Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 Jul 1963

Vol. 56 No. 22

Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1962— Second Stage.

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

The purpose of the Bill is to provide the legislative framework for the comprehensive, orderly and progressive planning and development of cities, towns and rural areas. The Bill proposes to repeal the Town and Regional Planning Acts, 1934 and 1939, together with certain other statutory provisions which relate to the control of building and development.

The Bill recognises the need for a new and more radical approach to planning problems in this country. The Acts of 1934 and 1939 were adoptive and the planning procedures provided for proved in practice to be so lengthy and cumbersome that local authorities were deterred from producing comprehensive planning schemes for their areas. As a result, while most local authorities have been enforcing some measure of planning control, only one planning scheme—that for the capital, Dublin—has been prepared under the earlier legislation. The Dublin scheme, which was made in 1957, has not come into force as examination showed that it contained defects which could not be overcome by amendment—defects which stemmed from inherent weaknesses in the enabling legislation. Probably the greatest defect of the Acts was that they failed to stimulate a positive approach to planning.

The Bill is intended to provide a more workable and flexible planning system to be operated by planning authorities. The system will enable planning authorities to exercise comprehensive control on development in their areas and, what is more important, to engage in positive development and redevelopment work themselves. It will enable them to facilitate industrial and commercial development and to secure the redevelopment of those parts of built-up areas which have become outmoded, uneconomic or congested; it will also confer wide powers aimed at securing the preservation and improvement of amenities in town and countryside.

Planning authorities will be required to make development plans for their areas within a period of three years. Each development plan will consist of a written statement of development objectives and a plan to illustrate these objectives. Certain minima are prescribed. In the case of cities and towns, these are: zoning of land uses for particular purposes, whether residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural or otherwise; securing the greater convenience and safety of road users and pedestrians by the provision of parking places or road improvements or otherwise; development and renewal of obsolete areas; and preserving and improving amenities.

For rural areas, the plans must include objectives under the headings of: development and renewal of obsolete areas; preserving and improving amenities; provision of new water supplies and sewerage services; in addition to these minimum requirements, a development plan may indicate objectives for many other purposes related to the density and layout of developments and for the provision of schools, churches, recreational facilities and other aspects of community planning.

Progressive expansion in the Irish economy in recent years has brought in its train a considerable increase in constructional activity and in demands on available resources of building land, skilled labour and capital which has served to underline the importance of planning in national physical development. The associated rise in the standards of living has created new levels of expectation and demand.

Our policy of aiming at a progressive improvement in the national economy cannot achieve maximum success unless all sectors of national activity are co-ordinated. In this context a comprehensive system of physical planning is obviously necessary. The direct association between economic planning and physical planning is being increasingly recognised. In its first report the Committee on Housing, Building and Planning of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations have stated that "the Committee was strongly of the opinion that the correct approach to the problems of urbanisation, population distribution and settlement due to social and economic development was by way of comprehensive economic and physical surveys leading to the establishment of economic and physical development plans."

The economic progress that has already been achieved in this country has high-lighted several developments that can only be assessed and catered for on the basis of proper research and planning. As has been the pattern in most other countries, the adoption of more modern methods in agriculture has accelerated a decline in the rural population while the establishment of new industries and the expansion of existing industries has led to an overall growth in urban populations. The growth in urban population has not, of course, been uniform; the population of some urban areas has increased while that of others has declined. With the projected growth in industrial development, however, it is clear that the future trend will be for urban populations to grow at the expense of the rural areas. It is to be expected, however, that a substantial proportion of the population will continue to live in the rural areas and the implementation of the Government's settled policy to improve rural living conditions by the provision of better housing, water and sewerage facilities will be so planned as to achieve the maximum possible level of efficiency in the disposal of the capital expenditure involved.

Planning must also be concerned with using to the best possible advantage the infrastructure of roads, railways, port facilities, hospitals, schools, housing, and water and sewerage services which have been provided by capital expenditure in previous years. Surveys may well show that in some centres the existing infrastructure has unused capacity and that industrial and commercial expansion could take place with little or no capital expenditure on environmental services and facilities. The surveys which are a necessary prerequisite to proper planning will show that in every region and, indeed, in every county centres exist which hold promise of becoming poles of economic growth. The identification and selection of these centres is part of the planning process. The aim would be to encourage industrial and commercial development in those centres so that the expanding opportunities for employment would attract those who inevitably will leave agricultural employment in the surrounding rural areas. According as development proceeds these centres should generate the demand and accumulate the resources necessary for improved amenities and facilities. It is now generally accepted that a good environment materially assists economic expansion.

It is my aim that, following on the passage of this Bill, regional studies should be made with strong support and guidance from my Department in order that the economic objectives of planning that I have outlined will be pressed forward vigorously. Other countries in Europe are using physical planning to advance their economic development and we cannot afford to ignore their example. Indeed, I regard this as probably the most important long-term task facing the local authorities in this country. Planning for growth seeks to develop-dynamic centres which will have the economic strength to prosper and to support the public services, the entertainments, the amenities and the shops which people expect nowadays.

In addition to the movement of population from rural areas to towns and cities, there has been a movement within the towns and cities themselves. Housing development at low densities has been in demand and people have tended to move from central urban and city areas with an attendant increase in urban sprawl and the depreciation of central town and city areas. These are some of the problems with which this Bill is concerned.

In Dublin and in other Irish cities, urban renewal has become necessary just as it has been found necessary in cities in the United States, in Britain and in other parts of Europe. Central areas have become increasingly congested because of traffic and many parts have become outmoded in current conditions of economic growth and change. At the same time, the associated suburban sprawl has aggravated the problems of the central areas. What is needed is comprehensive planning together with adequate powers for the redevelopment and renewal of obsolete areas.

Urban renewal is not possible under the existing law. Hitherto the provision of factory sites and shops and certain other community facilities has been carried out as by-products of other activities such as local authority housing. This position is entirely inadequate. Planning authorities must be given proper powers to cope with the pressing problems which exist in towns and cities. City and town centres, in particular, must be adapted to the motor age. Commercial buildings, such as shops and offices, are too often unsuited to the demands of modern business and it becomes an economic proposition to rebuild them even though the actual structures themselves may be physically sound. A certain amount of redevelopment of individual buildings or small groups of buildings is a normal feature of urban renewal. The results tend, however, to be piecemeal, freezing for, perhaps, generations ahead the existing street pattern which is becoming increasingly outmoded by the mounting volume of car traffic. Where the redevelopment is sufficiently comprehensive the opportunity arises of providing adequately for the conflicting needs of pedestrians and vehicles.

The difficulty hitherto has been that comprehensive redevelopment has been hampered by the fact that urban property is usually split up into a great many parcels in different ownerships. The remedy proposed in the Bill is to empower planning authorities to acquire areas of convenient shape and size where redevelopment is needed. Having assembled the ownerships, they may redevelop the land themselves or may sell or lease it to one or more commercial developers. I think that this is a field which can most successfully be exploited if the planning authority and private developer collaborate. The planning authority will have to borrow to acquire the free-holds but the investment should prove sound. If the planning authority sell central city sites with vacant possession, they should realise a profit. If they decide to lease the sites, the rents should reflect the upward tendency of values in the central area property market. When the area is redeveloped, the ratepayers get the benefit of the increased tax base created by the higher rateable values and there is also the less tangible but very real advantage of greater convenience and efficiency in the redeveloped area.

The need for renewal and redevelopment in central areas is widespread and private investment will find in such renewal and redevelopment a valuable ground for their activity. I feel sure that urban renewal will provide an important field of work for the building industry in the years ahead. In fact, I am aware that there is already, in anticipation of the passing of this Bill, very keen interest on the part of developers of considerable standing and resources in undertaking urban renewal particularly in Dublin. The prospects for Dublin and other cities including the prospects for the building industry in all its aspects are most promising and I intend to facilitate the planning authorities in getting ahead rapidly with the opening up and renewal of obsolete areas. This task is urgent and I would expect that plans for renewal objectives will be prepared with a minimum of delay. I am glad to say that the Dublin Corporation recognise this and that an expert in the field of urban renewal has already been engaged by them to advise on certain aspects of the problem.

The Bill also provides that the planning authority may provide buildings. It is not envisaged that planning authorities would engage in activities which are properly the sphere of private enterprise but in relation to urban renewal a wide diversity of circumstances may arise and it may well be found necessary in some cases for the planning authority to initiate the development by providing some buildings. However, as I have already said, the best results will be achieved if the planning authority use their land acquisition powers and bring private enterprise into collaboration in the redevelopment activities. When the planning authority have acquired the lands they will of course normally advertise the lands inviting offers for the purchase or leasing for redevelopment in accordance with the objectives of the development plan.

Road traffic is another aspect of economic change. It is hardly necessary to dwell upon the impact of the motor car on living conditions in our cities and towns and on our road system generally. It is estimated that the growth in road traffic during the period up to 1970 will be of the order of 7 per cent per annum and that the vehicle population could be expected to grow to a total of over 520,000. The 1962 figure was about 355,000.

It is obvious that with the continuing increase in the number of vehicles on our roads the demands on the road system will become increasingly more serious and the need for the implementation of a well-planned and phased programme of road improvement, particularly on the arterial routes, will become more pressing. There is a strong link between landuse planning and traffic planning. The Bill recognises this and traffic problems including parking problems and the need for the removal of traffic congestion in the major centres of population must be dealt with in the development plans.

Recent rapid developments in the tourist sector and activities in the purchase of land in areas of great scenic importance have in some instances led to undersirable forms of development which, if allowed to proliferate, would cause very serious damage to the character of coast and countryside. Planning must take full account of the value of tourism to the economy and of the importance of amenity preservation and improvement in development plans. The Bill provides not only for defensive planning in this respect through the control over development but it provides also positive powers to enable the planning authorities to improve and develop amenities and create the type of good environment which helps to make for a fuller and better life.

