I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Local Government Provisiona Order Confirmation Bill, 1976 [Private Business]: Second and Subsequent Stages.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the County of Louth and Borough of Drogheda (Boundaries) Provisional Order, 1976, which was made by me on 19th October last. The order provides for the extension of the boundary of the Borough of Drogheda to take in part of County Louth and part of County Meath, a total area of 1,715 acres approximately. This includes about 100 acres of tidal or marsh land. The extension of the boundary of Drogheda involves a consequential alteration of the boundary of County Louth in order to include the area transferred from County Meath to Drogheda Borough. Both extensions are provided for in this provisional order.
The procedure for alteration of the boundary of a county or borough is governed by Articles 25 and 27 of the Schedule to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898. Petitions were received by me from Drogheda Corporation and Louth County Council. There was a public inquiry at which all interested parties were afforded an opportunity to express their views. Having considered the report of the public inquiry, I reached a decision on the matter which is now formalised in the provisional order but cannot become effective until confirmed by an Act of the Oireactas.
I hope to have the present legislation enacted before the Christmas Recess so that the extension will come into force as from 1st January, 1977. This, being the beginning of the financial year, is the date most suitable for the local authorities and the one which will cause least inconvenience for all concerned.
The main case made by the corporation in support of their petition was that the existing area of the borough —1,486 acres—was totally inadequate to meet development needs. While I was satisfied on the basis of the evidence given at the inquiry and the report of the inspector who conducted it that there was a case for an extension, I did not feel that a boundary extension on the scale sought was justified. This would have involved an increase of some 4,189 acres, or almost three times as much as the existing area of the borough. The areas of land being added to the borough under the provisional order amount to less than half the acreage sought by the corporation but, nevertheless, the increase to a total of 3,201 acres involves more than a doubling of the existing area of Drogheda.
The areas being added to the borough under the provisional order are contiguous to the existing borough boundary and extend north of the River Boyne into County Louth and southwards into County Meath. Parts of these areas are becoming both residential and industrial suburbs of Drogheda, and it is desirable for the proper planning and orderly development of the areas that they be brought under the control of the corporation. The extension of the boundary will help the corporation to play even a more positive role as a development authority under the provisions of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 and 1975. When the boundary extension is effected, I would expect that Drogheda Corporation, as a matter of urgency, would review their development plan and, perhaps, bring forward an entirely new plan, as they are now specifically enabled to do under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976, to meet the needs of the expanded area.
The necessity for an extension of the borough boundary is evident from the fact that Drogheda, a compact and densely developed town, is already compelled to overspill the existing borough boundary to find accommodation for essential development. Indeed, for quite some time now, Drogheda Corporation have had to seek land outside of the borough to meet their statutory obligations. The extension of the boundary will bring within the borough existing overspill development as well as providing for future population growth and development needs. The population of the borough increased from 17,909 in 1966 to 19,762 at the 1971 Census and has continued to increase since then. The population of the area now being added to Drogheda is estimated to be of the order of 2,000, occupying some 500 houses. About 200 of these are houses built by Drogheda Corporation, mostly in the area being transferred from Meath.
The order contains a number of provisions which are consequential on the extension. These are along the usual lines and provide for the preparation of official maps of the altered boundaries of the three areas involved, the continuation in effect of resolutions and orders, as appropriate, arrangements in regard to registers of electors, bye-laws, hours of trading orders, polling districts, development plans and any necessary financial adjustments as between the three authorities in relation to property, debts and liabilities.
An important feature of the order is the provision—in article 16 and the Second Schedule—relating to existing ratepayers in the areas being added to the borough. These ratepayers will be cushioned against increases in their rates bills by the provision for phasing-in arrangements which ensure that the rise to Drogheda rate levels will take place over a 15-year period. These arrangements have been so designed that ratepayers in the area being transferred who were liable for rates in the current year, will pay in 1977 only that proportion of the Drogheda rate which the rates in their present rating area bore to the Drogheda rate in 1976; this proportion is 61 per cent in the case of the Meath ratepayers and 68 per cent in the case of the Louth ratepayers. It will be 1993 before these ratepayers are liable for full Drogheda rates. These generous phasing-in arrangements, coupled with the decision, which was given legal effect in the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1976, to continue the agricultural grant reliefs on land being transferred to urban areas, provide a very considerable easement for ratepayers who otherwise might have found themselves paying much higher rates as a consequence of the boundary extension.
