As the House is aware, the Government, on 15 July 1998, approved a programme of evacuation and sale of six barracks which were considered surplus to military requirements. This decision is part of the relocation, refurbishment and re-equipment of the Defence Forces, as recommended in the context of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report regarding the rationalisation of military institutions generally. The Government remains fully committed to this important programme. It is expected that well over £50 million will be raised from the sale of the six barracks and this revenue will be invested in the redevelopment of other military installations and new equipment.
The recent closure of barracks has freed up important sites in the towns concerned. Plans for important new community, health, industrial and housing initiatives are in progress. With the increasing demand for social housing and related programmes and the Government's new decentralisation initiative, it is likely that freeing up military locations for alternative uses would assist these Government programmes.
It is Government policy to ensure that the Defence Forces are adequately equipped to undertake the roles assigned to them. Establishing realistic equipment requirements and priorities for procurement forms a major element of strategic planning activities within the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces. The objective is to acquire, maintain and manage equipment, weapons and ammunition for the Defence Forces at the appropriate level of operational readiness in a cost effective manner. The strategic focus of the investment programme for the period 2000 – 10 is the acquisition of a broad range of equipment to achieve a balanced increase in operational capacity throughout the Defence Forces. It will be necessary to prioritise and reconcile the equipment requirements for the Army, the Air Corps, the Naval Service and the Reserve Defence Force within the total resources available. Basic to the plan is a multi-annual budgetary strategy which is vital to achieving value for money.
Clancy Barracks, formerly known as Islandbridge Barracks, dates from about 1857. It is sited on the south bank of the River Liffey and close to one of the most westerly of Dublin city's bridges, Islandbridge, formerly known as Sarah Bridge. The barracks has had a long association with artillery, cavalry and ordnance.
The barracks was taken over by the Army on 15 December 1922 when a rifle company commanded by Captain Condon was sent to take over Islandbridge Barracks. In that company was Captain Robert Fitzgerald who was the first officer commanding. It was renamed Clancy Barracks in 1942 after Peadar Clancy, a County Clare man killed during the War of Independence in 1920. The barracks has been associated with various military events, including the Crimean War, the Boer War, the First World War and the 1916 rising.
It was accepted at the time of the decision to dispose of the six barracks that the relocation of the units currently at Clancy Barracks to other Dublin Barracks and the Curragh would take some time. It is anticipated that this process will be completed before the end of this year. On 16 July 1998, following the Government decision, Dublin Corporation was requested that the zoning designation on Clancy Barracks be changed to provide for housing and-or commercial development at this location. On 6 July 1999, Dublin Corporation confirmed that the land was zoned to protect, provide and improve residential amenities. In the interim, on 16 November 1998, Dublin Corporation requested that it be given first opportunity to acquire the property.
On 16 June 1999, at a meeting between Dublin Corporation, the Department of the Environment and Local Government and my Department, the corporation sought clarification regard ing the date of closure of the barracks and expressed a wish to have the property made available to relieve the housing crisis in the Dublin area. It indicated that it would be prepared to pay full market value and requested permission to inspect the barracks. The barracks was inspected by the corporation on 1 July 1999. Further visits to the property were undertaken on 27 July and 22 October 1999.
On 1 November 1999, at a meeting between my Department and the corporation, it was indicated by the corporation that it was anxious to acquire the property for a mixture of affordable and social housing. It indicated that the barracks contained a number of listed buildings which would pose architectural problems in matching up the old with the new. It requested further plans outlining internal and external services, including drains, sewerage, etc. These were supplied on 8 December 1999.
On 8 February 2000, the corporation informed my Department that its planning officer had indicated that a large number of buildings on the site were of architectural merit and may be required to be retained on redevelopment. The corporation notified the Valuation Office of the report from its deputy planning officer.
On 24 March 2000, the Valuation Office valued the property to be in the region of £40 million. It must, however, be borne in mind that the actual price to be realised will be determined by the market. On 14 April 2000, the corporation was informed of the value in respect of Clancy Barracks. The corporation indicated that it would consider the valuation and discuss its implications with the Department of the Environment and Local Government.
On 7 July 2000, the Department of the Environment and Local Government indicated that it was the corporation's view that the acquisition of the barracks for redevelopment by it to provide social housing did not offer an attractive proposition because of the limited capacity to provide low rise social housing. It was its view that the public interest would probably be best served from a housing and planning point of view by my Department offering the property for sale on the open market, having regard to the very significant range of conservation challenges. On 10 July 2000, in response, my Department noted the corporation's views and informed it that I now intended to dispose of the property on the open market as soon as possible.
On 31 July 2000, Dublin Corporation advised my Department that the optimal solution would be for the land to be sold on the open market subject to a brief to be agreed between my Department and the planning authority. The brief could cover key requirements such as appropriate mix of uses and the requirement to yield 20% social and affordable housing under Part 5 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 2000.
At a meeting on 9 April 2001, between the Department of Defence, the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the corporation, it was indicated that the site offered more potential for a private developer who could have a mix of developments on the site, rather than have it purchased by the corporation for social housing.
Following a tender competition, my Department appointed selling agents Hamilton Osborne King to offer the barracks of 13.65 acres for sale by public tender on 14 June 2001. In my Department's instructions to the selling agents, it was agreed that a planning consultant's report should be commissioned for the site, having regard to its architectural merit, conservation challenges and planning requirements.
My Department and the Department of Environment and Local Government continue to liaise on all land disposals to ensure as each disposal arises, the relevant local authority is made aware of the sale and examines the land for suitability for housing development. In this regard, Naas UDC has acquired the lands at Devoy Barracks in Naas which will include future housing development. An integrated action area plan for Murphy Barracks in Ballincollig has also been completed and housing development will be a significant part of this development. In addition, my Department will be discussing the future potential of Gormanston lands with the relevant local authorities.
It will be clear from what I have said that in all cases of land surplus to requirements, our first priority has been to liaise with local authorities and assist local communities in ensuring the future development of these lands is in the public interest. It is clear from events in Naas, Ballincollig and Castleblayney that public authorities have been the principal purchasers of these lands. In this case, the record will show that for the greater part of two years, I was extremely anxious to deal with Dublin Corporation and that it was with great disappointment that I finally learned that it decided, for one reason or another, that it was in its best interests not to proceed. It will be clear also that the accusations that have been levelled at my Department are totally unwarranted and that our priorities are very much in the national interest, in particular, the area of social and affordable housing.
Much has been made of the fact that this property has been valued at £40 million. These matters are not in our domain. They are covered by the Valuation Office, an independent body which makes recommendations to the Government on the value of all State property to be put on the market. The market, however, decides the final value, which is not necessarily the valuation price.
I would have been happy to deal with Dublin Corporation but I respect its judgment and the decision it has taken on the matter. In the circumstances, I was left with no alternative but to proceed to put the property out to public tender. Should any party now decide, having reconsidered the matter, that another course of action is available, my door is still open.