Under the Bill there will be 87 separate planning authorities. The county planning authorities will be responsible for preparing the county development plans and also the development plans for the many towns listed in the First Schedule to the Bill. In so far as county planning is concerned, we have in this country special advantages deriving from the management system and the fact that not in-frequently the county engineer or members of his staff also act as town surveyors. In the Dublin metropolitan region, it has been possible to arrange that a single planning officer will advise all the separate planning authorities. I think it is very important that development plans should be co-ordinated on a county basis and there is specific power in Section 22 of the Bill enabling the Minister to require co-ordination of development plans. While I see no reason why any undue difficulty should arise in planning authorities co-ordinating their proposals within the county framework, it would be my intention to make full use of the powers proposed in Section 22 should it be necessary to do so.

I might mention at this point that the Bill seeks to ensure that local authorities will exercise their planning powers in full, and that they will not restrict themselves to the operation of controls as they have done in the past but that they will make a real effort at positive planning.

When the Act comes into operation, each council will be faced with the very considerable task of working out a policy for the proper planning and development of their area and for the preservation and improvement of its amenities. Within the relatively short space of three years, they must produce a plan which will embody and co-relate their proposals and they will then have to consider objections made by the public. The making of development plans or any variation thereof is a reserved function.

The better the council do their work the less need will there be for day to day supervision of planning control. If any councillor is satisfied that some objective indicated in the plan or written statement has the effect of causing undue hardship or is preventing development which he considers desirable, he can take steps to have the plan amended. In fact each planning authority is required to review its development plan from time to time and at least once every five years and to make in it whatever variations they consider proper.

It must be recognised that the early plans at least will be capable of improvement and will require a great deal of further consideration after they have been made. This is the work which is appropriate to the elected representatives and the work which the Bill has properly allotted to them. The ideal is that the council should lay down the principles and policies to be followed and concentrate on securing whatever clarification or improvement is required from time to time. If at any time it should be necessary to review any particular decision of the manager, the elected representatives can do so and have adequate powers under the County Management Acts to secure the rectification of any decision which they are satisfied is illfounded.

As regards national planning, I am fully in favour of the maximum possible degree of leadership, advice and assistance being given by the central authority. It is my intention to have my Department make a much greater positive contribution to planning in this country than has been possible under the Act of 1934, in which the requirement that the Minister for Local Government must approve each planning scheme restricted the Department's participation in the preliminary work of local planning authorities even where interests of national planning were concerned. This Bill does not provide for ministerial approval of development plans in the future. My Department will make a more positive contribution to the efforts of local authorities in operating this Bill by making available to them advice and assistance in all aspects of physical planning.

Research is essential into many aspects of physical planning and development. These include urban renewal and the economics of urban land use; traffic and physical transportation problems in relation to the existing or proposed roads network; selection and development of centres of potential economic growth; general construction research into building and road development.

I am examining this whole subject of training and research at the moment. It is clear that expert advice must be obtained in these fields and we are seeking ways in which this advice can be secured. The research which I have in mind will supplement the advisory work which my Department will undertake particularly in the sphere of regional and national planning. I have taken steps to have the Department's planning organisation considerably strengthened. In order to augment the overall supply of qualified planners I have secured the cooperation of the Dublin Vocational Education Committee—for which I am most grateful—in providing a two-year post-graduate course in planning for suitably qualified architects, engineers and surveyors. The first course is well under way and I understand that the demand is such that a second course will commence next year. I should like to acknowledge the work which has been put into the organisation and running of these courses by the principal and staff of Bolton Street School of Technology and the honorary officers of the Irish Branch of the Town Planning Institute.

The importance of planning in local government is such that I think we must look ahead to the time when local authorities or groupings of local authorities will employ qualified planning advisers or the chief professional officers will have planning qualifications. Indeed I envisage that in due course the possession of a qualification in planning will become at least a desirable qualification for the top technical posts. In the meantime extensive use can clearly be made of the professional and administrative skills which are found in every local authority establishment. The engineering and architectural organisations in the various local areas have done excellent work over the years in the planning and execution of various structural programmes as well as the work specifically referable to the provisions of the Planning Acts. I have every confidence in their ability to respond to the demands which the new Bill will make on their experience and co-operation and I repeat my assurance of Departmental advice and assistance in these new tasks.

Last year I arranged with the cooperation of the Town Planning Institute for a course of lectures by the President and other leading personalities of the Institute. Public representatives as well as senior local government officials were invited to attend and I am happy to say that widespread appreciation was expressed of the value of these lectures. As I announced at the time I intend to arrange for a further series of lectures. These will be related more directly to the present Bill and to the tasks which will require to be undertaken as soon as the Bill becomes law. I am hoping also that I will find it possible to establish a Summer School in Town Planning in order to provide a regular forum for discussions and lectures.

I think last year's course of lectures and the discussions surrounding this Bill have helped considerably to broaden our appreciation of the contribution which planning can make to national well-being. The imperative need for urban renewal, the rejection of unworthy development by means of development control, the idea of green belts, the preservation and conservation of the best features of town and countryside—all these now commend general acceptance.

Before I leave the subject of training and research, I should like to draw attention to Section 15 of the Bill which enables local authorities to contribute to the funds of any body which provides for training and research in relation to town and regional planning. The making of a decision under this section will be a reserved function.

I am sure that Senators will agree that small towns deserve the special recognition which is given to them in the Bill. No country planning can ignore the role of its towns and villages and, indeed, it is a basic requirement of proper planning and development to survey and decide the particular function which each town has in the community structure of the county. Furthermore, small towns have their own problems including the ever growing problem of traffic and the need for redevelopment which, even though the scale is smaller, are important to these communities. While the Bill does not make it compulsory to prepare plans for towns of less than 1,000 population, I expect that county councils will find it convenient and, in many cases, imperative to prepare separate plans for smaller towns and villages, particularly for centres that reveal growing development potential.

The plans required for small towns may be relatively simple, containing few provisions other than those prescribed as appropriate, whereas the city authorities will require to state objectives for a greater variety of matters and will accordingly have more particularised and complicated plans. In order to simplify the matter, provision is made for the preparation of plans in instalments; plans may be made for part of an area or to show particular objectives such as urban renewal or traffic planning.

Planning and development is a continuous process and it is not possible, therefore, to predict with any degree of certainty the forces, changes, pressures and influences which will affect our towns and countryside in the relatively near future. At the same time, it is not only prudent but essential that we make plans to guide development and to profit from past mistakes. If, as an alternative to the static, rigid type of planning scheme envisaged by the Act of 1934, we are to have flexible planning which will take account of current trends and new developments, then we must provide for periodical review and variation of development plans. Section 20 of the Bill makes periodical review of the plans obligatory.

As I have already said, the Minister's approval is not required to development plans: he will, however, be one of the prescribed authorities to whom copies of development plans must be sent. The others whom it is intended to prescribe and who must then be furnished with prescribed documents include:

(1) An Chomhairle Ealaíon,

(2) An Taisce,

(3) Bord Fáilte Éireann,

(4) The National Monuments Advisory Council,

(5) The Minister for Lands,

(6) The Minister for Industry and Commerce,

(7) The Minister for Defence, and

(8) Any local authority affected.

The purpose of this provision is to enable these bodies to scrutinise the proposals of planning authorities and to make representations for the consideration of the planning authority before the final plan is made. Provision is made in section 21 for the hearing by the planning authority of representations from these authorities or from any member of the public.

Part IV of the Bill sets up the machinery for control of development and for the enforcement of such control. The control procedure is not substantially changed from that existing at present. I would draw attention to the provision in Section 26 that in dealing with applications for permission the planning authority will be restricted to considering the proper planning and development of their area, including the preservation and improvement of its amenities, regard being had to the development plan and to any special amenity area order. Where permission is refused or conditions are imposed the reasons must be stated. Appeals against orders and decisions may be made to the Minister by any person and the criteria governing the determination of application for permission will apply also to the determination of appeals. Under Section 25, it is proposed that regulations shall be made enabling planning authorities to deal with outline applications for permission and when giving permission, to reserve the right of approval of the details until a further application is made.

I would like in particular to draw attention to other matters for which provision is made under Section 25. Regulations may require applicants to publish notices with respect to their applications for planning permission. This could be done either by posting a notice on the site or otherwise. Planning authorities may also be required to furnish to any specified persons information with respect to any applications and the manner in which the applications have been dealt with. The regulations may also require planning authorities to publish any specified information with respect to any applications or decisions on applications. I might point out also that under the Bill every planning authority will be obliged to keep a register in which they will note applications for planning permission, planning decisions and particulars of compensation paid for planning restrictions. These provisions are designed to remedy what I consider to be an unsatisfactory lack of public information in the present planning control system.

Part IV of the Bill also contains provisions for the enforcement of planning controls. It may be noted that in Sections 31, 33 and 35 it is proposed to empower the Minister to require the planning authority to serve an enforcement notice, subject to the appropriate conditions in the Sections being satisfied. One of the enforcement provisions, Section 35, is designed to deal with the problem of unfinished housing estates which has created a most unsatisfactory position in many suburban areas. I intend to take every action open to me to ensure that this problem will not recur in the future and that purchasers of houses will have the assurance that estates will be properly completed by developers and duly taken in charge by the local authorities.

Part V of the Bill recognises that the preservation and improvement of amenities must nowadays have a serious and special place amongst the responsibilities of local authorities. The Bill includes positive provisions for the preservation of existing amenities and for the development of new amenity features. Areas of special amenity are provided for in Section 42. An area of special amenity by reason of its natural beauty or scenic or other amenities, including recreational utility, may be made the subject of an Order by the planning authority under this section.

The making of an amenity order is a reserved function. The order comes into operation on being confirmed and may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order. The Bill requires the planning authority to review the matter from time to time and at least once in every period of five years for the purpose of deciding whether it is desirable to revoke or amend the order.

The purpose of an order under Section 42 is to establish for the information of land owners, developers, and the public generally, that a particular area of land is under control of a specified nature. The order may provide for no development or for specified development only being permitted under the Act or may restrict development to a limited part of the area. Alternatively, the order may impose limitations on the number of structures of any specified class which may be erected in any part of the area.

The order may be employed to preserve the areas of great natural beauty which are now threatened with development. Areas of this kind are national—indeed one might say international—assets and form part of the raw material of our tourist industry. Spoliation, whether by haphazard erection of insensitive developments such as buildings, filling stations, advertisement hoardings, or use for temporary huts or caravans, must be discouraged and, where necessary, prevented. An order under this section may also be utilised to establish the precise boundaries and nature of development control in a green belt area. Amenity area orders must be reviewed at intervals in justice to the persons with land interests in the area, and also to allow of any expansion of built up areas that may be found to be essential. It is also the case that the present concept of what is an amenity area may alter with the growth in motor traffic and the consequential greater mobility of people.

