Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Jun 1929

Vol. 12 No. 12

Public Business. - Town Planning Bill, 1929—Second Stage (Resumed).

Mr. Johnson

Perhaps it is fortunate that on the last occasion, in my opening statement on this Bill, the House was not sufficiently well attended to allow me to proceed to the Second Reading Stage. I may repeat that the Bill is not a Party measure. It has the assent, in its general purport, of representatives of various sections in the House. I think it is one which will not excite violent opposition to its general principles. I am very ready to admit the necessity for considerable amendment at later stages. The Bill owes its origin to the Association of Architects of Ireland and the Royal Institution of Architects in Ireland, and is godfathered, if I might say so, by the Civic Institute of Ireland. It has been on the stocks for several years, and, as a matter of fact, it is in some respects a little out of date, particularly in regard to the definition of local authorities. There are one or two other matters which would require to be amended; but in its general purpose, and I think it is necessary to deal only with the general purpose and principle on this stage, I think the Bill ought to receive the assent of the House.

The Bill follows closely the British Act of 1925, which itself was a consolidating Act embodying the provisions of two Acts, parts of Housing and Town Planning Acts of 1909 and 1919. Neither of those Bills was applicable to Ireland. Because of the non-applicability to Ireland of these Acts the position in this country is that there is no power in the hands of the local authorities, and none even in the hands of the Local Government Department, to control the course of development of our towns, the form or character or the shape they will take, or to insure that healthy growth will not be frustrated owing to the thoughtless or selfish anti-civic act of some shortsighted citizen or company. The power of our local authorities with regard to control of building undertakings is limited to their compliance with public health requirements relating to sanitation, and to their structural stability. Even the Corporation of Dublin, the Metropolitan City, except for the special provisions relating to the reconstruction of O'Connell Street, has no power to control the design or type of buildings in any of the streets. I do not know whether Senators have read a number of articles recently published and signed "H. T. O'R.", initials which will be recognised as those of a very responsible official. In one of these articles he says:—

"There is no power to prevent a ground floor on Fitzwilliam Square being converted into a butcher's shop."

And again:

"There is no guarantee that a refuse destructor would not be built on the borders of a projected pleasure ground, or that smoking factories might not be erected inside a residential area."

The Corporation of the future will see that the growth of the amenities of this city, or of any city, are entirely determined by the owner of the ground property, or the builder in the plan and design of the building. I think there are very few who cannot point out instances where there have been developments entirely nauseous and of an unpleasantly ugly character, and where there should have been provision made to preserve the amenities of the district. I wish to emphasise that it is not merely to preserve amenities we desire in this Bill, perhaps at the loss of some valuable industries. A town plan will set out to make the best provision possible for encouraging industry under the most economic conditions in the most suitable localities. It would be a sad mistake if and when we are trying to popularise town planning, and are seeking the active co-operation of business men of all kinds, that by over insistence on the artistic values—the necessity for preserving amenities—we should create an impression that we might be retarding industrial activities. The contrary is the truth. Town-planning may be said to be simply the exercise of thought and reason in the utilisation of a given area for any desired social and economic services, paying due regard to the maintenance of public health and social amenities, the progress of industries, and all other factors which help or retard the healthy growth of a civic community.

I suppose we are all willing to admit that our towns have grown up in quite a haphazard way without regard to future development, and quite regardless as to whether there is a future convenience safeguarded, or whether future development in the way of industry, or shopping centres, or public parks, or residential areas are going to be affected by any particular action on the part of the builder or prospector. Some consider that town planning schemes are only necessary in the case of towns and cities growing, or which show signs of rapid development. That may be the reason why the British Town Planning Acts did not apply to Ireland. There is something in the point, but I want to emphasise that irrespective of whether a town is growing rapidly, or is likely to grow rapidly, it is very desirable we should have power placed in the hands of local authorities, or in the absence of effective action taken by local authorities, ultimately in the hands of the Minister, to prevent towns and villages being made ugly. Even though they are not developed, we should preserve whatever amenities there are and seek to remove excrescences which militate against the attractiveness of the countryside. I think one might also point out that in respect of the larger towns a great deal of the present charges upon local authorities are consequent upon the improvements that have been decided upon, and which are made necessary by the absence of foresight in the years gone by. If there had been such foresight and planning much of the compensation charges, which on the necessary changes that had to take place and that had to be paid for, would have been unnecessary.

