Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 Nov 1974

Vol. 275 No. 6

Written Answers. - Water Supply Schemes.

363.

andMr. Timmins asked the Minister for Local Government when he proposes to sanction the extension of the Hollywood water supply to Rathattan, Knockroe and Ballysize, County Wicklow.

364.

andMr. Timmins asked the Minister for Local Government when he proposes to sanction the Donard water supply improvement scheme, County Wicklow.

365.

andMr. Timmins asked the Minister for Local Government when he proposes to sanction the extension of a water supply from Laragh to Derrybawn, County Wicklow.

366.

andMr. Timmins asked the Minister for Local Government when he proposes to sanction the extension of a water supply scheme from Dunlavin to Tobar, County Wicklow.

367.

andMr. Timmins asked the Minister for Local Government when he proposes to sanction the water supply scheme from Hollywood to Lemonstown, County Wicklow.

368.

andMr. Timmins asked the Minister for Local Government when he proposes to sanction the extension of the water supply scheme from Castleruddery to Stratford, County Wicklow.

369.

andMr. Timmins asked the Minister for Local Government when he proposes to sanction the extension of the Ballina-park water supply scheme to Kiloughter, Co. Wicklow.

370.

andMr. Timmins asked the Minister for Local Government when he proposes to sanction the extension of the Glenealy water supply scheme to Kilnamanagh and Kilcandra, County Wicklow.

371.

andMr. Timmins asked the Minister for Local Government when he proposes to sanction the extension of a water supply from Killiskey, County Wicklow.

372.

andMr. Timmins asked the Minister for Local Government when he proposes to sanction the scraping of water mains at Upper Kindlestown Road, Greystones, County Wicklow.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take Questions Nos. 357 to 372 together

The schemes referred to were submitted to my Department by Wicklow County Council on 4th October as sanitary services schemes which they proposed to carry out under the procedure for "small schemes". Such a scheme, costing not less than £20,000, does not now require my Department's approval as to technical details, but if generally in order may be executed by the council out of the block allocations for such works allocated each year. The council were advised on 4th November that 13 of the schemes are so in order. The remaining three schemes, those referred to in Questions Nos. 357, 359 and 372, do not qualify as small schemes and the council will have to consider proposing these as part of the ordinary sanitary services programme.

Top
Share