The protection of good scenery is but one of the conservation problems with which this Bill is concerned. The associated problem of protecting views and prospects of special amenity value or interest is also the subject of special provisions. Other provisions in the Bill are designed to make possible a system of nature conservation, that is, the protection of rare botanical or zoological species including the preservation of restricted sites or habitats of such species. Provision is also made for the preservation of natural communities of plant life such as primaeval woodlands and for the preservation of geological sites or features of special interest such as fossil sites and sites of rare rock structure.

I appreciate that nature conservation is a rather specialist field and that planning authorities will need guidance and assistance, particularly in relation to flora and fauna which can be of such interest to our own people and to the many visiting botanists and ornithologists, etc. The Bill provides, accordingly, that the making and administration of conservation orders will be subject to consultation with the prescribed authorities. I am happy to say that An Taisce have agreed to be one of the authorities for the purposes of this section and I should like to express my appreciation of their assistance in the drafting of this section. A sub-committee of An Taisce have been appointed by that body to prepare material relating to specific conservation problems in this country and I look forward to fruitful collaboration with them in our efforts to establish a system of nature conservation which is a matter of increasing urgency in view of the extension of building developments and the greater mobility of people both here and in other parts of Western Europe.

Part VI of the Bill deals with compensation. Section 55 provides for compensation in respect of planning restrictions as they arise, that is, when the planning authority refuses permission or grants conditional permission for development, subject to the claim being made within six months of the relevant decision or within such longer period as the circuit court may in any particular case allow. The Act of 1934 did not provide for compensation on foot of interim control directions; the Act of 1939 allowed some concession in cases of hardship but otherwise a planning scheme had to be in operation and claims had to be related to the restrictions imposed by such a scheme. The basis of compensation was the reduction in the value of the claimant's estate or interest in the property and, in the case of an occupier of such property, the damage, if any, to his trade, business or profession, occasioned by such restrictions. This basis is preserved in Section 55.

Subsection (2) sets out generally accepted principles for the purpose of removing any doubt which might arise on these points. The effect of a refusal of permission for a particular development project need not be to sterilise the site completely. Accordingly, in determining reduction of value, regard must be had to any alternative development for which permission is available or which the planning authority undertake to permit. Regard must also be had to the fact that exempted development may be carried out without permission. On the other hand, reasonable allowance must be made for the fact that certain minimum requirements and standards would have to be complied with if the development were permitted —these are covered by the references to Section 26 and Section 56.

Where permission for development has been refused and no undertaking has been given that permission would be granted for alternative development, the reduction in value of the land will be determined on the assumption that no permission would be granted for any development on the land. Provision is made to this effect in subsection (3). In other words, the compensation in such circumstances would be calculated on the basis that the land would be sterilised except in so far as exempted development could be carried out.

Section 55 also provides that compensation shall not be payable in respect of any interest in land which it is the duty of the planning authority to acquire under Section 29. This duty arises only if the owner claims that the land is incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state and elects to serve a purchase notice; in other words, he has a choice of claiming for loss of value or, if the land is useless, of disposing of it to the planning authority.

Section 56 sets out a number of matters in respect of which planning restrictions may be imposed without liability for compensation. It has long been recognised that it is not in the public interest that property owners should have unrestricted rights to use, develop or exploit their property as they see fit. Property carries obligations as well as rights and the Constitution, while recognising rights of private property, provides that such rights may be delimited by law.

Section 57 further restricts the liability of a planning authority to pay compensation in respect of the refusal of permission for development, if, when a claim is made for compensation, the planning authority undertake to grant or have already granted permission for development of a residential, commercial or industrial character, or any combination thereof. This is really an extension of the provisions in regard to zoning; for example, if an area is zoned for residential purposes, no compensation would be payable in respect of a refusal of permission for the erection of, say, a factory in such zone. Residential development would of course be permitted.

Section 58 provides for certain relaxations of the restrictions on payment of compensation contained in Sections 56 and 57. The Minister may make an order declaring that he is satisfied that it would not be just and reasonable in the particular circumstances that payment of compensation should be prevented. This provision brings the Bill close to the provisions in the present Acts which relate to compensation.

If a permission is revoked or modified under Section 30 compensation may be claimed under Section 59. Compensation is payable on the same basis as if the permission were refused in the first instance or, where the permission is modified by the imposition of conditions, compensation is payable as if the conditions were imposed when the permission was granted originally. In either case if the revocation or modification renders abortive works already carried out in pursuance of the permission originally granted, this section requires that the planning authority shall pay compensation in respect of the expenditure incurred. The claim under this head may include expenditure reasonably incurred in the preparation of plans or upon other similar matters preparatory to the carrying out of the works. As an alternative to a claim under this section, a purchase notice may be served under Section 29 and, if the notice is confirmed by the Minister or accepted by the planning authority, no compensation will be payable under the section.

Section 60 deals with compensation for the removal or alteration of any structure under Section 36, that is, a structure other than an unauthorised structure, and Section 61 with compensation for damage suffered by the depreciation of any interest in land as a result of the discontinuance of any use of land consequent on a notice under Section 37. Other compensation provisions are made in Section 62 which relates to the removal or alteration of hedges consequent upon a notice under Section 44, Section 63 which relates to the compulsory creation of a public right of way, Section 64 which relates to powers of entry on land and Section 65 which relates to cables, wires and pipe lines passing through or over land other than a public road.

Section 66 provides for claims which may be made for compensation in respect of planning restrictions imposed under the present Acts. The existing position is that no liability falls on the planning authority until they have brought a scheme into operation. Affected property owners may then make their claim under Section 61 of the 1934 Act in respect of the covering provisions in the scheme. If the scheme contains no covering provisions for the interim directions, compensation may be payable under Section 64 of the 1934 Act for unnecessary refusal of permission or making of a prohibition. Compensation might also be claimed under Section 60 of the 1934 Act in respect of any reduction in the value of property arising out of compliance with any condition attached to an interim direction. Section 66 of the Bill aims at preserving the rights which have accrued under the 1934 Act.

Sections 68 and 69 provide that compensation for planning restrictions and for land acquisition shall, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, as amended by the Fourth Schedule to the Bill. The basis of compensation in the 1919 Act is market value. This basis is being preserved: the additional rules set out in the Fourth Schedule are simply a recognition that land-use planning has become one of the facts of life.

The principal object of Part VII of the Bill is to give planning authorities positive powers to secure, facilitate and carry out development. Hitherto, planning authorities have tended to concentrate on the restrictive aspect of their function. This Bill envisages that in the future planning authorities will actively promote development. I have already referred to urban renewal. This part of the Bill is designed to make urban renewal possible.

Part VIII of the Bill contains a number of miscellaneous provisions including a provision relating to the oral hearings of appeals and a provision binding State authorities not to carry out the construction or extension of any building without consultation with the appropriate planning authority. Section 85 enables a planning authority to run cables, wires or pipelines over land and these powers may usefully be employed to facilitate such developments as relay television services and the transport of commodities by pipe-line.

The new building regulations envisaged in Section 86 will provide in a more flexible, modern and comprehensive form, a uniform building code which will operate throughout the whole country. The regulations will enable the control of building to be kept in harmony with developments in building techniques and the use of new materials.

Senators will note from reading the Third Schedule that the purposes for which objectives may be indicated in the development plans give wide scope for comprehensive planning. The first item in the Schedule represents the most pressing and unfortunately the most formidable of all the objectives —the objectives of securing the greater convenience and safety of road users and pedestrians. This Bill gives strong powers to control development so that future unnecessary traffic hazards and certain obvious sources of serious traffic congestion can be prevented. The Bill also gives positive powers to secure or carry out developments which will afford an easement in present traffic congestion and help to adjust the urban environment, in particular, to the needs of the pedestrian and the motorist. There is no simple solution. Every country in the world is in one degree or another grappling with this problem. In new towns and in urban redevelopment schemes the general aim is to divorce pedestrians from moving vehicles as far as possible. In many cities improved systems of mass transportation are being adopted or studied. New roads and large-scale parking provision in central areas involve the risk of the motor vehicle taking over. Los Angeles is noted for its system of motor freeways and its central carparking facilities. I was told at a conference there that 68 per cent of the "downtown" area is now given over to roads and carparks.

As I have said earlier this Bill will seek to secure comprehensive planning of land use. The long-term prospective growth of our larger towns and of our cities will require careful planning on a national and regional basis as well as on a county basis. The planning of Dublin in particular must be studied on a regional basis. Urban growth in general is to be welcomed because therein lies our hope of an increasing population. Our aim in operating the Bill must be to ensure that urban growth is not accompanied by loss of amenity, by inconvenience and by economic waste, but rather that our citizens should enjoy the benefits of well-planned environments.

The main principles of this Bill can hardly be matters of contention in the Seanad. Nevertheless, the Bill is so important, the matters with which it deals so fundamental not only to local government but to the whole life of the people, and the possibilities under the Bill so limitless, that I think it deserves a thorough discussion by the House. Consequently, while there is very little on which I would differ from the Minister in what he has said in introducing the Bill, nevertheless, there are many points I should like to raise by way of comment.

In approaching this Bill, one might adopt any one of several different courses. One could discuss the deficiencies of the present planning code as we have known it since 1934, and go on to discuss the best means of overcoming the deficiencies in the planning history during those 29 years. To go on that basis alone, however, might be harmful, because we would be subject to the temptation of trying to amend our planning code, and trying to put into force for the future, a code which would be suitable only for what has happened over the past 29 years. While much of what happened during those years is relevant to what we can do now, it is by no means the complete story. Indeed, what might well have worked during those years, might not work in the years ahead.

One could perhaps look at the provisions of the Bill in detail, and compare them with the practice elsewhere and, as it were, attempt and essay in comparative planning legislation. This, too, is something that should be part of our examination of the Minister's planning proposals, but, again, it would be very far from giving us the full story, because planning is so much of the essence of the life of the whole community. It affects so much the government of the country at national, regional and local levels. What is done elsewhere can only give us guides and pointers to what we might do. To import into this country what has worked in detail in other countries might well be harmful rather than beneficial.

