrived at after the most careful scrutiny and careful consideration by the now defunct Dublin Corporation.

Once again, the Minister set himself up, quite wrongly, and quite open to question, as almost the total arbiter of what is desirable for the future social and physical environment in our capital city. This is something which I deplore and on which the Minister should give more elaboration than he gave in his reply today. I respectfully submit to him, through the Chair, that we have seen an almost total surrender on his part on virtually all the essential points of the appeal by the Green Property Development Company to the Minister. The sanction by the Minister both in scale and in character most certainly was not a judgement in keeping with the concept of the Planning and Development Act, 1963. The Minister conveyed, I think wrongly, an impression of general limitation in the permitted density that he indicated. In the first instance, the phraseology of the original Government statement was somewhat misleading. He conveyed the impression of a restriction of the total office area to blocks of 16,000 square feet and 63,000 square feet. In fact, the company is generally acknowledged to have obtained the maximum possible density, but this is by the way.

I suggest to the Minister that the consideration indicated in his answer this afternoon as to the provision for 50 or more car park spaces and so on, access to and egress from car parking areas by way of Bell Lane and these general pre-conditions certainly do not in any way override the general principle that, where a local authority after due deliberation rejects an appeal by a company and more particularly as that authority is not now in existence or in a position to revoke and rescind the decision of the Minister granting that appeal, it is very much open to question that the Minister should act in such a manner.

I consider that the Minister showed contempt for the responsible and informed views of bodies concerned with general architectural preservation and the future social environment of Dublin. I do not hold any brief for nor am I a member of An Taisce or the Dublin Civil Group or the Irish Georgian Society but I maintain that these bodies had an interest and had expressed their viewpoints right down from 1966, when the sudden demolition occurred in a sector of the properties after outline planning permission was obtained and, overnight, we had this exercise set in train. I suggest that the Minister ignored the responsible comments of these organisations and in that, I suggest to him, he acted contrary to the public interest. We must receive some explanation from the Minister in relation to an assurance which allegedly was given by the then Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Gibbons. I have no firm basis of quotation for it but I am assured and I would like to find from the Minister if, in fact, he gave this assurance that future development would be in line with the Dublin civil plan and if, in fact, he now stands as having somewhat repudiated the general sympathy of Deputy Gibbons in relation to the representations he received on that occasion.

I would stress to the Minister the broader and more important aspects of this decision. I consider it an indictment. It is a positive and a questionable encouragement to any developer from abroad or internally. I am not concerned with the ethics of any developer coming in from outside Ireland at this time but I do suggest that the Minister is openly encouraging developers to flaunt the decisions of local authorities, to speculate, as they did speculate, £200,000 odd and risk very substantial sums of money in the hope of the Minister's liberal, political—I will say political—interpretation and the expectation on their part of an ultimate favourable reaction from the Minister on appeal. This is the kind of speculative gambling which will place on the records of his Department quite questionable precedents and ones which will open for future successors in his office or in terms of case histories for planning appeals and so on, aspects which it will certainly be difficult to apprehend.

I do not particularly set out to attack the Green Property Development Company. It could be any company. It could be native or it could be foreign. It is the general principle of the question involved. One must say that there has been in relation to the Green Property Development Company the particular involvement of the late Mr. Marcus Leaner, former Chairman of the Allied Land and Investment company of London. Admittedly, the man has died. I do not wish to cast any aspersions on his particular activities but he was one of the leading speculative London merchant bankers engaged in land speculation, who came here when the going got rough in Britain and when there was no capital gains tax in operation in Ireland—something we in our Party have repeatedly called for. One can come to Ireland, invest as much money as one wishes and then leave with a tax-free gain. With no land development tax in operation in Dublin as would operate in London, with no rigid restrictions in operation in Dublin as would operate in London, then, quite frankly, the Minister seems to have been fair game for what happened on that occasion and, certainly, in my opinion, succumbed to the representations made to him.

It is said that there were State properties involved within the properties concerned. I will give only one case where that is alleged: No. 19 Hume Street. One must ask the Minister who authorised the sale of those properties and could the Minister, in relation to any State legal involvement in respect of those properties, say did anybody authorise the sale of the ground rents relating to those properties prior to their eventual occupation by the Green Property Development Company. One must ask explicitly for far greater detail than we got in the brief repetition of the Minister's statement here. One must ask for greater elaboration in the public interest from the Minister in that regard.

