Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Aug 1940

Vol. 24 No. 24

Acquisition of Derelict Sites Bill, 1940—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill will confer on sanitary authorities a simpler and more expeditious procedure for the acquisition of derelict sites. The Bill applies to land which is unoccupied or unused, and on which there are buildings which are ruinous, or in disrepair, or on which for two years there have been no buildings, and which is by reason of its condition injurious to health or amenities.

This definition of land for the purpose of the Bill takes in all the more objectionable ruins, dumping grounds, and waste plots which are to be found in many towns and villages. It is proposed that the sanitary authority should acquire such sites as nothing short of acquisition will enable a derelict site to be dealt with effectively and prevent its reversion to its former state.

The Bill enables a preliminary order to be served on the owner or occupier of a derelict site stating that the sanitary authority will not proceed with the acquisition of the site if its ruinous and objectionable character is removed within 28 days. Acquisition will not, therefore, take effect unless the owner or occupier fails to deal with the matter. This procedure will enable any owner who wishes to clear up the site to the satisfaction of the local authority to retain it in his own possession. Failing action by the owner or occupier of the site, or an appeal by him being rejected by the District Justice, the local authority may proceed to vest the land in themselves.

Acquisition will enable the sanitary authority to enter on the land, clear and level the site and apply it to any purpose for which they have statutory powers. It may in suitable cases be used as a building site or if it is a dump or waste plot it may be found desirable to convert it into a playground or have it suitably planted.

Section 7 of the Bill provides that compensation will be payable to any person having an estate or interest in the land so vested, but a claim to compensation must be made within three months from the making of the vesting order. The Bill will give very necessary powers to local authorities to clear derelict sites and ruined buildings in towns and villages throughout the country. The present statutory powers are somewhat restricted as there would have to be an element of danger arising to the public in the case of a derelict building before a local authority could act.

Badh mhaith liom cúpla focal a rádh ag moladh an Bhille seo.

I am glad that this Bill has come before the Seanad, and any remarks I make on it will largely apply to the City of Dublin. As most Senators are aware there are a number of derelict sites in the city which lend to it an appearance of decay. I need only point to that ugly gaping wound at the head of O'Connell Street opposite the monument to a great national leader, Parnell. At the right hand corner of Parnell Street there is a ruin which lends an appearance of decay to one of our principal streets. In Fleet Street, at the rere of the Bank of Ireland, there are also some houses which have been closed for a number of years. That means a loss to the revenue of the city, because when they are idle such buildings do not contribute anything to the rates. The Dublin Corporation referred to this question on various occasions and at a meeting held on 4th December, 1939, the city manager was requested in a resolution to prepare a return of derelict sites within the city boundary, with a view to their acquisition under the Derelict Sites Order, and in that way to remove the unsightly appearance of decay that their existence gave to the city. It is perfectly obvious that there is a necessity to expedite the acquisition of such sites. There is certain legislation in existence under which municipal councils could proceed, but I understand that such sites have to be three years derelict before action could be taken.

Apart from the loss of revenue involved when sites are lying derelict there is an inducement to certain people to cause destruction. Immediately that happens the owners of derelict property become very active and go before the courts to demand compensation. Everybody who reads the daily Press knows that Dublin Corporation has had to pay compensation for the destruction of such property. In the case of some buildings that I know, the owner of which resides in London, I wrote to him, in the interests of the ratepayers to look after his property. When it was damaged the owner had no reluctance about proceeding to the courts to seek compensation. While my remarks are applicable largely to the City of Dublin everyone who goes through the country and sees the appearance of some of our towns and villages realises the necessity for clearing away derelict sites. I hope this Bill will not meet with any opposition. I do not think that anybody can have any grievance in view of the fact that an owner who feels aggrieved can go to the courts with his case. I am glad that this Bill has been introduced and I hope it will receive general support and thus end many of the eyesores that are to be seen throughout the city and the country. Visitors coming to the capital would not be impressed with the appearance of that ugly derelict building at the head of O'Connell Street.

I am interested in this Bill which proposes to deal with derelict sites. I know a town in which there are many derelict buildings, but it would cost a considerable amount of money to clear them. They may not have any site value. It would be unjust that local authorities should be saddled with the expense of clearing derelict buildings where there is no site value. The buildings I have in mind are very ugly and, as Senator Healy has said, are damaging to the general appearance of the town. But I do know from experience that the cost of removing these buildings is very considerable when the site is of no value to those who remove them. I should like to know if there is any provision in the Bill to meet such a case.

