asked the Minister for the Environment why he has refused to confirm Dublin Corporation's request for a compulsory purchase order on the site known locally as "The Swamp" at Grattan Crescent, Inchicore, Dublin; if he is aware that the reclamation of the land was done illegally and that there is widespread local concern at this flagrant breach of the law; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Inchicore (Dublin) Land Reclamation.
6.
The definition of a derelict site under the provisions of the Derelict Sites Act, 1961, is restrictive and if a site does not fall within the definition its acquisition under the Act could not be consented to. The site in question was inspected on a number of occasions and, on the final inspection in August 1978, it was found that because of the dumping of infill rubble it could no longer be considered derelict. I therefore could not consent to its compulsory acquisition by the corporation. I understand that the dumping of rubble carried out on the site did not have planning permission and that action was taken by the planning authority under sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976, with a view to effecting a discontinuance of the work. Legal proceedings followed and the matter is sub-judice. An application for planning permission for the retention of the use of the land for infilling has been made and is currently being considered by the planning authority.
Is the Minister aware that the law and procedures in this regard in relation to this question, as to the previous one, are seriously deficient and that the law in this case has been seriously flouted with the result that the public interest, both nationally in the broader sense and locally, has been very much flouted by the breaking of the law and that his Department now seem to be accepting the situation? Further, is the Minister prepared to take any effective action or to give the local authorities power to take effective action to prevent this happening again?
The question is about my failure to sign the CPO. I have given the Deputy the reasons why I could not sign the CPO. It did not comply with what was required to deem the site to be derelict because of the infill of rubble which had taken place. This was the reason that I could not sign the CPO or confirm it, as the Deputy asked in his question.
Is it a fact that when the corporation sought from the Minister confirmation of the CPO this was a derelict site?
No, it was not deemed to be a derelict site at that time. Infill had taken place. As I said in my reply, the site was inspected on a number of occasions——
Question No. 7.
——before the final inspection in August 1978 when it was found that because of the dumping of infill rubble it could no longer be considered a derelict site.
If it is not a derelict site now, which I still dispute, it is because of illegal action and the Minister or the law is acquiescing in this illegal behaviour. Is the Minister prepared to contemplate taking some corrective measures in cases like this?
I cannot take any action under the Acts governing derelict sites because, as I have explained, this could not be deemed to be a derelict site and the CPO could not be confirmed on that account.
Question No. 7.
Illegal action which has been allowed means that this site has been given value. It was valueless and the person has gained substantially by breaking the law, and the public have lost.
Application for planning permission for retention of the use of the land for infilling is still under consideration by the planning authority. An application has been made for this use.
We cannot permit argument to develop on questions. We have dealt with only six questions. This is not fair to other Deputies.