I commend the Bill to the House and I ask for the co-operation of Senators in ensuring that it will have a speedy passage so that the boundary extension can become effective on 1st January next.
I will be very brief. This is a sensible measure. Obviously the proper procedures have been undertaken in regard to it on foot of petitions from the Drogheda and County Louth authorities. There is just one matter I should like to mention. I feel very strongly that this should be pushed—I know it has to be pushed at local level by way of petition—generally throughout the country in areas similar to the Drogheda experience. I am thinking in particular of the town I come from, Athlone, which is an obvious area where this sort of initiative could be taken. Clonmel is another.
Towns which are major development centres on county boundaries have this particular problem which Drogheda has to a greater or lesser degree. We have been too conservative heretofore in having to observe distinctions between urban authorities there and the contiguous local authorities. This has led to a very real impediment in regard to development of the urban authorities concerned where the overspill occurs in two separate local authority areas. Especially with the conception of the urban authority being the dynamic authority, which they are inevitably with the movement from the land into urban centres, initiatives of this kind should be taken generally throughout the country. I appreciate that the Minister has cushioned the ratepayers in this respect, and rightly so, because this is the only argument at local level against any move of this kind. The obvious argument against it is that it does lead to a higher rate-paying capacity, unless there is a postponement or a staging of payment of rates such as is proposed in this instance.
There is no objection so far as I am concerned here. I just wish to say that as a general principle I should like to see this sort of approach being adopted in other growing urban centres with development problems as in Drogheda.
I should like to extend a welcome to this legislation. I congratulate the Minister on moving so expeditiously in finalising this matter. For the information of Members of the Seanad, this petition was originally made back in 1969 by both Drogheda Corporation and Louth County Council and it has taken a considerable length of time—seven years in all—for it to reach this final stage. I congratulate the Minister on finalising it.
There is an addition of 1,170 people coming in from County Meath into County Louth. The fact that this is double the population figure indicated in the original petition gives an example of what has happened with the passage of time since the petition was first submitted. We are presented more or less with a fait accompli in that many of these people having already been housed by Drogheda Corporation, technically they are now being brought under the umbrella of County Louth. The needs of Drogheda in this regard were first highlighted when Drogheda Corporation drew up their statutory development plan under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, and they saw what the future needs of the town would be in regard to area extension.
When all is said and done, this Bill is concerned not only with people but with the area involved, because Drogheda has had to suffer under some physical constraints as regards its own natural development and expansion. On one side it is bounded by the sea and river and on another side it is bounded by the extensive quarryings carried on by Cement Limited. Some geographical features of land in other areas are not suitable to commercial residential development. So the area into which the corporation could extend their boundaries was limited. The result is that we are extending somewhat south into County Meath and north into County Louth. In brief, it has been closed off as regards the east, particularly, and the south-east and north-east due to the features I mentioned.
What happened was that Drogheda Corporation found themselves with practically no uncommitted building land left within their existing borough boundary. Their plan, drawn up in the sixties, foresaw that they would have certain needs, residential and commercial and as regards open spaces, because of a rapidly increasing population. That population has grown tremendously over the past two decades. It rose from a figure of 17,000 in 1966 to over 20,000 in the early seventies, and at the latter date the population density was 12 persons per acre. The best experts in the economic and social fields have made a population projection of something between 30,000 to 35,000 by the mid-1980s. Therefore, we can see the urgent requirement of Drogheda Corporation to have sufficient land under their jurisdiction without further delay.
The manufacturing content in Drogheda has contributed largely to this increase in population. In the old days Drogheda had a traditional industrial base of milling, food processing and textiles. Over the past ten years in particular this industrial base has widened considerably. It now embraces such features as the manufacture of household equipment, medical instruments and hydraulics equipment. This considerable expansion in its industrial activity and its population created a situation whereby Drogheda Corporation were forced to expand into County Meath without waiting for this legislation to come into effect. The best example of this is St. Finian's Park, a housing area developed by Drogheda Corporation and which embraces many of the people in the County Meath area now coming into the Drogheda Corporation area.