I take it that the House in the main will be agreed that we are likely to see certain developments in various parts of the country following upon economic changes, that is changes which will follow electrification, and which will necessarily follow upon the use of motor traction. These factors are undoubtedly going to influence one way or another the growth of towns—large or small—in various parts of the country. We must hope for the utilisation of electric power as a result of the development of the Shannon. In some of the towns, to say the least, and perhaps in many of the towns, we will find enterprising men starting factories, large or small. We desire that in such cases there shall be some provision, some kind of control, as to where these factories shall be built, and the kind of structures that will contain their machinery. It is obvious that there must be some check on the indiscriminate activities of enterprising men. That would not mean militation against their enterprise, but rather a guiding of their activities. With regard to the small towns, I think it is clearly desirable that any action taken upon the lines of this Bill should be of a very tentative kind indeed, and should be simply restrictive, and not necessitating big schemes or even wide surveys. In the larger towns there would be something more requisite than that. It is presupposed that in the case of Dublin, Cork and Waterford, and perhaps in Limerick, you will have something in the nature of a survey before any town-planning scheme can be adopted. In respect of Dublin and Cork surveys have been made, and the lines of the town plans are pretty clearly fixed in the minds of those who are active and thoughtful in these matters. One knows that in Dublin they have gone a considerable distance in the direction of a town plan.

I do not think it is necessary to explain at very great detail the various sections of the Bill. It will be seen that a memorandum has been printed which summarises the sections, and that will shorten my task in explaining them on the Second Reading. I would like to explain that the Bill is not obligatory on the local authorities, unless the Minister considers that circumstances warrant that he should order the local authorities to prepare a town planing scheme, but before issuing such an order to a public local authority an inquiry must be held. In all these circumstances the initiative is left to the local authority, to local associations, business men and others, to encourage them to take steps to associate themselves with any scheme that is proposed. As I have said, in respect of the larger towns a town planning scheme ought to be preceded by a civic survey. That has been done in the case of Dublin and Cork. A civic survey is necessary before any comprehensive plan for future development can be drawn. Such a plan must take into account every factor, social and economic, including the tendencies, and even the possibilities, of industrial growth or decline. The Minister may direct that such a survey shall be made by any local authority within three years from August, 1929; but except in such cases as the Minister may think well to use this power, the option lies with the local authority to make the survey.

In practice I think it is likely to happen that the surveys that have been made for Dublin and Cork will be the basis of the town plan in respect of those cities. In respect of the other large towns, Limerick and Waterford, possibly surveys may be taken before the three years will have expired. That would be left to the Minister's discretion. A local authority is defined in the Bill as "the council of any borough or district council of any urban district or rural district, or the town commissioners of any town not being an urban district." That is quite a faulty definition. It might exclude the county borough councils of Dublin and Cork, which is obviously not intended. There would need to be a definition bringing in the county council. The faulty definition arises owing to the fact that it was drawn some years ago before the last Local Government Act was passed.

Under the Bill a town planning scheme may be made in respect of land in course of development, or likely to be used for building purposes, and in respect of any area which has already been developed or built upon. The original English Act was restricted to lands in course of development or likely to be built upon in the future. An amendment to the English Act was made to conform to the United States practice and the practice in other countries, to extend it so as to cover areas already built upon. It is provided later, in Section 7, that compensation shall be paid for losses consequent upon giving effect to a scheme. On the other hand, where by the making of a town planning scheme any project is adjudged by the Commissioners of Valuation to be increased in value, the responsible authority shall be entitled to recover from any person whose property is so increased in value one-half the value of that increase. That is not a novel provision. It is contained in the British and United States Acts, and other Acts in operation in the Dominions, and I think also in continental countries. The betterment provision ought to be subject to alteration, but that is a Committee point. A town planning scheme in respect of lands to be built upon, or already built upon, may be made with the general object of securing proper ways and communications, sanitary conditions, open spaces, amenity and convenience in connection with the laying out and use of land, and the scheme may provide for the demolition or alteration of any buildings within the area to be developed in so far as may be necessary for carrying this scheme into effect.

