asked the Minister for Lands if he will make a full statement with regard to his reason for allowing the development of a golf course on the 160 acre Willis estate, Oughterard. County Galway in view of the fact that there is ample disused rough land near the village for this purpose and there are 20 congests living near the estate.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Galway Estate.
98.
The Deputy is mistaken in treating this as a Ministerial decision. It is not.
The determination of lands to be acquired is a matter reserved exclusively to the lay commissioners.
Proceedings for the compulsory acquisition of 132 acres of the Willis estate were initiated by service of a notice of inspection on 21st February, 1968. Some days prior to the inspection, the Land Commission were informed by the owner's solicitor that his client had entered into a contract to sell the lands and that the consent of the Land Commission to the sale was being sought.
Having considered their inspector's report, and representations on behalf of the proposed purchasers, the commissioners directed that proceedings for the compulsory acquisition of the lands be instituted. The statutory notices were duly served on the interested parties and, on 8th July, 1968, an objection was lodged by the solicitor acting in trust for the intending purchasers.
The objection recited that the intending purchasers were hotel proprietors and business people in the town of Oughterard who wished to establish an 18-hole golf course as an attraction for the development of tourism in the area. The idea had been in mind for some years and unsuccessful efforts had been made to acquire suitable land; it was claimed that the Willis estate offered the only opportunity of ever establishing a golf course, as there was no other suitable land available.
The objection came for hearing before the lay commissioners in Dublin on 15th October, 1968, when evidence in support was tendered by two hoteliers and two business people from Oughterard and an official from Bord Fáilte Éireann. It was pleaded that a golf course would help to retain the tourists who had golfing as well as fishing interests, would extend the tourist season by two months, provide additional employment, serve as a social centre for the town and, in general, produce benefits which would outweigh any increased production that might arise from the division of the estate.
Evidence on behalf of the Land Commission confirmed the existence of local congestion; up to 20 of the hardworking farmers would be likely to benefit through the division of the estate.
The commissioners reserved their decision.
Judgment was delivered on 29th January, 1969, allowing the objection subject to the condition, inter alia, that the final order would not be made for a period of at least four years, so that the progress of the objectors' plans might be assessed. In this way the interest of the Land Commission is protected, should the objectors fail to carry out their plans.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to circulate a copy of the judgment with the Official Report.
COIMISIÚN TALÚN
NA h-ÉIREANN
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Mr. Commissioner O'Brien and Mr. Commissioner Kelly
Wednesday, 29th January, 1969
Section 25, Land Act, 1936
Estate: Alicia Ann Willis
County: Galway
Rec. No: S.25754
Lands: Gortrevagh 132a. Or. Op.
This Objection came on for hearing at Dublin on 15th October, 1968, and on hearing what was urged by Mr. Peter O'Malley, S.C., Counsel for the Objectors and by Mr. J. A. Geary, Solicitor for the Land Commission and on hearing the evidence tendered by both parties we reserved decision.
We have found this a difficult and indeed a formidable case. The Land Commission clearly established the existence of acute congestion within policy distance of the lands; no fewer than 20 small holders would be likely to benefit from division and there is a possibility of rearrangement. The relief of congestion is an objective of tremendous social worth and in the ordinary course we would have little hesitation in disallowing the Objection. The Objectors' case is that they intend to use the lands for the creation of a golf course and that such an amenity is badly required in the Oughterard district: they plead that a golf course would attract more tourists, would extend the tourist season, would provide increased employment and benefit not only the Oughterard area but the whole of Connemara. In support of these arguments a witness from Bord Fáilte stated in evidence that it was the Bord's objective to extend the tourist season, that a golf course would help in achieving this aim and that he believed the Bord would assist the project financially.
Having considered all aspects of the case we have come to the conclusion that the most rewarding and generally beneficial use of the lands would be for a golf course. We are influenced in this decision by the fact that tourism is one of our largest if not our largest single industry and that it is vital to the West of Ireland; we believe that money spent by tourists spreads out and indirectly benefits the whole community including small farmers; we accept the Objectors' contention that the establishment of a golf course will provide additional local employment, both on the course, and in the hotels, shops and guest houses and we acknowledge their plea that this is the only land within a reasonable distance of Oughterard on which a golf course could be laid out.
For these reasons we have decided to consent to the sale of the lands to the Objectors; we know, however, that they are undertaking very heavy financial commitments and they should realise that if they are not able to bring their plans to completion the lands should fall to the congests. We are concerned also that the tenure of the tenant, Miss Walsh, should be protected and we feel that the conveyance should provide that she would not be disturbed for her lifetime or Purchasers should otherwise make provision for her to her Solicitor's satisfaction.
We therefore consent to the sale subject to the conditions:
(1) that provision be made in the conveyance of Miss Walsh as already suggested,
(2) that the final Order be not made for at least a period of four years so that the progress of the Objectors' plans may be assessed.
We do not award costs.