Another approach would be to attempt to clarify what should be our planning objectives, to look at the national objectives, the regional objectives and the local objectives, and to discuss in a more or less academic way what are the best means of achieving those objectives, whether by setting up some sort of system of self-adjusting mechanisms or by setting up a system of controls of detail.

This Bill could, of course, be viewed in a larger context because, while planning affects very many things, affects nearly all parts of our national life, it is not indeed the whole of the story. The Minister's proposals could be viewed in the light of some things which are relevant to what is proposed in the Bill but have not been the subject of comment by him in his introductory speech here today or the subject of debate during the passage of the Bill in Dáil Éireann. In the long discussion that has gone on over the past 12 months concerning this planning Bill, there have been some notable omissions from the discussion.

There has been a very noticeable absence of a discussion, other than by brief reference, of regional planning and its objectives and of national planning and its objectives. These proposals seem to have been taken as if they were something which could easily be co-ordinated, as if they merely needed somebody to come along and tie up a few loose strings here and there. This has been a serious omission from the debate that has taken place on this measure.

Just as public involvement is important at the local level—and I agree heartily with the Minister in what he has done in making the authorities under this Bill as local as possible— public involvement is equally necessary at the regional and national level. While there is provision for administrative action at regional and at national level, there seems to be hardly any provision at all for public involvement, for consultation, at these higher levels.

A further omission one notices in the discussion on this Bill is that of any reference to the problems involved in local taxation and local finance, which are highly relevant to the problem of planning. It is all right to say that these are matters that are at present under review, that the position in this regard will be taken into account and that no matter what decisions are taken, they can be woven into the planning fabric. However, there are some matters in regard to local finance that are absolutely fundamental to planning. In particular, there is the vexed question of the rating of site values which is highly relevant to the problem of urban development.

It is also a matter of personal regret to me that the opportunity has not been taken on this Bill of making a thorough examination of the problem of administrative tribunals of which planning is only one instance. Here in the case of the planning Bill, there might well have been a good opportunity for a general review of this question. As I say, there are many possible approaches to the Bill and it is well for us in this debate to combine these and look at the Bill from many points of view because the problem is so big that it can be viewed from many aspects with benefit to the debate.

If we examine this Bill first from the point of view of looking back on what happened under the 1934 code, the question we must ask ourselves is: to the extent that it failed, why did the 1934 planning code fail? The Minister has said—and I think practically everyone will agree with him—that the main reasons for the failure of this code were that the procedure was too complete, too rigid, that it was impossible to collect betterment, and that the planning was essentially negative in effect. However, in addition to these aspects, there was a failure, which is a failure about which we can do nothing legislatively and which may recur under the new code, in regard to public opinion.

This failure was fundamental to the operation of the planning code under the 1934 Act. There was a lack of involvement and a lack of participation on the part of the public. This attitude was broken for a very short period immediately after the war. If we look back, we will remember that at this time there was a national planning exhibition held in the Mansion House here in Dublin. There was a great amount of talk and debate about post-war planning but somehow such public enthusiasm as was generated then seemed to be let slip, seemed to pass into other channels and advantage was not taken of it. Here lies one of the greatest dangers to any planning code and here lies what must be one of the great preoccupations of the Minister and his advisers in trying to bring this new code to fruition.

All countries have had during times of their history periods during which the public attitude to planning, the public attitude to amenities, has left very much to be desired. In this country, there is absolutely no doubt that there are reasons in the past for our neglect of the external appearances of the communities in which we live. There has been down through the years a concentration on verbal expression as the subject matter of aesthetic effort. In recent years, there has been a recovery in this respect but this is something in regard to which we shall have to move far more quickly than we have been moving. There must be found a way in which there will be a public sanction for planning. Otherwise the Minister will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry through major projects of urban redevelopment. Unless public sanction is available, unless the public really agree that compulsory powers should be used for this purpose, unless the public agree that the authority of the corporation of their city should be used in their approach to private property, then no amount of administrative expertise will make urban redevelopment work.

In the provisions in the Bill as it stands, there are many new features. I do not intend to comment on them all. However, there are a few which are so outstanding that I should like to make a few points in regard to them. First, there is the provision of a new and more flexible system of planning; secondly, we have improved control in regard to amenities; thirdly, we have revised compensation and betterment provisions; and, fourthly, the provision for urban redevelopment.

In regard to the development plan, which is dealt with in Part III of the Bill, there are many very welcome features. I think it is widely recognised that the Minister is wise in making the planning of every area in this country a matter not of choice but of obligation and that he is wise, too, in providing that planning should be something which can, where necessary, be done in stages rather than something to be done once for all. But there are certain dangers in regard to this. While we are all essentially in agreement that in the 1934 Act the plan upon which everything depended had to be a matter of such great detail that planning itself seemed to be stultified by the requirement that everything had to go into the plan, we must also recognise that in the code which the Minister now proposes to us there may be a danger of going too far in the opposite direction. There may be a danger in putting too little in the plan. Here one could refer to the list of minimum objectives given in Section 19 of the Bill. I wonder if that list of minimum objectives should not be somewhat more extensive by the inclusion, as a matter of obligation rather than permission, of some of the objectives which are given in the Schedules to the Bill? We must recognise that a tentative and timid plan might be as great a danger as a rigid plan under the 1934 code.

Here I should like to raise a point which is not clear from reading the Bill, that is, as to the nature of what is to be included in the development plan. The word "objective" is used in the Bill. This is in contrast to the 1947 Act in Britain, from which, it will be recognised, many provisions of the present Bill are derived. In Britain, the development plan consists not of objectives but of proposals. I should like to ask the Minister is there significance in the changing of the wording in this respect. Are the objectives which are to be in the development plan in our Bill to be really solid proposals for action, or would the planning authority meet their statutory objectives by putting in mere pious intentions in regard to what they hope to do? On reading the Bill, I find it difficult to see where the duty is laid on the planning authority to do more than to state these objectives.

As I see it, a development plan, whether drawn up under our code or under the British code, would contain a number of different things. It would contain some forecasts of varying degrees of reliability. It would contain certainly some intentions on the part of the local authority. It would contain absolutely firm proposals on the part of the local authority. I should be glad if the Minister could give us some information as to how firm the local authority will have to be in this particular respect. I quite appreciate the Minister will, in the model clauses he will issue under this Bill, produce a development plan which will make solid propositions. As the Minister said in his introductory statement, it is no longer his function to approve a plan and the local authority might well be able to get away with something less and something more tentative.

The same point arises in regard to the review of the development plan. This, also, is a most excellent idea, but, again, we find a difference in wording between the British Act and our Bill, which is otherwise so similar in many respects. The Minister lays the obligation on the local authority to review their development plan. Again "review" is a somewhat vague word. A local authority might meet their obligation to "review" by skimping their business to a certain extent. If we look at the similar section in the 1947 Act in Britain, we do not find the word "review"; we find an obligation on the local authority to make an new survey. This is something more definite. One could review a plan by looking at it and asking a few questions, but to survey means you go out and see how the plan has worked out in practice. Here, again, the difference in wording is in the same direction—a tightness of wording in the British legislation which does not occur in ours.

It is good there should be freedom and flexibility. All I want to raise in regard to these two provisions is that this flexibility should not be used as a justification for a lack of diligence in carrying out the work. I mentioned previously that the lack of specific consultative machinery at regional level is distinctly to be regretted. This is something that could be set up on an informal basis following the passing of the Bill. But I think consultative regional planning committees could better have been given statutory existence in the present Bill.

In regard to the question of the development plan and the various objectives which can be brought in, there is a further difference of wording as between the British Acts and our own on which I should like to comment. I have not been able to find in the present Bill any reference to flooding in regard to planning, whereas flooding is specifically mentioned in the British 1954 Act. Since the Minister has gone into so much detail in the Bill in laying out in the Schedules the various points which can be covered, this might well have been specifically covered. Undoubtedly, flooding due to surface water is covered to a certain extent by the necessary provision of drains, but the provision of drains according to ordinary standards will not prevent all surface water flooding and it will not prevent flooding due to the overflow of a river. I should be glad if the Minister could tell me where this particular matter is covered in the Bill in regard to the question of the refusal of permission and in regard to restrictions on compensation.

In regard to Part IV—control of development—everyone will be in general agreement with the way in which this has been tackled. There will be points of detail in regard to the operation of this Part, which is rather complicated, but I do not think there is any reason to delay on them on the Second Stage. There is one point I should like to raise in regard to the development plan and it is cognate to something I mentioned already. It would be deplorable if there were any element of uncertainty in the development plan. It should be recognised that if there is any uncertainty at all in regard to the intention of the local authorities—and this uncertainty could arise due to planning in stages or to making a tentative plan first, to be followed up by a later review—such uncertainty nearly always involves an economic cost. Although the amount will always be extremely difficult to compute, nevertheless the value of land could be depressed due to uncertainty in regard to the intention of the local authority.

Part V which deals with control of amenity contains many excellent provisions. There were, of course, powers in regard to control of amenity under the 1934 Act and it is possible to make a special prohibition under the existing Acts on the ground of amenity but my impression is that these provisions in the existing code were not widely availed of. Whether or not this impression is correct, I hope that a great deal more will be done under this Bill than was done in the past in this respect. The execution of these amenity powers of course depends essentially on the attitude of the members of the local authority and it is sincerely to be hoped that they all recognise their very grave responsibility in this respect. As an ex-member of a local authority I can say that it is never very easy for a person in that position, subject to election, to choose a long-term intangible provision over an immediate and obvious advantage but in this particular instance it is absolutely vital that it should be done.

There is one point in regard to the making of an amenity order that rather worries me. I take it that if an amenity order is made and becomes the subject of an inquiry, the only objection that could be taken would be to reduce the order and that nobody could make a case to extend it. I should like very much to be wrong on that point and I should like to ask the Minister if he could indicate what the position is, whether a case could be made at an inquiry to extend an amenity order or whether any body, such as An Taisce, would have any standing at such an inquiry. The Minister has provided for consultative bodies but would they have any standing at an inquiry where an amenity was being opposed?