Where the Minister for Local Government believes that on account of natural beauty or special architectural, historic or æsthetic interest attaching to a locality it is expedient to take steps to preserve the existing character or features of the locality, a town planning scheme may prescribe the space about buildings, the number of buildings, and the height and character of buildings; and in the first section there are numerous provisions regarding matters, which the Minister might prescribe as coming within the scope of the scheme. There is also a provision that where two or more local authorities desire, they may act jointly in scheming for future development. That is an important provision, and it leads to a provision which I think should be inserted at a later stage, for what is called regional development, or regional planning, which may be more necessary where there was a growth of a district, where special factors affect the district. Let us say in the County Wicklow, where something was required to deal with a particular area, the local authorities in that area could act together and plan for its regional development. I emphasise this point, that no town planning scheme should have effect until it is approved by order of the Minister, but that, when approved by the Minister, it should have effect as if it were enacted in the Act. There ought to be provided in the Bill, but I think it is omitted and I hope it will be inserted later, that any order of this character made should be laid on the Table for discussion by the House.

I again point out that the general control of procedure relating to town planning schemes lies with the Minister, including the power to proceed with a scheme in the case of default or of unreasonable delay on the part of the local authority. He may also make regulations to secure the co-operation of owners of property and other persons interested in land proposed to be included in a scheme, and to secure that other councils which may be interested are duly informed of any proposals. The general plan is to endeavour to ensure local co-operation and local initiative in regard to town planning. It is also proposed, as is natural to a Bill promoted by the architects' profession, that the professional status of architects and engineers employed in the execution of schemes shall be safeguarded by prior consultation with their respective societies, the Association of Engineers on the one hand, and of Architects on the other. That is a kind of trade union clause which may be a very good headline for future Bills of a similar nature, but which may not mean only professional associations.

A valuable power is given by Section 6 to the responsible authorities in respect of advertisements which offend against the amenities of a district, or where open spaces are injured by the display of such advertisements. In my opinion this section is rather too gentle in regard to advertisements on land relating solely to the trade carried on upon such land. It does not allow interference for five years with any hoarding which existed at the time of the approval of the scheme. That, I think, is rather overgenerous to the offensive hoarding.

I think I need not go into the provisions in very much more detail, but I would point out that there is a little doubt which has recently come to my notice as to whether the small towns would be able to make regulations in the absence of a formal town plan, and I would hope that the House would agree to insert as an amendment a provision whereby, even in the absence of a formal town plan, a local authority would have power to prescribe the space about new buildings and such like things, and particularly to deal with obstructions, such as ruined houses, that are offensive to the locality and that clearly are detrimental to the general amenities of the district. I think that anyone who travels through the country will have noticed very numerous unsightly destroyed areas. Even a single destroyed building in a town through which a motor car is going gives a bad impression of that whole district to a visitor, and I think it could be very simply proscribed against and some improvement made in that respect. So also in regard to unsightly advertisements and to that kind of ramshackle, jerry-built corrugated iron structure placed at the end of a rather handsome bridge, utterly destroying the beauty and attractiveness of the locality. Power to proscribe that kind of thing ought certainly to be given to the local authority, and such power ought to be given, even without the necessity for a formal survey and a town plan. If it is found on examination that the Bill does not include these powers, I hope the House will agree to insert them.

I ask the House, therefore, to give formal approval to the Second Reading, and I hope that the Minister for Local Government and his Department will give sympathetic approval, criticism, and perhaps co-operation in the final drafting of this Bill. If the Second Reading is passed I would ask the House to send the Bill to a Special Committee for close examination. I might express here the thought that if our proposal of some months ago to have a draftsman made available to the House had been carried into effect it would have eased the work of drafting and making water-tight and satisfactory a Bill of this kind. In the meantime, I think the Bill is a foundation upon which a good town planning Act can be built. I hope that the House will give it hearty approval and will set itself out to make a workmanlike job of a Bill dealing with this very important subject.

Dr. Gogarty

I beg to second the motion. I must congratulate Senator Johnson on bringing forward this Bill, which is a very great need to this country, and particularly to our own city. This is a Bill that may be considered from two aspects. The objection to it, of course, from the local authorities' point of view, and from the point of view of the Central Fund, would be that there is no money at our disposal to carry it into effect. But it will not cost any money to prevent the erection of unsightly buildings and the removal of modern unsightly ruins. This country seems to preserve the most uninteresting remains and to allow those which are of historic interest to fall into decay. When one goes down streets in this city one sees that progress is represented by the improvements of the shops, but from a certain point of view a city is a shop, and anything that prevents its development raises the price of food by reason of the cost of distribution. Therefore the planning of Dublin according to the needs that have arisen from modern conditions, such as making convenient the port of collection and embarkation for cattle, the straightening of streets, the clearing of dilapidations and the possible linking-up of railways or linking them up with buses, is very necessary. But it is absolutely necessary to make a law in order to bring any improvement into effect, and I pity the country if it is to be left to the unguided aesthetic sense of any of the local authorities, because there is nothing more terrible than local taste. This city represents the most varied architectural experiments and the most unvaried failures.

