On the motion for the Adjournment, Senator Stanford has given notice to raise a question.
Adjournment Debate—Building at Vico Road.
In raising this point I would first like to express my thanks to the Minister for coming here at very great personal inconvenience. I greatly appreciate, I am sure the House will appreciate, the courtesy he has done the House in coming.
My problem is the building that is going on at the Vico Road in Dalkey at present and certain proposals for further building on that road. I would like to quote from Standing Orders that the motion on the Adjournment must be on a matter of definite "urgent public importance." I would argue that this is clearly urgent because this is the last occasion on which the Oireachtas can consider this grave matter and I would say it is of public importance for the following reasons. Tens of thousands of Irish people go every year to see this famous beauty spot, the Vico Road, and thousands of tourists go there every year to see the magnificent panorama which is displayed from the Vico Road. Recently the Irish Tourist Association, or Fógra Fáilte, has spent thousands of pounds in developing hotels in the neighbourhood of the Vico Road. If the amenities and the beauty of the neighbourhood are to be seriously impaired, as I hold they will be impaired, by these measures it seems to me clearly a matter of public policy that these serious impairments of the view should be stopped as far as is possible within the existing legislation.
The Minister is well aware, I am sure, of the clause in the Town and Regional Planning Act of 1934, second schedule, Part III. Section 2. There, it is stated that one of the duties of the officials under the Act is to provide for "the preservation of views, or prospects, and of the amenities of places and features of natural beauty or interest." I claim that someone has blundered very seriously, and has failed very seriously in executing their responsibilities under this Act, and that is what I hope to show.
For the benefit of those Senators who are not familiar with the Vico Road. I think I should offer a short description of what is involved. I realise the time limit and I will endeavour to give the Minister full time for reply. The Vico Road lies between Dalkey and Killiney on a magnificent stretch of coastline. As one travels from Dalkey southwards towards Killiney about half a mile from Dalkey there is a railway bridge. There you have your first glimpse of what can only be described as a magnificent panorama. It has been compared favourably with the famous Bay of Naples. (I must say that when I was in Naples the Neapolitans did not compare their bay with Killiney.) However, this is the first point at which one can get the view and at this point, building, I am glad to say, is impossible. There is a deep railway cutting beneath, and there is no risk of building. Motorists and passengers in buses cannot stop at that point to regard the view. There is a steep hill there, and the road winds in a dangerous manner, and it is impossible for anyone but pedestrians to see the view at that point. If you go on for about 300 yards, you come to some houses and to a gap of about 50 yards between two old houses. This is at the top of the hill where the road is straight and level. There you can stop and admire the view. There in fact the C.I.E. tourist buses regularly do stop to allow tourists to admire the view. It is the first place where they can do so, and that is the critical point in what I am talking about this evening. That is where this building is taking place.
I would like to mention that about 200 yards further there is another famous stretch which we sometimes call the Vico Fields. There for about 300 yards there is a completely free view with no house obstructing the view at all. It is a completely free view because about 25 years ago public-minded citizens were so dismayed at the prospect of speculative building on that site that they bought the site at very great expense, something like £2,000. They saved it from the very fate which is threatening this other site to which I have referred. I want to emphasise that point. We Dalkey people and people who live in the neighbourhood are not just sentimentalists about this. We put our hands in our pockets about a quarter of a century ago to save the amenities of this place and I want to emphasise that.
I want to return to the critical point, that is the second stage on the Vico Road, which is the first place where motorists and tourists in buses can see this magnificent view. I want to emphasise that the best view of the panorama could be seen from that point as it was until yesterday when the roof was built on this particular house—a magnificent panorama from Killiney Beach to Wicklow Head, the whole extent of the bay reaching back to Dalkey Island. At no other point on the Vico Road can you command the same extent of view. That is widely known not merely by the people of the district, but by every intelligent visitor who goes there. The damage danger to the view is being done at this critical point.
What is the damage? Within the past two months, a house has been almost completed—a house approximately 40 feet high—between the road and the sea. The house consists of a basement, two storeys and a high pitched roof. Even from the best vantage point on the road, this house hides almost all Killiney beach and some of the hills behind. I am quite certain of this. I visited the road on three separate occasions, and I am certain of what I say. This house obscures a considerable portion of the view. This house is going to be paired with another house very shortly. This will double the obstruction. The result will be that, instead of a 50 yards clear space to see the best view in the district, visitors will have to peer out between the chimneys of two tall houses.
But, some may say, what about the rights of private property? I have always pleaded in this House for the rights of private property, and will continue to do so. If this was a case of a private owner being unjustly deprived of the right to use his land as he wishes, I would not intervene in any way, but—and this is the point on which I feel most strongly—I am informed that, about 20 years ago, another citizen bought this site. He wished to build houses on this site, and he was refused permission to build houses on this site. He sold the site at a loss on that account. Why has there been this change of policy? If we are to have rights of private property, they must be equal rights for all. Why should one citizen in 1935 not be allowed to build on that property, and another citizen in 1954 be allowed to do so?
