asked the Minister for Local Government if a decision given by him in a case (details supplied) is indicative of future policy regarding the provision of car parking spaces by a local authority.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Car Parks Policy.
38.
The decision in this case in so far as car-parking is concerned was in accordance with the policy now being operated by the planning authority in relation to developments of this nature.
In view of this completely new departure in respect of charges against planning for local authority car parking facilities, is the Parliamentary Secretary now saying in the case of Dublin and the larger cities that it will be a ministerial decision in future not to put any charge where a builder cannot physically supply car parking space? Some years ago a charge was payable to the local authorities to enable them to provide car parking facilities. Is it now the Minister's policy that neither car parking facilities on the spot nor a charge in lieu of these facilities will be a feature of future planning?
I was asked a question specifically about Dublin Corporation.
I am asking a question and if the Parliamentary Secretary wishes I will specifically confine it to the Dublin Corporation. In respect of planning permissions issued in the Dublin Corporation area on appeal to the Minister, can the Parliamentary Secretary say that in future he is neither going to oblige the developers to provide car parking facilities nor is he going to provide that a charge in lieu of the facilities be levied on the developers? I understand the figure is in excess of one-eighth of £1 million— a free, gratis bounty to the developer——
The details he submitted were from the Dublin Corporation. His question asked whether a decision given by the Minister was an indication of future policy——
Is the Deputy making a statement or asking a question? It seems to the Chair he is making a statement.
The Deputy is making a statement now.
Is this the policy of the Dublin Corporation?
I cannot answer for the Dublin Corporation.
The Parliamentary Secretary is paid to be here, he is in place of the Minister to answer questions.
We cannot have an argument on this matter.
May I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that this question was framed by Deputy Moore?
In fairness to the Deputy, his first words were in the form of a question, if the Chair was listening.
I suggest the stop signs are still up so far as the Chair and myself are concerned here. If the Ceann Comhairle would read the question he would surely see——
The Chair is conscious of his ruling in this matter.
If the Chair would read the question he would see that this question is to be taken as a test case for the rest of the country. We want to know the policy of the Department. The Parliamentary Secretary is here to answer questions but the Chair is preventing him from doing so——
That is not a proper question. Fianna Fáil are not yet used to being in Opposition and putting down a proper question.
The Coalition are getting a sample of proper Opposition——
Order, please.
We are not sitting here like dumb clucks——
Does the Deputy wish to put a question?
In Kildare we are concerned about the future policy of the Department. Are they going to allow anyone who wishes to develop not to make any provision for car parking? We are entitled to know that.
I was asked a specific question about Dublin Corporation——
That is not so.
It is a question of the Department's policy.
We cannot have a debate on car parking regulations today. I am calling Question No. 39.
May I suggest to the Chair that details of a case were submitted and, as a result, a question was asked if the decision was indicative of future policy regarding the provision of car parking spaces? Arising out of that phrase, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if this will be future policy in respect of appeals decided in the Department? In fact, I understand the Parliamentary Secretary is the person who deals with planning appeals. Is it his policy that in future where there is a question of car parking facilities in such appeals that, first, he will not insist on the provision of car parking on the premises and, secondly, that he will not insist on a financial charge for alternative car parking by the corporation?
The decision I arrived at in this particular case was in accordance with the policy now adopted by Dublin Corporation.
Is this the policy?
Is it his own policy?
With the permission of the Chair I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.