Drogheda Corporation also put a considerable amount of work into their new traffic plan. The most recent achievement is the new Boyne bridge, the Bridge of Peace, which was the focal point of the peace march last weekend. The Harbour Commissioners have also set about devising development plans and propositions for the harbour.
There are a number of points to which the Minister might be able to give us some answers when he is replying. There is the question of compensation. The 1971 White Paper on Local Government Organisation referred to this question of compensation in such extensions of boundaries as here and threw cold water on that idea. I should like the Minister to say whether this question of compensation has been negotiated by the relevant authorities. Since we have not had any changes in the boundaries of a number of borough councils in recent years, this is a question which should be decided in this case and for any future extensions.
This question of compensation arises both in County Louth and County Meath, principally I would say in County Louth, because of the total acreage involved in County Louth. The original petition set out that 1,147 acres were being sought in County Louth and the corporation have obtained 1,000 of this requested figure. In the case of Meath there has been a considerable shortfall and only about 700 acres approximately of the original 3,040 requested are coming in. This may well lead to an agrument in future, with one side saying enough has been given and the other saying enough has not been given. If the projections of population and industrial growth in Drogheda are borne out at all we may have to come back for a further extension. That could mean seeking more land from County Meath.
There will be consequential effects of this legislation. These will be seen in regard to the vocational education committee. A certain financial adjust ment may be required as regards their rating requirements. Also there may well be consequential adjustment required in regard to legislation on unemployment assistance, Valuations Act, housing regulations, Jurors and Registers of Electors Acts. The Minister indicated in his speech that a number of these matters will be met. The most pleasing will be the phasing of the rate impost on the Meath people coming into Drogheda Corporation area. This will be appreciated very much and I thank the Minister in that regard.
We are concerned here with a town which has had significant and exceptional growth in the past two decades. This Bill will enable it to continue that expansion. I should like to welcome the people of County Meath who are coming into County Louth. They have long regarded Drogheda as being the focal point of their commercial, social and recreational life and many enjoy the amenities and services provided by the corporation. I do not think they will see any great change by coming under the umbrella of County Louth. I welcome them and congratulate the Minister for introducing this Bill so expeditiously.
I take it they will continue to vote in County Meath.
I am sorry that I cannot welcome this order with the same enthusiasm as Senators Lenihan and Markey. I can understand Senator Markey's welcome because Drogheda is doing quite well out of this. Having heard Senator Markey I feel that a better solution to this problem would have been to transfer Drogheda into County Meath. Senator Markey has pointed out, and rightly so, that Drogheda cannot expand east because of the sea, and he is not too happy about the suitability of the land north of Drogheda, which is in County Louth and is the area into which Drogheda would be expanding. On the west Senator Markey mentioned that they have the problem of the cement works.
Originally Drogheda Corporation sought 4,189 acres. They are getting 1,715, which Senator Markey said is about 700 acres in County Meath and 1,000 in County Louth. Is it not obvious that somebody will be back here in a few years looking for more of County Meath? It is obvious that quite a large portion of County Meath will be in the Drogheda Corporation area within the next 30 years if this expansion continues. While I listened to Senator Markey welcome the people of Meath into County Louth, I regret that a number of County Meath people will now become Louth people. It will be interesting to see what flag they will wave in Croke Park when Meath and Louth meet in a Leinster championship—we all know the rivalry there.
Senator Markey talked about the White Paper and said that compensation should not be given. Meath County Council will have to be treated generously in regard to the transfer of this area of County Meath. Hugh sums of money have been spent in the development of that area. We shall be dealing with this in legislation later, but I hope the Minister will ensure that Meath County Council and the ratepayers of County Meath will be generously treated for the development achieved in the area now being transferred. If there are any more requests for land in County Meath for the extension of the Drogheda boundary we, in Meath, shall be making a request that Drogheda come into County Meath, when we would be more generous with them.
I do not want to enter into this argument between Counties Louth and Meath. There are many such instances all over the country where, say, half a town would be in one county and the other half in an adjacent county. I am primarily concerned that in the additional development around Drogheda—and I am glad to see towns like Drogheda developing—the Minister would ensure that there would be a wide route provided so that we in Cavan can get our manufactured goods to the ports. We have been pressing for years to have something done about the road into County Dublin. We have now turned our attention to Greenore and Drogheda.