I have been in touch with the officials and members of the Dún Laoghaire Borough Council on this point. They have been very helpful and I greatly appreciate their help. They have told me that the reason for the change is that apparently it has been discovered that the sewage will be all right. "The sewage will be all right"—here is perhaps the finest view on the east coast of Ireland, protected for the past 25 years most zealously by the local authority and the people, and now we are informed that, because the sewage is all right, permission to build these houses will be granted.
Now I want to ask something and I hope that the Minister will kindly help me in understanding the answer to it. What have the town planning authorities been doing here? How is it they have sanctioned this and how is it— this is very much more serious—that they have accepted inaccurate specifications—I repeat, inaccurate and inadequate specifications—in granting this site? I have here a document from the borough manager and he tells me that permission was granted for two houses in which the highest point of the roof will be only "a few feet above road level". What kind of specifications are these when a whole magnificent view is in question? In fact, this roof is at least six feet, and I think possibly ten feet, above road level. Is that a satisfactory specification: "a few feet above road level"? I claim it is not.
With regard to a site a little further on, I have the following specification: "At present no passing motorist can possibly see over the wall at this point. So far as pedestrians are concerned, I am five feet nine tall and I can only just see over it by standing on tip-toe." I am five feet eight tall and I walked along that road at a quarter past one to-day and the wall does not come up to my chin. There is a very good view of the whole surroundings over that wall. Yet these specifications have been accepted. I claim that someone has blundered on this and it should be looked into.
I now propose to ask one question and then to make my recommendations to the Minister for him to deal with as he likes. Why has there been a change of policy with regard to this site? One reason has been given and I think it should be mentioned here. A few years ago, when the borough council was apparently more careful of the amenities of the Vico Road than they are now, they refused an application to build on the inland side of the Vico Road where the woods stretch down from inland to the road—not on the view side. They refused that application, quite rightly. The applicant appealed to the then Minister and was given permission to build.
There was very great local indignation, and justly so, at that decision, and indignation amongst our borough councillors, especially when another very celebrated citizen of Dalkey, who had made application before that, had been refused permission by the borough council. He, like a good citizen, accepted it, realising that, in the view of the majority, this building would interfere with the amenities. Another gentleman comes along, however, appeals over the heads of the borough council and gets permission to build. That was a most regrettable decision by the Minister and that, it is alleged, is the cause of the yielding by the borough council on this point. It has been suggested that some of the councillors said to themselves: "If we stand on this, the Minister may go against us, so what is the good of being firm?"
I come now to my request. Whatever the reason why this large and obstructive building is being permitted on this magnificent site, and to have a twin beside it within a few months, I ask the Minister four things and I should like a reply. Why has there been a change of policy with regard to this site? Why have inadequacies and inaccuracies in the specifications been passed? Does he realise the strength of the sense of injustice that is felt among the people who value that road at the moment? I tell him that there is a strong sense of injustice at this decision. Does he realise the detriment to public policy, if the amenities of a site like this are to be harmed?
I would urge him with all deference to consider doing three things: first, if he has power, to stop all further building in this area, unless it is absolutely certain that it does not harm local amenities. If he could find power to pull down that house, he would be doing a public service to do so. That may sound fantastic, but, under one of the Acts on which I cannot lay my hand at the moment, he has power to order the destruction of houses in certain circumstances (but not, I imagine, in these circumstances). I do urge him to stop any further building of this kind, especially when the specifications are at times inadequate or inaccurate; and I urge him to inquire, if he sees fit, into the reasons for the change of policy by the town planning authorities of the borough council, and the reason for the acceptance of these inadequate and inaccurate specifications. Further, I would ask him, in the light of a predecessor's decision, to resolve and if possible give us here an assurance that, first, a closer watch will be kept on schemes of this kind and, secondly, that he will not follow a predecessor's regrettable overruling of the local authorities when they were simply trying to preserve the natural beauties of our country.
As a resident of Killiney, I must take advantage of the appeal made by my colleague, Senator Stanford, on this matter of the building on Vico Road, Dalkey.
I hope the Senator realises that the Minister must get ten minutes to reply.
I will be very brief. I should like first of all to welcome the Minister to the House. Being a namesake, the welcome is all the warmer. I should like to stress to the Minister the fact mentioned by Senator Stanford that there is a deep sense of injustice felt by the local people that this building has been allowed to take place, and a very strong sense of resentment. Without invoking powers of coercion, I would say that, unless some drastic action is taken to prevent a continuation of the destruction of this beautiful road, the local residents may take it upon themselves to raise such a hullabaloo that nothing could happen again. Bernard Shaw lived at Torca Cottage, which is just above the building now under discussion. The Vico Road is associated with history and romance and anyone who knows the road would be more than hurt by the thought that the beauty which God has given us man is going to despoil. As one who has lived in Killiney for many years and who loves that part of Dublin particularly, I can say, with apologies to the Bay of Naples, which I know, and which my colleague, Senator Stanford has mentioned, I would not put Killiney Bay in the same street; it is far beyond it.