The provisions in regard to conservation are very welcome. Such conservation is not a matter merely of giving pleasure to people but it is also a question of real education, education of a particularly valuable form, and also at times a matter of scientific research. In Britain, the National Conservancy employs over 100 full-time scientists on their work. Here we will probably go slowly at first but I congratulate the Minister on taking the first step in this regard.

In regard to Part VI, which deals with compensation and betterment, these are both somewhat less than they were under the existing code. Indeed, betterment is now abolished except for the recovery of contributions from a developer under Section 26. This change, of course, is in the direction of the main stream of development of local government finance, not only in regard to the question of betterment but in regard to local government charges also. The whole idea of such charges, the whole idea of the beneficiary paying towards the cost is going; Bill by Bill, its scope becomes less. The Minister may find even this small provision so very difficult to operate in practice that it may well go in the next Planning Bill. The explanatory memorandum tells us that there is no real extension of the restriction on compensation and this is probably only to be expected since there was a very general power in the 1934 Act to include restriction on compensation in the plan itself. Under the present Bill, however, compensation takes effect only on refusal of an application.

Part VII of the Bill deals with the powers in regard to urban redevelopment and here indeed the Minister is to be congratulated on moving in this direction at the present time. This is a problem in all countries and in all cities but it is a problem that has not yet become intensive in this country, outside Dublin. Nevertheless, the Minister is to be congratulated on moving quickly in this regard. Indeed, in many other countries they would have been very well advised to have moved earlier and moved at our stage of development. The life cycle of cities seems to follow the same general course, although, of necessity, there are substantial individual deviations. This problem of central blight has turned up in cities all over the world, cities in which the civic organisation, civic taxation and the whole manner of living is substantially different. This natural process can be modified by human action and indeed it can be modified either for good or for bad.

A recent debate in the British House of Commons dealt at length with the problem that came to light in certain boroughs of London whereby the change of use of property in a highly concentrated area was manipulated for individual profit. Indeed, this particular type of manipulation will probably enter the literature as "Rachmanism". It is also possible that this cycle, which, if left alone, might take many years to complete, can be modified and controlled in the public interest. I think now is the time to act. In the past few years, we have seen the tendency in Dublin towards a realisation of what site values in a city really mean. We have seen in the past few years for the first time substantial buyings of buildings in Dublin city for their site value alone. However, we still lag behind many other cities in this respect.

I think, also, this is the time to act on central redevelopment because, as yet, we are not at the same straits of desperation in regard to city traffic as many other cities. If urban redevelopment is to be carried out and if the benefits which are undoubted are to be retained, then I think it must be recognised that this requires a peculiar team effort, that this is something that calls for co-operation among many interests. It is not a matter for the experts in the local authority or in the Minister's Department. They are one party only, one member of the team. It is also a matter for the members of a local authority. It is a matter—and, indeed, I hope it will increasingly be a matter, as the Minister indicated in his speech —for private investors.

I would stress that the community must not be forgotten and that it will not be sufficient merely to get the assent of the elected members unless public opinion, as such, outside the council of the local authority can be generated in favour of a proposal. There is no doubt that all of those different parties will agree in principle that urban redevelopment is necessary but agreement in principle and the question of hammering out and getting final approval of a definite specific scheme are two quite different things.

In regard to urban redevelopment, I should like to raise with the Minister the question of what is to be contained in the development plan. It is not clear from the Bill, as I read it, whether any proposal for urban redevelopment must be spelled out in detail in the development plan. The British 1947 Act is absolutely specific on this point. The British 1947 Act says that all proposals for the compulsory acquisition of land must be part of the development plan. I understand that it is all proposals up to a period of ten years but I am speaking from memory on this point.

Failure automatically to follow the similar provision in the British Act raises this question in my mind. The matter of urban redevelopment is so important and needs so much for its success to be sanctioned by the public that the actual proposal itself should be part of the development plan and should be a reserved function of the local authority rather than something which would be carried out under the control of development in accordance with an objective in the development plan.

If there is not to be an absolute obligation for schemes of urban redevelopment of material size to be included, as such, in the development plan then there should be provision in the section in regard to urban redevelopment for the special consideration of these schemes. There will be many difficulties in urban redevelopment. It will need careful, tedious work. Indeed, that alone will not suffice. No amount of hard work and no amount of administrative ability will guarantee you good architecture and guarantee you a proper redevelopment—the three-dimensional development of a central city area of which the community and the local authority can be proud. It is something that will involve very heavy capital expenditure on which there will be in many instances a relatively slow return. It must compete with other capital requirements and must have, either directly or indirectly, the approval of the community.

I say these things not because I am against urban redevelopment but because I am for it. It would indeed be a tragedy if we were to underestimate the difficulties of urban redevelopment and to fail due to that underestimation. My attitude is that we should not underestimate either its difficulties or its importance.

Before concluding, I should like to make a few further remarks about the relation of this Bill and planning under it to the larger context of our national life and to return to a point I made earlier that the national objectives of planning policy have been insufficiently defined. Something the Minister said in his introductory speech gives me an example in this particular respect when he referred to the generation of a focus of industrial development within a town or within an area.

This question of location of industry is one on which there is a great deal of doubt at present. In recent years we have had a certain amount of change in regard to policy on this matter. First of all, there was the policy of giving preference to undeveloped areas. In the past 12 months, we have seen the advantages of the undeveloped areas reduced by the passage of legislation in regard to industrial grants. Indeed, if we look at the Fourth Interim Report of the Committee on Industrial Organisation in regard to industrial grants there is a further point here which has not been debated in public to anything like the extent that its importance warrants and it is something that is absolutely essential from the point of view of planning.

The location of industry is an absolute prerequisite to any planning policy. In paragraph 43, page 16, of the fourth interim report of the Committee on Industrial Organisation which was presented in December, 1962, the main conclusions emerging from their general considerations of industrial grants policy are summarised, and the second point which they make is:

...The policy of decentralisation should be continued but in such a way as to give the maximum help to the general policy of economic development under free trade conditions. We believe that this will be achieved if a small number of centres are selected for major industrial development and effort concentrated on these. If the selected centres are to develop as rapidly as possible, then steps must be taken, in addition to the payment of grants, to encourage the growth in them of the basic industrial services and of a favourable economic and psychological climate.

Here the Commission on Industrial Organisation have proposed as the best policy in regard to industrial grants with a view to free trade conditions the selection of a small number of areas for major industrial development. Until there is a decision from the Government in regard to this point and, indeed, until these small number of areas for industrial development have been selected, planning in all areas may be inhibited and, of course, the position is that planning will have to commence in effect as soon as the Bill becomes law.

In Britain, they have discussed repeatedly this question of the policy in regard to the location of industry and it is something about which in this country we must have the position made absolutely clear. Otherwise, we shall find each individual planning authority going its own way, thinking that it is equal in its position in regard to grants, only to have the position suddenly changed, only to find that perhaps—this will apply to the majority—they are not on the select list of a small number of areas to be selected for major development. This is an example of where objectives must be absolutely clear before any planning in the real sense can take place.

Again, there is the difficulty of local government finance. I think that is something on which planning requires an early decision if planning is not to be inhibited in its operation. In this respect, one of the primary points for discussion is the problem of the rating of site values as opposed to our present rating system. It is generally accepted that rating of site values encourages the development of land which is not being used to its capacity. In this way, it would be a powerful force for assisting urban redevelopment. Also, if we had some system akin to the rating of site values, we would have an alternative to the recovery of betterment from developers because once a local authority had by any action improved the capabilities of a site, the local authority would be recouped for what it had done by the fact that the tax basis of this particular property would thereby be raised.

I am not putting this forward as something better than what is in the Bill but as something which must be taken into account and which should have been taken into account in the drafting of the Bill. It must certainly be taken into account in the operation of the Bill from the very beginning.

Another point I touched on briefly earlier is that opportunity had been lost of examining from top to bottom, in the context of this country, the problem of administrative tribunals, the problem of trying to get a compromise somewhere between a decision of one man in an office made on the basis of a paper file on the one hand and a full scale public inquiry for all cases with senior counsel for all interests on the other. The importance of this problem arises from the fact, which I have repeatedly expressed in my comments in this Bill, that planning is something to do with the public and we must be very careful what the public think of it. I think the essence of planning decisions in this particular context must be, not so much that we should look to administrative convenience, not so much that we should be concerned only with the most rapid way of getting at the correct solution but that we should ensure at all times that the public are satisfied with the decision reached. Not necessarily the individual person concerned but the general public as a whole, who may at any time themselves be concerned in such a process, should be absolutely satisfied in this respect.

This is not a matter of constitutional rights but frankly one of good administration. On the point of constitutional rights, a standard work on the subject of modern constitutions has said that a classic example of giving a right with one hand and taking it back with the other is the right of private property as guaranteed in our Constitution. I have no objection to this position because I believe it is the proper position—that individual property rights should not be allowed to stand up in the face of public interest, provided the balance between the two is determined in such a manner that the public interest is not indirectly damaged by public approval or satisfaction not being properly taken into account. It is a matter of good administration in the sense that, without proper public relations, without a proper regard at all times for what the public are thinking in respect of it, no administrative machinery, however internally efficient, can be said to be good administration.

In conclusion, may I say that we have here a Bill with which we can do much. I think what we need to do in operating this Bill is to look to the future in the sense that I think our planning must, in a way, itself be planned. There has been some slowness in the recruitment of staff. I appreciate the Minister's difficulties in this respect but I think there should be no further delay on the question, not so much of the recruitment as the training of staff, so that they can be properly recruited. This is a problem that should be treated as a matter of great urgency.

Secondly, the whole question of the education of the public and relations with the public should be as much the concern of the Minister as the drafting of regulations and the setting of the Bill into operation. In the actual operation of the Bill, I think what we need, what is needed by local authorities from the Bill which the Oireachtas is to give them, is originality and imagination, always of course avoiding the error of novelty for novelty's sake. This Bill which the Minister has recommended to the House presents our local authorities with a very great opportunity and I think we all hope that they make the most of it.

First, I should like to congratulate the Minister on this Bill, and secondly, to thank him for the very informative introduction which he gave us this afternoon. My own hope is that this Bill may mark the end of an era in our country, the end of the era of building and living too much for the immediate present with carelessness for the natural and historic beauties of our country and recklessness towards what would happen in the future. We are now trying to take a broader view, looking to what was good in the past, to what is good in the present, and to what will be needed in the future.