One can go around by Clonee coming from Cavan to Drogheda.
I want to ask the Minister a few questions on this Bill. This type of boundary extension comes up every so often. It is the first time I have seen it come before the Oireachtas as a Bill. Senators may remember that about five or six years ago there was a most unholy squabble in Cork over a boundary extension, where the county council adamantly refused to allow the corporation to extend into the county. Seemingly it can be done, according to this Bill, on the application of the relevant authority—in this case, Drogheda Corporation. They may apply and the Minister can make an order if he so wishes. Is that the case or not?
They must be encouraged.
There has to be a public inquiry.
I can see a similar case arising in my own area in Waterford city where there is great need for the city to expand into Waterford and Kilkenny counties. Perhaps the Minister would outline the procedure to be adopted in that case. Generally speaking the county authorities and the county public representatives feel that, if the city take over this area, which already is partly built up, the city will benefit by receiving rates on that property. Of course rates on buildings are considerably greater than those on land. There could be a bone of contention on a matter like this. I should like to know what compensation a county authority receive where the corporation takes over property or is given authority to take it over by the Minister. Perhaps the Minister would explain some of those points.
I welcome the Bill also. It is a reaffirmation by the Minister of the importance he attaches to corporations and urban councils. I welcome the Bill for another reason, in that it can be interpreted as being the only sensible reaction to a situation where you have a town like Drogheda expanding and, as it were, bursting at the seams. There are many towns, as Senator Lenihan pointed out, with the same type of problem.
I come from Ballina—I must be very careful here as I am a county councillor as well as being an urban councillor— and it is not very easy to talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul. We have much the same problem in that we have thank God, industrial expansion and population expansion in the area. We have not got the facility to provide enough land for the building of houses and so on. The result of that is, to my mind, is allowing ribbon development to take place along national primary and national secondary roles in and out of town.
Now, if towns had an adequate supply of building land they could develop these lands in depth—these sites—and draw proper plans within town boundaries. What is happening at the moment in many towns is that county councils have a responsibility for planning on the periphery of the town. Naturally the county council are very jealous of revenue accruing to them from these developments and the questions of compensation comes in—I think it always did. In many cases what is happening is that the towns are providing to these housing developments water and sewerage services as extensions to their own system. There is nothing accruing to them for the provision of these services in the county areas. I am not saying that we should have two distinct authorities within a county with no liaison or co-operation. I think there is room for more co-operation between urban councils, corporations and county councils. For that reason I would ask the Minister to outline the procedure to be adopted in furnishing a petition for an extension to the boundary because, as far as I am concerned, Ballina Urban Council will be seeking an extension to their urban area in the future.
First, I should like to thank the House for the way in which they received the Bill. There are a number of points which have been raised and I will try to deal with them very briefly. I think I should get one out of the way immediately, that is, that there is no power to provide for compensation for added burden on the extension of an area except in the case of a county borough extension. There is no power whatever to provide for such compensation for the extension of an ordinary corporation or an ordinary county.
This extension had a number of peculiar things about it, the most difficult one being the fact that it extended into two counties. I could see easily enough the reason why there would be no objection, or not much objection, by people in the Drogheda area who are in County Louth having the borough extended into portion of County Louth. County Louth people might have a different view, but this simply meant that they were remaining in the county. There was considerable opposition from people in County Meath. Senator Jack Fitzgerald, who is chairman of Meath County Council, is aware of this. I can understand his point of view here. As a matter of interest, I was a member of Meath County Council when this was introduced first. Lest somebody else raise the matter here, my comment then was that they should not be given an inch, the main reason being that Drogheda Corporation and Louth County council, instead of approaching Meath County Council and asking if an extension could be negotiated, without consulting them made the application direct to the then Minister for Local Government.
That was very naughty.
The Senator is very smart.
In matters of this kind it would be far better if the first discussions took place between the local authorities themselves. I am quite sure that the members of Meath County Council, Louth County Council and Drogheda Corporation might have reached almost the same conclusion as I have now reached, with very much less cost, had it been done in that way. I was particularly annoyed that it had not been dealt with in that way. However, the legal manner in which it was dealt with was perfectly correct. The petition was entered, a public inquiry was held and eventually recommendations were made.