These, then, are some of the disquieting aspects which we must point out. This is not a small speculation. If one takes an area of 200,000 square feet, and works it out at 30s a square foot in rental, one talks in terms of rentals of £300,000 per annum and if one multiplies that by ten one reaches the figure of £3 million which would be a nice figure to collect in terms of the sale of that property following the expenditure of, say, £1 million to build the place and another expenditure of, say, £¾ million to purchase the land— not a bad picking, I would say, for anybody with the money to become involved in that kind of operation, provided one had some assurance, some anticipation, that one would not be caught on the question of planning permission in regard to that development. It automatically brings into question the involvement of the State, the extent to which the Cabinet was involved in this decision, in view of the involvement of the other areas in St. Stephen's Green, government-wise, and that is something in respect of which we are entitled to more general explanation.

Unfortunately, Dublin Corporation, now being extinct, does not have the normal powers and circumstances to again overrule the Minister's decision on this matter. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that were Dublin Corporation now in existence, within a matter of days, the Minister's decision to grant the appeal would, in fact, be further rejected by that corporation. It is my considered opinion that the effect on the public representatives no longer in formal office and, indeed, the effect on the staff of local authorities whereby a Minister acts in such a cavalier manner can only be disappointing.

It would be futile for me to speculate that the city commissioner, Mr. Garvan, will be given the opportunity to overrule the Minister in relation to this particular appeal because if he were to do this he would undoubtedly find himself redundant within a number of hours. Therefore, the only protection that can be had is within this House and it falls to us to endeavour on the Adjournment of the House to provide that measure of protection. The whole procedure with regard to planning appeals in this country is coming in for very serious public criticism. It is a procedure which cannot be tolerated and is one which would not be accepted in any democratic form of local government. It certainly is a procedure which must give rise to more than just a measure of disquiet.

I am also concerned with what the Minister said in his report to the effect that he would have regard to the evidence tendered in writing, to that given at the oral hearing of the appeal, which took 23 hours to hear, and to the report of his inspector on the proceedings. In some respects I think the Minister has been maligned for some things that developed in public life purely perhaps because of temperamental reaction by him on some occasions. I suggested to him this afternoon that he could satisfy us on the questions we have raised here by placing the evidence tendered in writing and the full report of his inspector on these proceedings in the Library of the House, together with the details of the appeal by the Green Property Planning Company, so that our fears could be allayed or confirmed, as the case may be. But in the present situation we have a public obligation to raise the matter. With that I let it rest in the hope of a more constructive and more general elaboration on the part of the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy FitzGerald. The Deputy has seven minutes.

Dr. FitzGerald

I should like to support the appeal made by Deputy Desmond. The Minister, when speaking this afternoon, seemed to be suggesting that there was no alternative to the decision he had taken. It seems to me that this was facetious. He seemed to be saying that we must have office blocks and that they could only be put in this particular place. I do not accept this. There are many parts of the city where these blocks could more easily be sited. They need not be sited in that one part of the city which needs and merits preservation.

It would be desirable for the further development of our city if office blocks were built in those areas which are decaying and where there is nothing of architectural merit to preserve. It is untrue to suggest that there is no alternative use for these houses. Anyone who knows anything about property in this area knows, first of all, that there is a tendency for property to be recovered and improved in character. There are streets of Georgian houses in this area, some of which have been allowed to decay to some degree but which are now increasingly being purchased by people for use in their existing form and shape as offices and without in any way damaging their exterior appearance or, indeed, in many cases without affecting their interior appearance either. I know of houses changing hands in this particular Georgian area of Dublin for sums of up to £30,000 and the purchasers are willing to spend a further £20,000 or even more on them in order to convert them into office accommodation within their existing form.

If we maintain the ban on the pulling down of those houses and the building of office blocks in their place, this particular area will be maintained and people will pay a price for them appropriate to their value and will maintain them. There is no question of there being no alternative to this proposal as suggested by the Minister. He seems to me to be suggesting that in some way the pass has been sold by certain developments that have taken place in St. Stephen's Green and that, therefore, one could not object to this further development.