In many towns where there are large slum areas we find those "gaping wounds" to which Senator Healy referred. They are extremely objectionable and are a source of trouble to the neighbours. They are oftentimes used in the darkness as dumping grounds for waste material and they cause a great deal of trouble to the local authorities. In towns under the control of town commissioners, the rate-striking power is very limited and the amount raised is, accordingly, very small. The commissioners are not, therefore, in a position to cope with the clearing of those areas. It is extremely expensive work to clear these sites and in many cases, when cleared, they are not likely to be used for building again. In some cases, they are below the level of the surrounding ground and are fit only for an inferior type of playground—and that only after they have been properly prepared. The local authorities have no funds to deal with these matters and the work could only be done if a special grant were given or if the work were regarded as being for the relief of unemployment. If the necessary money could be found, that work would absorb many of the unemployed who are bound to come on our hands during the coming winter. This problem is not confined to one town; it is general throughout the country. These places are great eyesores and steps should be taken to remove them. So far as I can see, that will only be done in the way I have indicated.

To my knowledge, a great improvement has taken place in Ireland during the past 30 years so far as these eyesores are concerned. I should like to know from the Minister why he is making an exception in favour of local authorities and bodies corporate under subhead (d) of Section 1. Some of the eyesores which exist at present are on sites in the possession, not of local authorities, but of certain companies. These places are a blot on the landscape and why should an exception be made in favour of corporations? The Bill will, I am sure, have the blessing of every member of the House.

Some of the greatest eyesores are under the control of the local authorities themselves. As an example, we have the disused workhouse buildings scattered throughout the country. I had occasion to go through one of these buildings in connection with local security work and I found the place in a terrible state of ruin. Part of it was in a very good condition, but the roof had given way on another portion and the rain had been getting in for years, with the result that the place was terribly unsafe. Before the Department insist on other people doing this work, they should insist on their own authorities clearing away these unsightly buildings.

With regard to the point raised by Senator Goulding, it is, perhaps, true that some local authorities are in the possession of workhouses and other buildings which are not in a proper condition. We have tried to the best of our ability to get these local authorities to sell or otherwise dispose of these buildings if they are not suitable for reconditioning as houses for the poorer classes. When dealing with local authorities in connection with that matter, certain methods are open to us, but these methods are not open to us as the law stands in dealing with the public generally.

As regards the point raised by Senator Alton, the bodies he mentions were excluded by an amendment which was inserted in the Dáil. It was pointed out there that a tramway company might have a tram yard which would look unsightly but which would, nevertheless, be necessary. It was urged that a local authority should not be allowed to come along and urge its removal simply because it was unsightly. The case of a railway siding was also mentioned. If these places were not given exemption, it was thought that they might be regarded as injuring the amenities of the locality and that a demand might be made for their removal. These, however, are minor matters, and what the Bill proposes to do is to deal with the main problem.

As Senator Healy has pointed out, we could not, as the law stands, deal with a place that was injurious to the amenities or unhealthy unless it was also proved to be dangerous to the public. Under this Bill, we shall have power to deal with it where it is injurious to the amenities or unhealthy. A point was made by Senator Cummins about the cost of removing these derelict structures. I think that this is one of the activities to which we may be able to direct unemployment relief money or, at least, give a certain proportion of it to the local authorities if they put up schemes for the demolition of derelict sites and their replacement by houses or playgrounds or plantations. I think we may take it that work of this kind will be regarded as work for the relief of unemployment. If we want to deal with the matter expeditiously, I think the only way of doing so is to make the unemployment relief moneys applicable to it. Otherwise, a number of public bodies would not take it up at all.

The point was made that it would not pay to take down these buildings. Where the owner refuses, after notice has been served upon him, to take steps to put a place in proper condition, then the local authority can go in and demolish the site. When compensation comes to be assessed, they can deduct the cost from the compensation payable to the person who neglected or refused to carry out his duty. I am glad that the Bill has met with so favourable a reception. It is long overdue and I believe it will do a great deal to clean up these eye-sores and restore local amenities.

There may be derelict houses for which no compensation could be awarded or claimed. Therefore, the local authority would be entirely responsible for the removal.

They could let the place afterwards.

In some towns there are places which have no letting value.

You may have certain exceptions of that kind.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed: That the remaining stages be taken to-day.
Sections 1 to 17, inclusive, and the Title, agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

May I answer Senator Honan? The Senator spoke as regards individual derelict sites not being worth the cost of their clearance. As the Minister stated, the local authority has the right to deduct in respect of the demolition from any compensation that would be due to the owner of the derelict site. There is another point. Does Senator Honan agree that these derelict sites should be allowed to stand in a city, ruining its appearance? Furthermore, if those sites are taken over, that will naturally give an opportunity to builders to engage in building operations. They would construct houses on those sites and I am sure numbers of them would be glad to get an opportunity of doing so.

That does not quite answer my point. What I have in mind is an individual old house or building where there would not be any site value in relation to the building of other houses. It might be a part of the town which has become derelict and no one would be inclined to build there.

You may get a grant towards clearance and that might help.

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 5.45 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.
Top
Share