If we are spending millions of pounds on tourism it strikes me as remarkably foolish for us to allow a view such as this to be destroyed for any profit-making purpose. I join with my colleague in impressing upon the Minister the desirability of taking whatever action he can to succeed in pulling down the present structure, if it can be done, but certainly to prevent the erection of any further buildings along that road. To allow this sort of thing to happen is tantamount to allowing the Ladies' View in Killarney to be obscured or the lovely view from the Tunnel Road to Glengarriff to be obliterated.
If some authority is not in charge to preserve the natural beauties of this country all our efforts in regard to tourism are futile and of no consequence.
I may mention in conjunction with this matter the sewerage scheme which is proposed for Killiney. Dubliners who love Killiney and the Vico Road come there at this time of the year in thousands. Anything that would endanger the pleasures of the Dublin people on that beach would be most objectionable. The sewerage scheme which is proposed comes out at a point not far from my residence. I hope it will not spoil Killiney beach. The spoiling of the view and the spoiling of the beach would do harm that neither the Dáil nor Seanad could repair.
May I draw your attention to the Rulings and Precedents of the House, page two? "By agreement of the House half hour permitted may be extended if it is not unduly so and the Minister is given adequate time to reply." That is in case the Minister feels that he has a short time to reply.
I have recently become aware of the main facts of this case through a correspondence in the Press and through representations which have recently been made to my Parliamentary Secretary. I am also satisfied that the area is one of great natural beauty. We have many such areas, not only in Killiney and Killarney but in other parts of the country, of which some Senators are personally aware. I also feel satisfied that Senator Stanford and Senator O'Donnell in raising this matter are motivated by a sincere desire to prevent or forestall any development of the area which would tend to diminish or destroy its natural amenities. I am quite satisfied on that.
Having listened to the facts and having read what has already been written on the matter I think I can safely say that it is a general principle that views and prospects and the amenities of places and features of natural beauty should be preserved. That is one of the general objects of the Town and Regional Planning Acts. But, if I were asked, as I am asked, to ensure that this object is attained in regard to a specific place such as Vico Road, I find that the law lays down certain conditions which bind even the Minister for Local Government. In law, the safeguards available to persons who wish to appeal against decisions of local authorities are, first of all, the right of an aggrieved person to appeal to the courts and, secondly, the right of an injured person or a person not satisfied to appeal to the Minister.
The law goes further and prescribes the method of appeal and it says that such appeal must be brought or made within one month from the making of the decision by the local authority. Much as I am with Senator Stanford and Senator O'Donnell, unfortunately, no such appeal was made within the statutory period. There is the position. I have no function. I cannot go outside the law. Any aggrieved person—and I am certain there were aggrieved persons—had that right of appeal to me or to my predecessor within one month of the making of the order but, unfortunately, the appeal was not made and I have no function.
I feel satisfied also that Senator Stanford's chief anxiety relates to the future. He is anxious that I would consider if there is any way in which my influence could be brought to bear on the local authority in order to prevent what he considers may be the deterioration of the natural features of the district. Again, I am subject to the law. The law, as I have stated, provides a safeguard for all parties who may wish to intervene in such matters and it secures for them a right of appeal to the Minister in relation to specific proposals. The Minister's functions are, therefore, of a quasi-judicial nature. I am sure my learned friend, Senator the Professor, will appreciate that. I have been advised that in this interim phase of planning and control any ministerial expressions of opinion at this particular stage might be held to prejudice the fair and impartial hearing of cases on appeal at a later date. I am sure my friends will appreciate that it would be very unfair for me to give any indication at this stage on a matter in which I would act in a quasi-judicial capacity at a later date.
I do not think, however, that I would be in any way overstepping the limits of ministerial propriety if I were to express the hope that a mutually satisfactory solution of the problem in the near future could be arrived at. I think that possible. I have been informed that local discussions based on the general conditions on which the Acts were originally framed have taken place. I am informed that, as a result of those discussions, an announcement will be made at a meeting of the borough corporation on Tuesday next, 3rd August. I would suggest strongly to the Senators who have spoken here that the viewpoints so ably put forward by them to-day could be put forward to the local authorities and representation made to them.
I am anxious to preserve the natural beauty of such spots as Killiney Bay. Senator Stanford did mention the fact that the person who built this house may have overstepped the sanction given to him and I certainly will inquire and find out if there is any difference between the conditions in the sanction given by the local authority and the specifications to which the House is actually built. I will make these inquiries forthwith but I would also like the Senators to remember that the decisions of previous Ministers may not be reopened by me. Senator the Professor will appreciate the reasons for that. I am completely with both Senators who have spoken but my hands are tied. Unfortunately the aggrieved parties did not appeal within the statutory period and I can do nothing in regard to that. Again, I do not wish to prejudice my quasi-judicial functions by making a pronouncement at this stage as to what I may do on the hearing of future appeals.
I should like to thank the Minister for his statement.