We want some centralising, first of all from the point of view of the city's utility; secondly, from the point of the city's health; and, thirdly, from the point of view of aesthetics. It will be very difficult to combine these three things. The greatest of these is, of course, health, because it may be considered that if you put people to live in certain overbuilt sites, you are putting humanity into a kind of mincing machine out of which neither good health nor good citizenship can come.

I did not read the whole Bill, nor was I present for Senator Johnson's exposition of it, but it is very necessary that a good deal of power should be relegated to those who are to carry out any town planning. I had the pleasure of sitting on the Greater Dublin Commission, and many things arose before it which showed the need that exists for a central directing authority. There is not the least chance for this city to develop on any lines other than those already laid down by the position of the sewers. the light mains and the water mains. If you want to be prophetic, you take the map and you ask: "Where is the drain? Where is the electricity supply? and that is the way the city must go—in the shape of a forked stick.

To direct the preparation of virgin land for building means that the authority will have to provide public utility services first before the houses are built. That is a very simple thing, but it is very important because it is putting the horse before the cart. Up to this the other way was the usual way. If the city is to develop you will have to prepare land for housing before the houses are built, because there is not the least chance that any speculative builder will build houses where he has probably a mile to go to reach the water supply or the sewerage system. It is too great an expense, and it would fall on the private experimental builder. The central authority and town planner must provide the roads and the mains in those parts of the county into which it is proposed to extend the city.

A decision should be arrived at to prevent certain parts of this city carrying any more structures. I suppose there has been no reputable building in the city since about the time of the Seven Years' Wars of Pitt, when structures like this House were built, structures in which we perhaps take a pride but for which we honestly cannot take credit. There was once in this city a sense of citizenship, and it was expressed by one of the most magnificent plans of any city in Europe, because when old Dublin was laid down between its North and its South Circular Roads it was then the seventh city in Christendom. It was a finer city than Paris, which was not built as we know it now before Napoleon's time. But the grand old Dublin has fallen away. The old houses of the people who had a sense of pride and continuity have now become a mockery, because each room in them has to shelter a family or two families, and in some cases each corner of a room is sheltering a family. There are 52,000 people in this city at present sheltering in what were the salons of the eighteenth century, in rooms which are worse than any other slum dwellings in England or Scotland, simply because where there are slum dwellings in Scotland or England they exist for the most part in houses which were built for that purpose—tenement houses with water and sanitary accommodation on each floor. So that I think, urgently to relieve existing conditions, it is very necessary to pass such a Bill as this rapidly and to put it into effect without delay.

I am not going into statistics of public health, because there are people here more competent to do so than I, but they largely depend on the fact that if you consider the subsoil as one of the factors in influencing health, there are certain parts of the city in which buildings should be prohibited and where any human beings should not live. Proper subsoil is a very important requisite for health, and there are certain parts of Dublin where no dwellinghouses ought to be. This city was founded by Danish merchants whose boats could not go up the river any further. There was a Danish stone erected where College Street joins Brunswick Street. That was the beginning of the city, and it was a haphazard maritime experiment. Up and down the river the commerce came. The city was founded because it was the only avenue for merchandise by water, and into the river the effluvium of the city went. And idiot man went on thinking it was a very satisfactory way of draining.

The first consideration of a city is the health of the city. Secondly, the city as a market or a shop. The reason there is a city at all is that populations tend to concentrate about a market, but if the city is not planned adequately to meet modern requirements of transportation, on which, after all, the success of production depends, that production is useless if it cannot be transmitted. It raises the prices of commodities and the cost of living to everybody in the city and in the surrounding country which is served by the city. Therefore, from the second point of view it is very necessary to have the city well planned. If the findings of the Greater Dublin Commission are considered together with this Bill and we make up our minds to hand over to some competent authority drastic powers, which will involve the destruction of buildings, the making of assessments dealing with land misers who live near the city and who will sit tight when there is a possibility of a building future on their land, we will have to hand over to the town planner, if this is to be effective, the power to strike rates in view of the possible enhancement of these lands. This was in an English Bill, but it was not put into effect. It was provided that if one were to take land at such a place as Cabra, or out towards Raheny, where there is a good deal of development, or on the Naas road, all that empty land would be rateable as if it had been already built upon, so that no man could hold up the development of the city by asking a preposterous price for his land.