I should like to make a point on this principle that, if one part of an area is developed in this way, it follows that the adjoining area can be developed in the same way. If that principle is carried to its logical conclusion, the entire area will be nibbled away and the area destroyed. The property I am talking about is now related entirely to Stephen's Green. Some of the houses are, of course, in St. Stephen's Green, but the impact of this development will be to destroy Hume Street, which up to now has been completely preserved from its entrance to St. Stephen's Green up to Ely Place. This is unique in so far as it is the only small street of its kind in Dublin which still remains; to connive at its destruction at this stage would be a criminal act.

I should like to ask, too, for more information about the assurance given by Deputy Gibbons; what is the position about this assurance and whether we are correctly informed about it? Every interest concerned is up in arms about this subject; it is not simply a question of some group of enthusiasts. An Taisce, the body whose function it is to have regard to these matters, are interested; Bord Fáilte have been interested also and Dublin Corporation have, of course, backed up An Taisce's proposal by treating as an area requiring preservation the area which it is proposed to develop.

I put it to the Minister that he should not connive at the destruction of part of our heritage for the benefit of speculators who have no interest whatsoever in this country except an interest to make money out of it. There was a time when Fianna Fáil were concerned with the preservation of the heritage of this country. I would have thought that the Minister belonged to that element in the Party that is still concerned with preserving what we inherited in the past, so it is disappointing that he, in particular, should connive at something that will destroy our heritage for the benefit of people from outside the country who have no interest in this country.

I ask the Minister to give us more details as to the ownership of these properties. Are some of them still State property, owned by the State or leased by the State? Have any of them been sold recently and, if so, to whom? If they have not been sold, is it proposed to sell them? If they are leased at the moment, for how long are these leases to run and is it proposed to dispose of them before these leases run out? We are entitled to the facts in regard to this matter. The Minister cannot shrug off his responsibility by saying that he is merely the Minister responsible for planning and that they are owned by the Minister for Finance. He is well able to get the information required and it is up to him to find out the position as to the ownership of the houses.

I make an appeal to the Minister, which may be the last appeal in the circumstances, to see that this part of the city is preserved. If these houses are pulled down, the damage will be irretrievable. I cannot believe that the present Government wish to go down in history as the Government that connived at the destruction of our capital city and of so much that is of value in it. It does not seem to me that there can be any benefit to Fianna Fáil in acquiring that reputation for philistinism. The party ought to be concerned with their reputation as well as being concerned with the interests of the city and the country.

The Minister is a Dubliner and he ought to be as personally concerned with this matter as others of us are. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will reconsider this matter and will realise how irretrievable the damage would be. There are many things that the Government can undo if they turn out to be mistakes and all Governments make mistakes but there are certain things that cannot be undone and this is one of them.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Boland)

My reply today explained the position fairly well. The fact is that there existed a valid outline permission in respect of portion of this site. The announcement of the planning objectives of Dublin Corporation in regard to this particular area and these particular houses was made after that outline permission was granted. The fact is that these bodies, which have been described here as watch-dogs on behalf of the public, were asleep on the job at the appropriate and critical time and that the permission given was not appealed at a time when it could have been effectively done and when it was, in fact, practical to preserve these houses. The fact is that the planning authority apparently, at a time when they contemplated adopting a planning objective to preserve some of these houses, actually gave permission for the demolition of these houses and the re-development of them. That permission necessarily involved demolition. The fact is that this demolition was carried out while the so-called watch-dogs, who are now trying to cover up their inactivity by bogus attacks on me, were asleep and did not carry out what has been described here as their function of protecting the national heritage at a time when this could have been effectively done. It was not done and these people are trying to cover up their own dereliction of duty and are trying to blame me for their own mistakes. What I was asked to do was to try to undo the damage that had been done, not by me, but by the planning authority with the connivance of these people who are now lauded to the skies and who are parading themselves as watch-dogs. They were asleep at the appropriate time when they could have prevented the demolition of part of the property.

I am being asked to require somebody to reconstruct these houses which have been knocked down and to put into proper condition houses which have been declared to be dangerous buildings by the Dublin Corporation. I am being asked to impose on the retepayers of Dublin a liability for substantial compensation in respect of this valid permission which was granted, and there was a reasonable assumption arising out of that permission and before these planning objectives were made public that this type of development was appropriate to that particular area. It is an unreasonable request and when the Deputies opposite say that they have no doubt that the elected members of Dublin Corporation would revoke this permission I am prepared to concede that is probably true. But is also true to say that, having done that, they would then refuse to strike the rate providing the compensation that would be awarded in a court of law.