I am in the position of being perhaps the hurler on the ditch in this case. I live within two miles of the boundary—in County Meath, of course. From there I am aware not alone of the necessity for an extension of Drogheda—there is no doubt that Drogheda needed to extend its area— but also of the objections of people living in County Meath being put within the borough boundary of Drogheda. The first was that they and their forefathers having lived in County Meath did not want to be moved into another county without moving their residence. Secondly, they felt it would vastly increase their rates. I could not do anything about the first objection but I have taken steps to ensure that the second one is eased and that there will not be a big extra impost on rates. This is a step forward everybody welcomes.
The question of when the next extension will be looked for has been mentioned here by one or two people, particularly by Senator Markey. He should remember that the last one— when the Boyne divided Meath and Louth as far as I can remember— was in 1898. If this one lasts for 78 years, we shall have another look at it then. Senator J. Fitzgerald and I will take a hard look at it when it arises again.
Do they vote in Meath?
Oh, they will vote in Meath. Do not worry about that.
They will continue to vote in Meath. The matter is of some disturbance to me because I have not been responsible for putting them into County Louth. Their views on the matter might not be what they were previously. There is nothing I can do about that. It is true that Drogheda Corporation built a very substantial number of local authority houses in County Meath. They are now going into County Louth. It is only right that the residents of these houses will be voting in the Drogheda Corporation elections and that they should be transferred into County Louth at the earliest possible time.
Not for Dáil purposes.
The next time the boundaries on the constituencies are being changed they will have to go into County Louth; this whole area will have to go into County Louth. In the meantime, they are in County Meath. It is of interest that a very good hotel is involved in this and a number of Drogheda factories are, in fact, in County Meath—they were built in County Meath—and will now be going into Drogheda. The extension does not include the new cement factory. Drogheda Corporation rather slipped up there. They did not take a good look at where the cement factory was going or I am quite sure they would have included it, because it is only about half a mile outside the boundary they sought. But, while they have not got all the extra land they wanted, I think they did not expect to get it all. As a matter of fact, I think they are surprised that they did get so much, because the additional amount of land they have got is very great. All I can say to them is that, if they succeed in building on the additional amount of land so that they can make the same case again, then I am sure that when they have another thousand acres built on an application to extend again will be fairly favourably considered.
I should like to point out that in the discussion document I issued on Local Government, it was recognised that the pace of urban development makes it necessary to speed up the process of boundary adjustments. I undertook to introduce legislation providing for a simplified and comprehensive system of boundary adjustment applicable to all local authorities. The question of simplification of the law relating to boundary extensions is one of the matters included in a general Local Government Bill being prepared at present in my Department. I hope to have that Bill before the Oireachtas sometime before the end of the next parliamentary session, some time before Easter.
It is only right that we should have some way of dealing with boundary extensions other than the one we have at present. The present one is ridiculous. The fact that it costs so much is a very strong argument against it. Along with quite a number of other adjustments which should be made in local government law, the question of adjustment of borough boundaries will be included in the Bill.
As far as Waterford is concerned, if the county borough want an extension now it is for them to initiate proceedings by presenting a petition to the Minister. At present I cannot take the initiative in a matter of this kind. Obviously before presenting the petition as much agreement as possible should be sought locally, because it is ridiculous that we have this question of people almost at war with each other.
There is a situation in Limerick where Limerick Corporation, Limerick County Council and Clare County Council are involved. So far it has been difficult to get them even to talk to each other about it. This is wrong. Even if they agree to differ on some issues, there must be scope for a very large measure of agreement between them on points which will have to be dealt with eventually when the boundary is being extended. Those should be cleared away. Every point cleared will make the extension of the boundary easier and cheaper. That is the important thing. After the new legislation has been passed everything will be dealt with in a more simplified way.
Regarding the question of rates, the agreement reached by this House and in the Dáil earlier this year when the rates on Agriculture Land Bill was passed, together with the provision in the provisional order means that for all ratepayers in the transferred area, the increase will be phased over a 15-year period.
Those were the points raised. I am very grateful for the way in which the House has dealt with this problem.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining stages today.
Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.