In the city there are many places covered by hoardings where demands for completely uneconomic and unreasonable prices are preventing the development of street corners. I need not name them, because it might be invidious and the landlords might be known, but there are two or three corners in the very centre of the city which cannot be developed because the landlords have become land misers. So that we must be prepared to give extremely drastic rights to those in authority if the Bill is to be effective.

As the Bill could be employed to destroy ugliness and remove plague centres, money difficulties cannot be pleaded against such a highly necessary thing. This Bill is a good Bill, even if it were only used to take away and not to build. As one of the people who may be looked upon as foolish to risk a prophecy, I will confine myself merely to stating what has happened in other countries fifty years ago. By that means I will become a prophet in this country—while remaining a backwoodsman in others. I think it will be necessary to make a rule that every modern house that is built to house a family of over two or three must be surrounded by a certain amount of ground—one-fifth of an acre as a minimum—that we will no longer economise at the expense of the health of the children by building half a street, say, out in Rathfarnham. Children are taken out now and compelled to live in a half slum stuck out in the country. In Germany one realises that the two greatest civilising factors are the cheapness of timber and the cheapness of light. The cheapness of timber provides a house of five or six rooms; it gives the mother of the house a drawing-room where her household gods may be kept; it permits the segegration of the sexes and gives children rooms to be taught in, and for the price we are haggling over in Dublin we could provide homes that would produce enlightened and healthy children, with ground for gardens, which would be cheaper and let at an economical rent if built on virgin soil than on the expensive and congested central sites in the city. If there is anything in the Darwinian question of the influence of environment on character and health, a Housing Bill such as this is the very beginning of usefulness and enlightenment for this country. You can always make an assessment of the future capacity and the worth of any citizens by knowing whether they live in a hovel or in a house.

Through no fault of our own, this city is criticisable on account of the condition of its slums. This condition arose because householders who used to live in the cities now prefer to live outside, and Dublin is at present going through a transitional period; it is empty at the heart on account of the ease of transportation. I think it will be realised by anybody who is given authority that unless this Bill becomes only a pious aspiration, it will be necessary to limit the number of people dwelling in certain areas, and that means zoning. I am not going to forecast what the Bill will be; I am only going to ask the House strongly to support it as a very excellent measure.

Mr. Linehan

There is a principle in this Bill to compel local authorities to carry out a civic survey of their areas, and the expense will be provided altogether by the local people. We have often heard complaints that the liberties of local authorities in transacting the business they have been elected to transact have been very much restricted lately, and that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health practically has power to compel them to do what he likes. Section 1 of the Bill makes it practically mandatory on the local authority to prepare a civic survey scheme on an order from the Minister. There is a clause in the Bill by which he can by mandamus compel them to do so. I think we are acting on a wrong principle in bringing compulsion into this Bill. By leaving it voluntary to each local authority to make a civic survey or not as they think best would be quite sufficient for the present. If I agree to a Second Reading for the Bill, I will certainly put an amendment down to strike out the compulsory clause. I also fear that all these restrictions will have an effect on building operations, that people inclined to erect buildings in towns will seriously consider the provisions of this Bill, and as to how they might be affected by them. I find that there is even power in the Bill to demolish buildings if they stand in the way of a scheme. Mention has been made of smoke from factories. In my opinion we have not sufficient smoke from factories. No matter where they are situated, I think no obstacle should be put in the way of people promoting industries.

As regards the erection of ugly houses, I maintain that there are not sufficient houses being erected, no matter whether they are ugly or otherwise. In the Preamble of the Bill it is proposed to provide reservations in towns for agriculture. I was at a loss to determine what that means unless it refers to markets for agricultural produce. That might be the intention, but my experience of cities is that markets for agricultural produce are generally closed up whenever there is an opportunity to do so. A cattle market is regarded as a nuisance. I know towns where cattle markets have been done away with. In other places, people living near shipping yards have objected to the bellowing of the cattle going to the boats in the morning, and if they had their way there would be no shipping at all. Instead of removing their residences from the quayside to some other part of the city, they want to prevent cattle from being driven to the boats. Different people have different ideas as to what scenery and beauty are. I think nothing should be done to do away even with smoking factories or any other buildings that would give employment.