Personally, I am optimistic both about the direct and indirect effects of the Bill. Let me refer briefly first to the probable indirect effects. I believe that, properly presented to the country as a whole, this Bill might bring about a resurgence of local patriotism, of pride in one's own locality, and affection for the part of the country in which one lives, affection for works of art or nature, for buildings and for landscape. I would particularly commend the Minister for the efforts he has made to educate the public in matters of this kind. Up to the moment, his efforts, as he described them earlier this afternoon, have been largely on the technical side. He has instructed people in town planning and tried to interest them more.

I would plead with him or else, through him, to the Minister for Education, to make this Bill one of general educational and patriotic value. Some weeks ago on the Electoral Bill, I suggested that a booklet might be produced for the schools explaining the rights and privileges of our electoral system. The Minister in his reply was not very enthusiastic, for obvious reasons. Here, however, I think we have a much greater opportunity. I believe that a well-produced booklet from the Department of Education telling the children what to value in their own locality, what we want to preserve, what we want to improve and what we want to build for the future, would have a very fine effect on school children throughout the whole country. I hope that the Minister will consider asking the Department of Education to do something of that kind.

I should like to add a word of congratulation to the Minister on his appearance as a film star in some films which he kindly showed to us in one of the Dublin cinemas a few months ago. He appeared himself with great success. I hope that none of the Hollywood spies were about at the time. I should like to refer particularly to the fine film on providing a piped water supply to a lonely country house. It was an excellently produced film, exciting and vivid, and at times moving, and I would congratulate him and those who were associated with making the film. I hope we will have more and more of that kind of thing.

To come to the Bill itself, I shall confine myself almost entirely to Part V dealing with "amenities" as we call them. That is a fine word in origin. The Latin word amoenitas:“loveliness,”“the quality of delightfulness” in scenery or in peoples—that is where we get the word “amenity” from. It is a rather colourless word as we use it. But it is charged with history and could mean a great deal at the present time.

The Part concerning amenities implies two main principles. The first is the right of citizens in general to enjoy certain amenities of our country. In the past we have suffered from high walls and harsh landlords. But we have come out of that era and are looking now to a time when the majority of our people can enjoy the best things of our country with reasonable freedom. Section 48 deals with rights of way and this is a matter of importance, especially to country people. I live myself almost in the country in Dalkey and we have had to fight hard by local effort in recent times to preserve our picturesque and charming rights of way there. On one occasion, I personally instructed my children to remove barriers which had been put across a right of way. They showed more enthusiasm than I had intended and I had to apologise subsequently to one local landowner. Unless there is constant vigilance in preserving rights of way, one of the choicest features of rural Ireland may be lost.

There has been a good deal of complaint lately about the "German invasion", especially in Cork and Kerry. I am sure the Minister has read, with how much joy I cannot imagine, the articles which appeared in the Irish Times on September 5th, 6th and 7th 1962, by Mr. Michael Viney. I think that one case he quoted deserves to be heard in the House. I quote the first article of September 5th, 1962:

About 12 miles from Cork is the little cove of Ringabella. It can only be reached by land through the 90 acre estate of Ringabella House. This has been private property for many years but access to the strand has always been taken for granted by the visitors from Cork, by tenants of holiday cottages at the edge of the estate and by the boys brought from Cork by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for a holiday in a chalet near the gates of the estate.

The estate has now been bought by a German gentleman and his wife who purchased it in the belief that the estate and strand were totally private. Then they found to their surprise that certain people had rights of access and they took very stringent measures to keep those people out. The result was very bad feeling in that part of the country.

That is happening a good deal. It would not be fair to say that this is simply a Germanic attitude. In fact, the sea-coast of Wicklow has for many years now been inaccessible in large tracts of country. Some landlords refuse to let anyone in. Some are more tolerant and allow people to go through. Others make a charge for access to the sea. Rights of private property are involved here. I know, as well as the Minister knows it, that it is a very difficult problem to keep the balance between the two. One solution which might help, I suggest, is that this country needs a greater number of scenic coast roads. When I go to Greece, as I hope to do in three or four weeks' time, one of the greatest delights in visiting that country will be the new scenic roads, one in particular from Athens to Sunium, quite new, crossing private land no doubt, which has been acquired. It is an immense acquisition to the country as a whole. If, with care for private rights, we can do something of that kind along the coast of Wicklow and around the coast of Kerry and Cork, it would not merely solve the particular problem of access to the sea but would also add to our tourist possibilities.

I turn now to the second principle which is involved, I think, in this question of amenities. It is an aesthetic principle, the principle of good taste. Here, of course, there is room for endless controversy, too. To take the terms of Section 42:

Where it appears to the planning authority that an area is an area of special amenity by reason of—

(a) its natural beauty, or

(b) its scenic or other amenities...

and so on, certain things can be done. Who is to judge natural beauty, scenic amenities? Here, I suggest a practical measure, too. I hope the local governmental bodies will appoint local committees of good taste and judgment in these matters, selecting them widely and well, to advise them on these aesthetic matters which the ordinary county council member has not very much time to go into in detail. I say this for two reasons: first of all, matters of good taste need a certain detachment from the ordinary rough and tumble of politics; secondly, the appointment of committees of this kind might encourage what I have suggested, a resurgence of interest in the beauties of one's own locality.

I should like to refer briefly to some of the other sections. Section 45, tree preservation orders: nothing could be more desirable. Near my own part of the country, Glenageary, there has been a most deplorable despoliation of the landscape by cutting down magnificent trees there. It leaves a wound that cannot be healed for 50 years.

Under Section 46, it is the intention to make conservation orders to protect flowers or animals. I have in mind in particular the matter I raised here some time ago: in the Burren in County Clare, there are some particularly rare plants, almost unique in Europe. A year or so ago, these were being dug out on a considerable scale and taken away. That, I understand, has been stopped. This section will give powers to prevent similar despoliation throughout the country.

Section 52 I refer to with some sadness. This is designed to prevent litter. If anyone had walked down Grafton Street and across College Green on Monday morning last, he would have been disgusted at the appearance of our capital city at about 12 o'clock in the day. Really it is deplorable. No sign of sweeping of any kind of the footpaths or streets at 12 o'clock on a Monday morning. I do hope that the intention in the phrasing of this section will be burnt into the hearts of the Dublin Corporation, and similar local authorities, very soon.

The kind of thing we have to guard against is, I think, in the minds of all of us. We know what happened to one of the lakes of Killarney. I have seen this for myself. The lake is partly spoiled. I do not say it is ruined. I do not want to exaggerate, but it is partly spoiled by this ugly modern building and this ugly collection of huts, or cottages, on the shores. It is a pity. There is no doubt about it. Again, in Westport, we had an example of what we might call deplanning or anti-planning. Westport Estate, the estate of the Marquis of Sligo, was very carefully planned by a landscape gardener and an architect roughly two hundred years ago. What happens? That plan is broken into, de-planned. A factory is built. Residential houses are built, spoiling a plan by one of the great architects of the 18th century. That kind of de-planning or anti-planning is the enemy.

There is another example—the Minister will perhaps recall it—on the Vico Road. A few years ago, a house was run up with the most amazing speed. Outside the Arabian Nights when Aladdin could rub a lamp to call up a genius to build a house in a couple of seconds, I have never seen anything like the speed. That house was run up on a spot from which there was a very fine view. That view has now gone because we could not stop the building in time. As a matter of fact, between ourselves —I suppose, though, in this House things are hardly between ourselves— if we had adopted certain measures, which the Minister, I think, proposed with regard to a flat roof, the view would not be nearly so badly impaired as it is. But it is yet another example of a magnificent scenic view being spoilt.

Another small example—I deplore it—occurs on the coast road out to Dún Laoghaire. I drive home along the Rock Road. Just past Booterstown, there is that abominable beer bottle, ten feet high, at a picturesque spot on the road where there is a charming station and a water meadow in which wild fowl collect in the winter. The firm is not Guinness, as a letter in the Irish Times alleged. It belongs to a firm that ought to know better, a firm I admire greatly. They are spoiling my drive home every evening. The thing is an eyesore. It is an abomination. If it is any comfort, there is a similar bottle on the road from Corinth to Mycenae in Greece. I have no power, of course, to have that removed. I only wish I had the power. The Greeks sometimes have lapses of taste, too.

One other matter is the threat to one of our finest vistas in this city by the Electricity Supply Board. Does the Electricity Supply Board desire to have a monument of ignominy and shame and tastelessness more lasting than bronze? Do they desire a monument to which I and other citizens will point, which every visitor to Dublin will be shown as he goes past, that black spot, that black patch on one of the most noble vistas in the city, put up because of the tastelessness of the Electricity Supply Board. That is what will happen. It will become a notorious eyesore. I cannot understand how a public body, an intelligent, competent, and efficient body, could make a decision of the kind. The only analogy I can imagine would be blistering the front of Leinster House, by order of the Seanad and the Dáil, with a great black spot, saying we will do it no matter what anyone says.

I hope this is not the midnight hour. I hope it is only the eleventh hour. I simply warn the ESB that public opinion is completely against them. If they go ahead, this will become a kind of tourist anti-attraction. As one is driving down Fitzwilliam street in the bus, all heads will turn to this black patch, and the letters "ESB" will become a kind of national curse. I am serious, though I am, I admit, exaggerating a little. That is the kind of thing we want to avoid, and the sooner we prevent it the better. I am optimistic about the Bill if it brings about a change of heart.

National monuments are included in the Bill. Last week I asked the Minister for Finance whether there are any developments in the proposal to set up a kind of sub-department to look after our national monuments, which would be separated from the Board of Works. I hope something of that kind will be done, and I should be very much interested if the Minister could tell us of any developments in that affair.

In the amenities sections of the Bill, we are dealing with offences to the eye. What about offences to the ear? They do not come under the Bill, but I will not take more than two minutes to mention them. Surely they are just as objectionable as ugly buildings or advertisements? Surely blaring loudspeakers, raucous transistors and radios, roaring cars and motor cycles, are just as much an injury to the amenities of our cities and our country as are ugly buildings. I urge the Minister, if he can, to take steps to cope with that kind of defilement of our country as well as the visual one.

