Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 May 1971

Vol. 254 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Oughterard (Galway) Estate.

22.

asked the Minister for Lands if Land Commission permission for the laying out of an 18-hole golf course on the Willis estate at Oughterard, County Galway, was given following an assurance that Bord Fáilte would give financial and technical assistance; if the Land Commission are satisfied that this help is still forthcoming; and, if not, what the present position is in the matter.

23.

asked the Minister for Lands if any date has been fixed by the Land Commission for the commencement of work on the golf course on the Willis estate at Oughterard, County Galway; and, if so, what the date is.

24.

asked the Minister for Lands if the Land Commission had any plans to acquire rough non-agricultural land in the Oughterard district, County Galway, which would have been suitable as a golf course.

I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 22, 23 and 24 together.

I would refer the Deputy to my reply to his previous question of 8th April, 1970, in which I gave a detailed account of the proceedings for compulsory acquisition of this estate, culminating in the owners' objection being allowed on 29th January, 1969, 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.

The Deputy will appreciate that the matter before the court was the owners' objection to acquisition of the lands by the Land Commission, not the granting of permission to lay out a golf course. I shall arrange to have the Deputy supplied with a copy of the judgment, in which the evidence advanced on behalf of the owners is summarised.

The Land Commission have had no proceedings for the acquisition of rough non-agricultural land in the Oughterard district, suitable for a golf course.

For the Minister's information I have a copy of the judgment given on 29th January, 1969. I assume he also has a copy in his brief. Can the Minister reconcile the decision with the policy of the Land Commission when they say in the judgment that they recognise that there are about 20 congests, 20 small farmers who need more land? Can he say why the Land Commission opted for the establishment of a golf course on arable land where other land was available and why they cut out the 20 small farmers entirely? Will he further say whether any work on the construction of the golf course has commenced on the Willis estate?

The judgment of which the Deputy says he has a copy does mention the Land Commission's acceptance of the fact that there were no fewer than 20 smallholders who would be likely to benefit from the division——

They said "acute congestion".

That is right, but the judgment outlined that they were influenced in their decision by the fact that tourism was one of the largest, if not the largest, of our industries and was vital to the West of Ireland. The judgment was a balance of one against the other.

Would the Minister say whether an investigation or any inquiries have been carried out as to whether non-arable land was available for the construction of a golf course?

The information I have, as conveyed in the reply, is that the Land Commission have no proceedings for the acquisition of non-agricultural land in the Oughterard area.

But the point is that there is land available for the building of a golf course, land which is not suitable for farming but which would be suitable for a golf course?

I shall convey that information to the Minister.

I am informed that work has commenced on the construction of the golf course. How can one reconcile that with recommendation No. 2, to which the Minister referred, that the final order would not be made for a period of at least four years, from 20th January, 1969?

The position was to be left open for four years and the final order was not to be made. This was to enable the Land Commission to go ahead with compulsory acquisition proceedings in the event of the golf course project not going ahead.

If the work has commenced, is that not a transgression of the order, in effect?

No. The idea was to enable the provision of a golf course to go ahead; but in the event of that not happening and the project falling through, the Land Commission were endeavouring to keep their options open.

Top
Share