There is a new definition in the Bill of potential building ground which ought to be studied very carefully, as we have another Act whereby certain tenants were deprived of the benefits of land purchase owing to their lands being described as having a potential value as building ground. Section 2 (7) says:

The expression "land likely to be used for building purposes" shall include any land likely to be used as, or for the purpose of providing open spaces, roads, streets, parks, pleasure or recreation grounds...

Under the Land Act of 1927 it was provided that unless the owner appeals within a certain number of years land that has been reserved as having a potential value as building ground will revert to the occupier. Under this Bill if he converts a field into a pleasure-ground, it might be a pleasure-ground for himself only, because it is not stated that it should be a pleasure-ground for the public. He might keep cattle in that field and say: "This is building ground," and under the definition of building ground in the 1927 Act the land could not go back to the tenant. Even in the appointment of an architect to prepare a civic survey the local authority cannot appoint anyone they like. They must appoint someone who will be sanctioned by the Society of Architects.

Cathaoirleach

These are really Committee points.

Mr. O'Farrell

I think that Senator Linehan has really expressed the view of the social backwoodsman in opposition to the Bill. I do not imagine he is expressing his own views, but possibly the views of the opposition which he feels will exist. In effect he says: "We have only a few factories. Therefore, why not put them into the principal streets, or if they do not want to go to the principal streets, by all means let them go into residential areas." I think the answer is that we have so few factories that there is absolutely no justification whatever for dumping them down in residential areas when we have in most cities proper places for such factories. He says that we have so few houses that we are entitled to have them as ugly as we like. I think the scarcity of houses is no justification for deliberately inflicting on us ugly and insanitary houses.

The Senator sees a grievance in the fact that while fairs are now held in what are called the main streets of the towns, they may in future have to be held in fields outside the towns. I would like to see that proposal developed. I know towns and some fairly important towns outside of which there are fair greens, good sized fields, where the fairs could be held, but the townspeople insist that at least every alternate fair must be held in the main streets, because if held in the field one section of the publicans will have an undue advantage, so that they bring the cattle to their very doors and have filth all about them. I had the experience in a town on one occasion of having a two-year old heifer walking into a room. The shop doors and the hotel doors are open and, in the crush the cattle sometimes run behind counters and even make their way upstairs. That is the state of affairs that the Senator wants perpetuated. It is a relic of barbarism, and I think that any Bill that would help to get rid of conditions of that kind should be encouraged. The suggestion that no compulsion should be put on local authorities is also one that I could not agree with. If local authorities would pay more attention to matters of this kind, and devote less time to debating snowball resolutions about things that do not concern them at all, it would be better for the local authorities and better for the districts concerned.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I think Senator Johnson's adaptation of the British Town-Planning Bill, which I understand this Bill to be, is a necessary piece of legislation which has been deferred all too long, and which can only in part rectify the many atrocities which unconsidered construction has produced in our towns in the past, and which are being produced at the present time.

There are various points in the Bill which seem to be either capable of amendment or improvement, or which are not entirely clear, and which the Senator perhaps may be able to explain to us. For instance, the Preamble and Sections 1 and 15 refer to the development of municipal areas by local authorities, and define these bodies for the purposes of the Bill. No development plan appears to be contemplated for smaller towns. I mean the smaller towns slightly bigger than villages that serve as agricultural distributing centres and are directly administered by the County Council. Many of these are a hundred years behind the times, and are a disgrace to any civilised country from the artistic point of view. They are lacking in sanitation and other amenities. I wonder whether the Senator meant that their development was to be left to the County Councils. In the hands of a great many of these bodies, I think these places will remain as they are, and I think that some special provision for that particular class of town should be made. Section 2 (3) seems to me to be rather drastic, and indicates access to the Minister by any person prior to action by the local body. Sub-section (6) of the same section is a very necessary power, but variation is a very dangerous thing. It leads to delay, and again I think the Bill will not go as far as it is expected to go.

I am very glad to see that Section 9 refers to the character of the building to be erected. The want of imagination on the part of individuals, on the part of the Board of Works, and on the part of the Local Government Board in the past was deplorable, and even to-day we see under various loans financed by the Government good houses being built, good houses, but entirely inartistic, when, without any appreciable increase in cost, quite picturesque dwellings might be erected that people would look at twice instead of saying, "How very ugly they are."

Section 12 (3) deals with cases where County Councils are to act in place of other local bodies. In theory that is correct, but when you come to put it into practice little will be done, and whatever is done will be done by the permanent officials. In the same sub-section the Senator is creating an advisory committee.