Senator Dooge has said there are dangers in the strong powers of acquisition in this Bill. Those dangers must be faced. One can only have confidence in the justice and vigilance of the bodies who make the decisions. The principle involved is simply the greater good of the greater number, and I believe the Bill is justified on that ground.

Finally: as I say, the Bill will have two general effects throughout the country. First, it will be a test. It will be a test of the talent, vision and energy of our local bodies. If they manifest a genuinely co-operative spirit, the result will be a fine justification of their sometimes questioned value. They have a magnificent chance here, and I hope they will take it. I hope they will take it with wisdom, justice and vision. I also hope they will see to it that good taste is also catered for. Above all, I believe there is the sign of a new era in this Bill. If it is presented properly throughout the country, we may get some resurgence of interest in local beauty and local history which, to my mind, was much stronger 60 or 70 years ago than it has been in the past 20 or 30 years. I may be wrong about that. Perhaps I am more out of touch now, but whether I am right or wrong, I hope this opportunity will be seized to interest children in the beauty and history of our countryside. With considerable confidence, I wish the Minister and the Department every possible success in the fulfilment of their proposals and plans.

Like Senator Stanford, I see this Bill as a sign of a new era. I see it in the context of the national expansion plan. I was glad that, in his opening remarks, the Minister referred to the direct association between economic planning and physical planning being increasingly recognised by the people. The Minister said:

Our policy of aiming at a progressive improvement in the national economy cannot achieve maximum success unless all sectors of national activity are co-ordinated. In this context a comprehensive system of physical planning is obviously necessary.

That about sums up the need for this new Bill.

At the outset, I should like to compliment the Minister, his officials, and the members of the Dáil who debated it arduously during the past eight or nine months, on the excellent job they have done, and on the splendid piece of legislation which is now before us. I should also like to avail of the opportunity to compliment the Minister on having arranged the circulation of the excellent memorandum which all Senators received, and which made the very technical provisions clear to all who studied it.

I regard this Bill as important from the point of view that the teeth which were lacking in the Town and Regional Planning Acts, 1934 and 1935, are contained in this Bill. Those teeth can bite and I hope they will bite.

In this Bill, as in the Acts it repeals, county boroughs, borough corporations, county and urban councils, continue to be the planning authorities. Unlike other Acts, however, this Bill makes it obligatory on those authorities to make plans for the future development of their areas, specifying the objectives they intend to attain. I hope that having made plans and specified objectives, they will see to it that everything possible is done to attain them. Generally speaking, plans must be made within three years, and the makers will be the elected representatives on the corporations and councils. I agree with Senator Stanford that it will be a test of the vision of the local representatives, and with him, I hope, they will have the good sense to make certain that good taste is the yardstick which will be applied to the execution of any proposals with regard to scenic amenities.

It would be impossible to refer in detail to all the provisions in the Bill, but there are a few to which I should like to make passing reference. The erection of new buildings and other structures, and the extension of existing buildings, will require the prior permission of the planning authority, and it will be an offence to proceed without such permission. This is a very necessary clause which will obviate quite an amount of the inconvenience, disgust and horror that arose in parts of the country in recent years when people, as was described by Senator Stanford, were able to erect with amazing speed structures which conformed to no plan and which had no permission from anyone.

Under this Bill, the planning authorities will have power to preserve the beauty spots in their areas, and deal with the problem of ugly structures and hoardings which disfigure the countryside. They will have power also to control advertising displays. This is a most important provision which I hope will be used to the full, because anyone who has given any thought to the subject, or has seen, as instanced by Senator Stanford, that amazing sight on the road to Dún Laoghaire, will agree that someone, somewhere, somehow, should have power to take steps to ensure that the beauties of our avenues, roads and countryside are preserved and protected against vandalism, which is about the only way one can describe some of the advertising displays to be seen along our public roads.

Under this Bill, the local planning authorities will have power to protect and maintain public rights of way to the seaside and to the mountains and to create, where necessary, new rights of way. I agree heartily with Senator Stanford again as to the need for constant vigilance in preserving existing rights and also the need for local planning authorities to investigate the complaints we have heard from many different parts of the country about denial of access to woodland, mountain and seashore by new owners, with a view to using the power they will have under this Bill to remedy that deplorable position.

The Bill makes it possible to preserve buildings of historic or artistic interest. I hope, however, the planning authorities will not be unduly influenced by pressure groups in their interpretation of this matter. We have had some experience of this in recent times and we do not want organised attempts to block progress. I find myself in total disagreement with Senator Stanford in his remarks on the ESB plans for the Fitzwilliam Street buildings. I do not think—and I have not yet met anybody amongst the public who thinks—that they will be the abomination and desolation which he describes. I do not believe the public are concerned to the extent which the society organising the protest against the new buildings would lead us to believe. In fact, I do not believe there is any public objection so far to the progressive plans of the ESB for modern buildings in which their staffs will have comfort and hygienic conditions and a guarantee at least that they will not find themselves like the people of Skopje or Agadir after going to work.

There are other commendable features in this Bill and I shall just refer to them briefly. They are the power to acquire land, if necessary compulsorily, to give financial aid for training and research in relation to planning—the Minister referred to this and I regard it as a most important facility which could be provided by the planning authority—to deal with noise. In this regard I am afraid Senator Stanford forgot to read Section 51 of the Bill when he complained of the undue noise in our cities and towns and the atrocities committed every day by transistors in buses, trains and on the beaches. Section 51 provides that planning authorities may deal with this menace of noise and also with the litter and billposting menace which exists to a great extent in our cities and large towns. Under the Bill also, planning authorities will have power to preserve trees and woodlands and to prescribe building standards, which is a most important provision.

Most important of all, however, in the Bill is Section 22 which requires the planning authority to put its development plan into operation. There is very little use in having a Bill of this type and of this value if its provisions are to lie there without any action being taken on them. It is good to know that this is not an adoptive measure on the part of local authorities but an obligatory one, to make a plan and then put it into operation.

I agree that this Bill may bring a resurgence of local patriotism. If local planning authorities use it in the way in which it is hoped they will use it, there is no doubt that local pride will be stimulated in the beauty spots and amenities of every area covered by the plan.

I find myself also in disagreement with Senator Stanford regarding developments in Killarney. I, too, have seen the structures down there and the proposed new structures in an adjoining area, and I cannot see how anybody can feel that they spoil the scenery or are in any way harmful to the beauties of Killarney.

This is an excellent Bill and I feel sure the Seanad will want to expedite its passage.

This Bill is so comprehensive and so detailed that it is really impracticable to discuss it in detail and, therefore, one is thrown back on just dealing with a few general principles.

As has already been done, I wish, first of all, to pay a tribute to the Minister and to the other people who co-operated in the preparation and presentation of this Bill. The Minister gave us a very full and comprehensive statement in his introductory remarks. In fact, everything one would want to say about the Bill was in the introductory statement. We all agree and must agree with the whole idea behind this measure of dealing with the rural and urban planning of our country and I must say I was very much struck by the wide field that was covered, even finer aesthetics. I agree with Senator Dooge's contribution and he said many of the things I would wish to say myself. We must all welcome this Bill in that it replaces the old haphazard and piecemeal development of the countryside and of the cities, and replaces it with a co-ordinated and comprehensive form of planning, a positive rather than a negative form of planning.

The Minister tells us that hitherto the planning authorities have tended to concentrate on the restrictive aspect of their function. As he says, the Bill does not envisage that in future but that planning authorities will actively promote development. While we agree with this and agree with the wider powers that are being given in order to carry out this proposal, it must be seen that this imposes a very great responsibility on the planning authorities. While they had a responsibility in a negative way previously, they will now propose activities and see that they are carried out.

In the carrying out of development plans the provisions of this Bill give great powers to the local authorities over the rights of citizens' lives and property and it is only to be hoped that these powers will be used with fairness and discretion. I cannot help agreeing with Senator Stanford about the proper juxtaposition of buildings and kinds of buildings, about proper kinds of development, putting like with like, seeing that buildings harmonise with one another both in regard to type and having a suitable mixture of older buildings with new ones, and the proper juxtaposition of shopping centres and factory buildings in relation to buildings of artistic importance.

The Minister mentioned all these matters and I am glad to see they will be dealt with but this does call for a high degree of sensitivity on the part of the planners. It is very often taken for granted that the mere setting up of a planning authority with planners will bring ideal results. The question is often asked: Why is this not being planned? The giving of planning powers and the setting up of planning authorities will not, of themselves, ensure a well-planned ideal State. The quality of the results of this Bill will only be in direct relation to the quality and competence of the persons composing planning authorities.

On the aesthetic side, we have had a case here where Senator Stanford thinks, as I think, it is a pity that the Georgian houses in Fitzwilliam Street should be interfered with—that the facade from Holles Street Hospital right up to the Dublin mountains should be broken. Even if these houses are not living-worthy, here is a case where they should be rebuilt in reproductive style. The facade should be kept. Dublin may be compared with many of our 18th century houses, which like trees have rotted away and have had to be replaced. I am glad to see the development of skyscrapers and other modern buildings on the north side of the city. But there are pockets such as Fitzwilliam Street, where the buildings should be preserved. In Greece, the old buildings have been restored. There is nothing wrong about a reproduction, provided it is being utilised in the right place for the right purpose. As good as the design submitted for the modern building in Fitzwilliam Street is, it is a tragedy to interpose a new building alongside these old ones. We have the example of Senator Ó Maoláin commending the new building, whereas Senator Stanford does not like it. This is a case in which there is a conflict on aesthetics. That will be one of the difficulties in carrying out the intentions of this Bill in certain areas.

There are 87 planning authorities, and it will be very difficult to get 87 good results. I was struck by the idea that there is to be a central authority, but only on a county basis. I do not remember in the Minister's statement whether there was any provision for a central authority. It would be better to have one central authority under the Minister, where there would be some form of co-ordination between all these different bodies. It is not sufficient to have a central authority merely on a county basis. Perhaps the Minister would tell us if he envisages some form of central authority, perhaps in his Department? That is where real authority could be established, not in a dictatorial way but in an advisory manner. There was an idea that the Arts Council might be used for such purposes. Perhaps it could still be used on the aesthetic side; and on the technical and engineering side, there might be a central authority to act in an advisory capacity. With these few remarks, I welcome this Bill and I hope it will achieve the results we all desire.