I am being asked to undo the damage that was caused and that was not objected to by these watch-dogs in An Taisce and Bord Fáilte and by all these people who are now behaving in this irresponsible manner.

Mr. Desmond

Permission was granted——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister, without interruption.

Mr. Boland

It is now too late. I have listened to all the insinuations of Deputy Desmond and his colleague without interruption. They got 20 minutes between them. The Deputy is not now prepared to allow me ten minutes to reply to these allegations which he has been making here. This is a tactic which has been deliberately developed by the Fine Gael Party of raising matters on the Adjournment, taking their full 20 minutes, and then trying to prevent me from replying by their disorderly interruptions. It is a tactic which can succeed. If Deputy Desmond does not want a reply to this then he need not have it.

The position is that part of this site has been demolished on foot of valid permission granted by the planning authority, and not granted by me. This permission was not appealed by any of these people who parade themselves as watch-dogs on behalf of the citizens. They did not take the appropriate action at the appropriate time. I am being asked to perpetuate this eyesore in St. Stephen's Green and to make a meaningless decision to preserve semiderelict buildings.

Dr. FitzGerald

In Hume Street?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister without interruption.

Mr. Boland

At least four houses are covered by the outline permission. Three have been demolished. Four of the other houses are in bad condition and some, if not all of them, are in a dangerous condition. I have been asked to do something that it is just not feasible to do. I have as much respect for Dublin city as anybody else. I did not say, as Deputy FitzGerald alleged, that I believed office buildings were necessary and that this was where they should go. I said no such thing. I have a personal dislike of the expenditure of scarce capital resources on this type of building when I know that capital is in short supply for what I consider more essential purposes. I am not entitled to take my personal prejudices into consideration because this is not a planning consideration. It is not a fact that St. Stephen's Green is a Georgian square. It is not a homogeneous Georgian square. There are buildings of many different types in St. Stephen's Green. Demolition and development is taking place all around St. Stephen's Green.

Dr. FitzGerald

What about Hume Street?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must be allowed to continue without interruption.

Mr. Boland

This development is taking place not as a result of appeals to me but as a result of decisions made by the planning authority and not appealed by any of these bodies now conducting this bogus agitation—An Taisce, Bord Fáilte and so on. They have not appealed any of these decisions.

It is not a fact that Hume Street is a homogeneous Georgian street. Anybody would agree that the most prominent building in Hume Street is the hospital and that is not a Georgian building at all. There is no reason why other buildings should be more out of line with the Georgian buildings than the hospital building itself is.

The point is that the apparent attempt to preserve this area came far too late and if there is any considerable loss of amenity to the citizens of Dublin I certainly do not take responsibility for it. The outline permission was granted by the planning authority and it was not appealed by anybody.

Dr. FitzGerald

For all these buildings?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister, without interruption.

Mr. Boland

It was after that that the objective of preserving some of these houses was published by the planning authority. If anyone knew that it was to be an objective to preserve some of these buildings, surely it was the planning authority who should have known it? If they wanted to preserve them, why did they give outline permission? If An Taisce or any of these bodies wanted them preserved, why did they not appeal at that stage? Why did they wait until the damage was done? It is quite obvious that it is unreasonable to expect me to undo the damage that had already been done if, indeed, any substantial damage at all is involved. I cannot see that this affects Ely Place very seriously at all. The whole objective appears to be not to interfere with Ely Place.

Dr. FitzGerald

And Hume Street.

Mr. Boland

Only the corners of Hume Street are involved. There is no reason why development should proceed any further.

Dr. FitzGerald

Will the Minister give such an assurance?

Mr. Boland

Will Deputy FitzGerald make his own contribution and let me make mine? He got just as much time as I did but he wants to make my reply as well as his own contribution. So far as I am concerned, I have no wish to see this office block development proceeding at all. The outline permission was given by the planning authority and it just was not a feasible proposition to undo what had already been done. The majority of the remaining houses were in bad condition and the mere making of an order by me would not secure their restoration and preservation. Neither would it provide the money required by way of compensation.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 17th July, 1969.