Mr. Johnson

Will the Senator say which sub-section?

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

Section 12, sub-section (3). The Senator is creating an advisory body, and I think it is of such importance as possibly to merit a section to itself. I feel that its enlargement to something of a great national character should be considered before we have finished with this Bill. I think this is a very important piece of legislation, because I believe that the mode of living of the people, or of any section of the people, is a most important factor in the development of a civic spirit. When it becomes law, if this measure is energetically worked, I think it will take this country a long step forward.

Sir John Griffith

I wish to express my hearty desire that this Bill should be carried through at the earliest possible moment. It is of such supreme importance to the country that it has my most cordial support. I think that no one can move about Ireland without feeling that legislation similar to this is absolutely necessary, not only in the interests of our large communities, but in the interests of the villages. We have only to look about our own suburbs to see the need for control. I do not wish that anyone outside Ireland would imagine that town-planning is an entirely new operation here. We have a very remarkable example of town-planning in Dublin itself. One hundred and seventy years ago, I think, the Wide Streets Commission was formed by the Irish Parliament. It was given really town-planning powers, and the results, which are known to us, are remarkable. Parliament Street was their first great operation, connecting Essex Bridge with the present City Hall. Then followed Dame Street, what is now called O'Connell Street, but which was formerly known as Sackville Street, Westmoreland Street and D'Olier Street, all constructed by this independent body, formed by Act of Parliament, an unpaid Commission, which, for some sixty years or so, carried on operations through the city to its very great advantage. The source of their revenue, as most of you know, was a tax on imported coal, which ceased about the free trade period, and they then ceased operations. I think 1/- a ton was charged, and that was one of the chief sources of revenue for the reconstruction of these streets.

What I wish specially to draw the attention of the promoters of this Bill to is that I think it is not merely a question of the architectural adornment of the city and so forth, but that there is a more difficult problem involved. I missed reference to it in the Bill. I hope that the promoters will see that any authority which may be set up to carry out these great powers will also keep in view the question of lines of communication. One blot that occurs to me is a striking one which may also have occurred to others. It was my privilege some fifty years ago to be engaged on the design of the present O'Connell Bridge. Long negotiations proceeded before it was decided to remove Carlisle Bridge, which was about sixty feet wide. For some years it was recognised that we were dealing with a problem which the Wide Street Commissioners had left, as it were, unfinished, and it was finally decided that O'Connell Bridge should be the full width of O'Connell Street, that it should embrace the two great streets, Westmoreland Street and D'Olier Street, and that the bridge should be divided into two roadways, as continuations of these streets. That I believe to have been a thoroughly sound proposition from the town planning point of view, and for many years it has worked well on those lines. But now we see parts of that great bridge utilised for parking motor cars. I submit that that is a traffic proposition which must be dealt with in any town planning. Questions of bridge accommodation and so forth must be brought under the same control as the mere buildings in the streets.

I sincerely hope that this Bill will pass, amended very considerably, I have no doubt. I hope that whoever is put in authority will keep in mind the two great problems, not merely the ornamentation of the city and its architectural features, but also the question of traffic, which are now involved.

Mr. Dowdall

I wish to say only one word, not in connection with the Bill, but to express my very strong censure of the last speaker for not speaking more frequently.

Sir John Keane

As an ideal to be aimed at, I am sure that all Senators will approve of this Bill and will hope that it will receive its Second Reading. But there are certain points that I think we shall have to consider if we are not to allow the ideal to override the practical. When I heard Senator The McGillycuddy refer to some central body that is going to lay down canons of taste, I must say that I felt rather appalled, because my recollection goes back to our Victorian grandparents, who put priceless articles of Chippendale into back rooms, where they were badly treated, and which have only been recovered in comparatively recent years. There are no greater offenders, in the opinion of some people and in the opinion of subsequent generations, than architects themselves, and I will never be persuaded that because an architect says a thing is beautiful it is beautiful. I should be very sorry to see any architect, however eminent, being allowed to dictate to any individual what design or what type of building he should spend money on. I am rather alarmed lest we should run away with the opinion that there can be any simple rule as to what is good or bad. I am also a little alarmed lest in their enthusiasm the promoters of this Bill force the pace. I think that Senator The McGillycuddy thought it would not be at all satisfactory to leave the matter in the hands of the local authorities, that he considered the county councils not to be suitable. There again I cannot agree. They may be slow, but they are the elected representatives of the people. If they are slow, educate them to act more quickly, but you should not say to them from the Olympian heights: "Out you go. We will do it better; we will do the work that you yourself should do at less expense." Perhaps I am unduly suspicious. I do not know if the compensation clauses in this Bill follow in every respect the compensation clauses of the English Act—not that that would satisfy me entirely—but I know that they have been fairly generous in the matter of compensation, and rightly so.