Originally, I intended to protest against this Bill being rushed through the House, but, in view of the fact that the point must be decided on Committee Stage, I shall reserve my remarks until then.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on the Bill as a whole. I agree with all Senator Dooge has said. He has covered the field so well that I shall deal with the Bill only so far as it interlocks with building development. To introduce any instrument which attempts to consolidate under a minimum of headings in the field of town planning is something that is good and welcome. One must remember that town planning is a most inexact science. It has to cater for the future in addition to the present. Those of us who have had practical experience of town planning over the years find we are always trying to get out of obsolescence, but no matter how we try to prepare for the future, it always lets us down and we find we had not really prepared for the future at all. Some instrument to clarify the national position regarding town planning is long overdue. For the first time, the interdependence of planning and building is recognised and we have a commonsense approach to town planning.

Heretofore, those of us who have had experience in this field have been frustrated by the interlocking of building bye-laws, town planning and the various committees of the local authorities. Everybody associated with these committees found they were getting nowhere fast. This Bill is an attempt to channel thoughts along a particular town planning line. There is always the danger that, despite the Minister's efforts, everything will end up by the town planning committees of the county councils having the will of the town planning officers imposed on everything they do.

Senator Stanford made a general recommendation that these committees should be selected from councillors with an aesthetic feeling, who would understand beauty and amenity as interpreted for us by the Senator. Unfortunately, it does not happen that way. The various local authority committees are appointed, and, in some cases, when they come to the town planning committee, there is nobody left but those who were not elected to the other committees.

On a point of explanation, I meant to recruit people from outside the body, if possible.

I would be in full agreement with that. What the Senator referred to in his intervention was covered by Senator Dooge, I think, when he suggested we should have some sort of consultative service.

My point refers to local people. I do not want these committees centralised.

Senator Ó Maoláin appealed for co-operation with various people down the country in the implementation of this Bill. To prove the inexactness of this science, Senator Stanford and the Leader of the House were absolutely opposed to each other on one little issue—the ESB monstrosity that is to be created. They disagree with that entirely. That in itself illustrates to a degree how people can differ in that field. You can only achieve effective contemporary planning with satisfactory results, if sufficient emphasis is laid on estate design. By that, I mean the preservation of the existing landscape.

Last year we had Scandinavian people here to tell us that we had no ideas about design. Perhaps they were right—I do not know. I believe we have a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate to them in this Bill that we can give a lesson in design. We also had an architect, who came to a firm of developers, telling us that we had no ideas in regard to house or estate development. It might be information to these people that in this country we have the highest building standards in Europe. I am sure the Minister is aware of that; certainly his Department are. For many years also, we have been approaching a high standard in design but unfortunately economics curb our activities in that field and we are not able to express ourselves on the grand scales we would wish. However, arrangements have been made in this Bill by which that can now be done.

I will confine myself to a few observations on buildings as affecting town planning, which ought to have been considered by the Minister in his compilation of this Bill. I am surprised to note the omission of a section to ensure the co-operation of ancillary services. By that, I mean building an estate in accordance with your town plan. The ESB come along and lay down cable after opening up a cutting. Then they backfill and concrete. The developer carries on with his work. Three weeks later, the gas company rip up the same place; then backfill and concrete. We still have the sewerage and other services to be catered for, in addition to the telephone services. All this means ripping up, re-ripping up, and so on. If we want to preserve the amenities of a district, that sort of activity within an estate only tends to despoil an area.

Another feature is the unending and serried ranks of poles carrying wires for the ESB and the old fashioned tungsten lamps. They can all be buried. Nothing can eliminate or despoil views as much as those poles do. On one occasion I took some photographs—which, by appointment, I hope sometime to show to the Minister—which show a well finished estate in Walkinstown. Without any gimmick or trick of the lens, you can completely obliterate the view of the mountains by a complete wall of poles. In the earlier decades in this State, it was vital to carry these wires over the countryside and along the streets, because it was economical, but in 1963, in the economic revival through which we are supposed to be passing, we ought to abolish these poles and these wires. Somebody in the other House referred to them as street furniture. It is a fair description of them. The building fraternity have other names for them.

In regard to the provisions generally in this Bill, I regret to note the absence of provision for, or appreciation of the importance of co-relating the housing development with contemporary trends in perspective and design. I am disappointed that no adequate provision has been made to ensure the drawing up of specific-plans relating to the matter of architectural or engineering design, with particular reference to local authority housing policy, both for themselves and for private enterprise. A private developer, when he comes to develop a piece of countryside, will, if he possibly can, preserve the amenities of that district because it is economic for him to do so. If he wants to sell his houses, it is up to him to produce something that is attractive. People are going to live in them all their lives and it is his job to make an article that is marketable.

The local authorities are not involved in markets like that so they just run up two or three miles of concrete wall, a piece of ground back and front, which they call a garden, and then produce a lot of cell-like blocks and call them houses. Only in recent years have the local authorities moved into a little touch of design, but only in so far as they will change the colour of the dashing on one terrace as against the colour on another terrace. Basically, that has nothing to do with town planning, but strangely enough, it is accepted as being a move towards better planning.

I should like to go back a little now in regard to the ancillary services. I have had experience of machines taking out a cutting for a quarter of a mile of road and then the various services were laid. There was difficulty in getting co-operation but I must say that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs co-operated one hundred per cent from the word "go" and eventually we achieved co-ordination. The result is there, at Mount Merrion, for anybody to see. It is an ordinary estate and I challenge anybody, including the architect who came to tell us about design, to go anywhere on the continent or in England to see anything better. These are Irish designs. The provision of good house design is related also to the following factors: site layout, which should provide as an important principle, the preservation of the natural amenities.

A second provision of good housing design is related also to house design compatible with the foregoing but incorporating a degree of artistic and technical freedom which is at present denied under both the existing and proposed legislation. In such connection, there is absolutely no freedom or flexibility in view of the restriction on floor areas in those houses which at present qualify for grants to within a maximum of 1,400 square feet.

I am not blaming the Minister for this: it is the existing law. If you are building a house to fit in with the design in any estate and if you exceed 1,400 square feet by one foot, you will be denied the housing grant of £275. You cannot exceed 1,400 square feet by one foot. But if you build your house with 1,399 square feet, that is, only one square foot less than the 1,400 square feet, you will get your grant. Then you can come along at a subsequent date and put two rooms upstairs and you will be given a grant for doing that.

We will not give a man a grant for exceeding 1,400 square feet when he could build a lovely house but if he builds a house not exceeding 1,400 square feet and sticks an abutment on to the end of it, destroying the amenities of the whole area, the Minister will subsequently give a grant of £280 for it. Surely, that ought to be changed. I know he cannot do it now but the Minister should consider raising that 1,400 square feet proviso in relation to the ordinary grant-sized house to 1,600 or 1,800 square feet. That was all right immediately after the war when we had to conserve materials and to use Irish materials, as we still do. However, there was a shortage of them and the amount of cement and materials available had to be spread over a greater area and used to house as many people as possible. That situation does not obtain now. If the Minister increases the size of the house for a grant, it will help town planning and estate design.

In passing, I might say, apart from the Bill, that it is good to note that various local authorities are at last leaving the old 1908 types of lamps and are moving on towards mercury fluorescent lighting. That is an intelligent step even if the new light, which is a better light, is not as flattering to the delicate colouring and features of the ladies as the old light.

A local authority can claim against a developer under Section 26 (2) (g). If the local authority do any work in connection with the land on which he proposes to build, they can recoup their expenditure and make the developer pay. However, the Bill does not permit a developer to claim from another developer, if he provides the various services. Nobody knows this position better than the Minister and his officials. People with land to be developed have waited for years for a developer to move in, knowing that the cost of running drains and services along a main road might be in the region of £15,000 to £20,000. Then, when these services have been provided, they apply to the planning authority for permission to build. Is it not possible that the person who provided the services can be compensated?

Section 26 (4) (b) deals with the two month period of application. If it is made over two months, and you receive no communication, then you can build by default. However, the section now says that the town planning people can send out to the developer—the applicant—a letter requiring some further information. If I read the section correctly, the new two month period dates from the reply to that letter to the town planning authority. Let me put it like this. I make submissions to the local authority. After a month, they send me a letter asking some questions. I send a reply to that letter. Now, the two month period starts from the reply to that letter. I agree that it is a little advance on what used to occur.

Hitherto, when you made application to develop a site and the statutory period of reply was two months, if at the end of two months, you did not get a reply one way or the other, you could build by default. I used to wait for the second last day of the statutory period because I knew the post would convey a refusal. However, if I read this section correctly, there is to be greater procrastination still. They have not even to refuse you. They have only to send you a letter asking the colour of your eyes.

Of all the attempts to consolidate planning over the years, I never dreamed it could be done as well as the Minister has succeeded in doing it. Deputy Jones took the major lead, on the Opposition, on the Bill and on the construction of certain sections of it. One feels a great satisfaction that this Bill went so ruggedly through the other House before it reached us. I feel particularly bad about our being rushed in our debate here and in being asked to let the Bill through this House without delay. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that very little further, if anything, could be accomplished, apart from brushing up one or two points in the Bill.

I may have occasion to speak on some of the sections but I shall have only one or two points to make. I should like to record my complete satisfaction that an instrument of this nature has reached this stage in this House and I wish it bon voyage when this House passes it. I sincerely hope its implementation will not be disappointing to the Minister. If the town planning authorities dwell unduly on aesthetics and all this business of town planning, then I fear all the trouble in the preparation of this Bill will go for naught.

Finally, it is within the power of the Minister, apart from the Bill, at any time, to create some form of consultative service, apart from regional or national planning. I know quite well that the Minister has advisers who are quite capable in the field of town planning and local government. I know most of them and I know their ability, but town planning is a most inexact science and everybody can contribute to the development of an area. I am thinking of Bobbie Burns, when people were wondering why he did not line up with Bonny Mary of Argyle——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Would the Senator move the adjournment?

I should like to finish this and I shall then do so. He said: "Nobody can see her with the eyes of Bobbie." He saw her beauty but the others could not. So it may be in town planning; what one person believes is beautiful, others may not.

Business suspended at 6.5 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.

Top
Share