Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 May 1971

Vol. 253 No. 13

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Dublin Mobile Homes.

94.

Mr. Cosgrave

asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware of the objections by Shankill residents to a proposal to erect mobile homes at a site on Quinn's Road, Shankill, County Dublin, because of inadequate sewerage facilities and of inadequate playing and recreation facilities in Shankill; what action he is taking on the objections by the residents; if he will make a statement on the result of the appeal heard at a public inquiry in the Custom House in August, 1970; and if he will also state in connection with the compulsory purchase order made by Dublin County Council, what decision he proposes to make in respect of the lands in question.

95.

Mr. Desmond

asked the Minister for Local Government the date of the hearing of the appeal to him by a firm (name supplied) in County Dublin against the refusal of Dublin County Council on 6th March, 1970, to grant outline planning permission to it for a mobile home development at Quinn's Road, Shankill; when his decision on this matter will be available; and, if he has already made a decision, the basis of such decision.

Mr. Molloy

With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 94 and 95 together.

Having carefully considered all aspects of the case, including the report of the inspector who conducted the oral hearing on 11th August, 1970, and the views of the local residents as expressed at such hearing, I made an order on 14th May, 1971, rejecting the appeal of the firm in question against the refusal of Dublin County Council to grant permission for the proposed mobile home development. The reasons for my decision were:—

(1) There is no available capacity in the public sewerage system in the area and consequently sewerage facilities are not available to cater for the proposed development and are not likely to be in the foreseeable future.

(2) The proposed method of discharge of foul sewage from the development to main drainage system by means of pumping is unacceptable because of the difficulties likely to arise with regard to maintenance and breakdowns with consequent danger of pollution and health hazard.

There is no compulsory purchase order before me at present, but in any event in view of my statutory functions in relation to such orders it would not be appropriate for me to express any opinion in relation to any such order pending proper examination of it in accordance with the statutory procedure.

Mr. Desmond

Why did it take nine months to reach a decision on what seems to be a relatively clearcut matter?

Mr. Molloy

The simple answer is that the volume of appeals is running at something just over 3,000 a year. Inadequacy of numbers of qualified personnel to act as inspectors to report to me on these appeals is the main cause of delays. I have failed in my search for qualified staff but I am pleased to inform the Deputy that special steps are being taken in the Department, and these are already beginning to show results, which will cut down substantially on what I regard as unduly long delays in dealing with planning appeals. I do not promise a quick or easy solution or immediate decisions. I am very conscious of the long delays that have taken place and I am anxious to bring about a substantial improvement in the position.

Mr. Desmond

Is the Minister aware that the developer who made the appeal has, in fact, proceeded with unauthorised development of a substantial nature and has made it generally known that, notwithstanding the Minister's decision and his rejection of the appeal, he intends to continue to enlarge mobile home development on that particular site and that he alleged— I do not give much weight to the allegation—that he had got permission from a senior member of the Minister's staff to go ahead? I do not put any credence in his allegation but I should like to put on record the Minister's reaction to that particular attitude on the part of the developer.

Mr. Molloy

The attitude of the developer is not a matter for the Minister and I am surprised at Deputy Desmond making statements which he himself accepts lack credence. If the person in question has acted illegally, the local authority have adequate powers under the 1963 Planning and Development Act and they can take enforcement proceedings against him. It is a matter for the local authority in the first instance.