What is the point of recovering in the case of improved property half the increased value? Picture what that will mean. A house may be improved to the extent of £200 or £300 in the opinion of an arbitrator. That house is probably the owner's only asset. It is not liquid, but you are to recover £100 from the owner of that house. He may have no liquid assets at all, and it may be impossible for him to pay except by selling his house. That is a proposition which I would not stand for, and which I hope the House will not assent to.

Mr. Johnson

I do not think it is requisite that I should deal in detail with any of the points raised, as they are mainly Committee points which will undoubtedly be subjected to a great deal of consideration. I think Senator Sir John Keane will be satisfied, if he refers to the British Town Planning Act of 1925, that the provisions of this Bill are very much the same as those of that Act. They may require to be altered here, one way or the other, to suit Irish conditions and Irish views in regard to the amount of compensation that should be paid for disturbance, and so on, but that again, I think, is a Committee point. The only point that I think I need refer to is one raised by Senator The McGillycuddy, who appeared to overlook certain statements that I made with regard to the power of the local authority, and certain defects which I think are in the Bill as drafted regarding the local authority. Rural councils do not exist outside County Dublin, and the county councils have taken their place. I am not quite sure whether the Bill is properly drafted in that respect, but it is undoubtedly desirable that the local authority, whether it is the rural council, as in County Dublin, the urban council in the smaller towns, or failing them, the county council, should be empowered—and I would go so far as to say required, if the Minister can make a case, after public inquiry— to remove certain local defects and local obstructions—shall I say scabs on the face of the town?—and that something like decency and attractiveness should be sought for. But I do not want to lead the Seanad astray by the assumption that the design of this Bill was to take powers out of the hands of the local authorities; the desire is rather to stimulate the interest of local authorities. It may be necessary to do that by means of some kind of central body, and I hope that that central body will largely be a voluntary body, stimulating public interest in these things.

The very fact that Dublin and Cork, our two largest cities, have already shown sufficient interest to have civic surveys made with a view to town plans is an indication of what is desired, but notwithstanding that desire, that obvious earnestness in the matter, they have no power at present. What we want to give is power to complete the work which voluntary and local enthusiasm has initiated, to stimulate similar initiation in other places, and to have power to give effect to the schemes which local initiation has provided. I thank the Seanad for the interest it has shown and the support it has given up to this to the Bill. I hope that a serious effort will be made to remove defects and to make the Bill a perfect piece of legislation in Committee and in further stages.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Johnson

Might I move:

"That the Town Planning Bill, 1929, be referred to a Select Committee consisting of nine Senators, the quorum to be five?"

I understand if that is agreed to that the Committee would appoint its Chairman, and that the Committee of Selection would nominate persons to serve on that Committee. That would be a very much more satisfactory method of dealing with the Bill, in view of its tentative form, than by trying to deal with it in the full House.

Mr. Brown

I second that.

Mr. Comyn

I did not expect that Senator Johnson was going to propose this. There was a great deal in what Senator Linehan said in reference to this Bill. I am in favour of it, but I would like to have it considered by the full House. I do not wish to stand in the way of any suggestion for a Select Committee, but our attitude is that the Bill is most important. We would like to discuss it; we would like to hear its merits and its defects discussed, for our own information and for our own education. While not wishing to stand in the way of any proposal to expedite the Bill, I am not in favour of sending it to a Committee.

Mr. Douglas

I hope Senator Johnson's motion will be carried. At the same time I agree with Senator Comyn, but I believe that this kind of Bill, particularly a Bill that has not been introduced after examination by a Government Department, could best be examined by a Committee. The Report Stage gives ample opportunity for discussion, but if that be not necessary I think, subject to the ruling of the Chair, it could be sent to a Select Committee of the House, which probably, in this case, would be the most desirable course to take. I quite agree that the details should be discussed, but I think you will get a more real examination of the details of the Bill before a Select Committee than if they were to be dealt with by the whole House.

Mr. Comyn

That satisfies my objection.

Question—That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, consisting of nine members, five to form a quorum—put and agreed to.