Select Committee Town Planning Bill, 1929 debate -
Thursday, 28 Nov 1929

SECTION 5 (3).

. . . . . . .

(3) If any question arises whether any building or work contravenes a town planning scheme, or whether any provision scheme, or whether any provision of a town planning scheme is not complied with in the erection or carrying out of such building or work, that question shall be referred to the Minister and shall, unless the parties otherwise agree, be determined by the Minister as arbitrator, and the decision of the Minister shall be final and conclusive and binding on all persons.

Mr. Johnson

I move amendment 25:—

Section 5, sub-section (3), line 28. To delete the words " as arbitrator."

My reason for moving this amendment is that I do not want to make it absolutely necessary, when the Minister is going to decide a question, that he shall act as arbitrator according to the method defined in previous Acts, which sets out the manner in which arbitration should be conducted. Section 13 contains a reference to the method of arbitration under the Regulation of the Railway Act, 1868, respecting arbitrations by the Board of Trade. We do not want to make it obligatory on the Minister at all times that he shall act as arbitrator and go through that procedure. The leaving in of these two words would make it obligatory. With the section amended by the deletion of these words, it can be seen that the parties are still free to come to an agreement as to how the issue shall be decided.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Johnson

I move amendment 26:—

Section 6. Before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—

" 6. Any local authority may define areas on which building may be prohibited or postponed, or prescribe the space about buildings, or limit the number of buildings to be erected to the acre, or prescribe the height, character or design of buildings, or require the removal or rendering sightly of unsightly dilapidated structures on any land, notwithstanding that the land is not included in a town planning scheme, and the provisions of Section 10 shall apply as though the area were town planned; provided that if any person feels aggrieved by the action of the local authority he may appeal to the Minister, whose decision shall be final."

The Bill, as drafted, did not seem to give the powers that I believe to be absolutely necessary to prevent damage being done to a town or locality by the erection of unpleasant and ugly buildings, or by overcrowded spaces, and to keep the places clean and decent. The proposal in the new section is that even though the local authority has not yet gone to the trouble of preparing a town planning scheme it will have power to act in respect to the prescribed spaces about buildings, and limiting the number of buildings, etcetera. This proposed new section is the most important provision we can make in the Bill, because many local authorities, especially small local authorities, cannot move for a long time in the direction of surveying and drawing up schemes, and yet may wish to have the power to act towards keeping their district clean, neat and pleasant. I lay special emphasis on the importance of this new section.

Mr. Barrington

Could Senator Johnson tell us whether there is any provision in the Bill preventing the removal of unsightly buildings until accommodation is provided for the inhabitants of the existing buildings?

Mr. Johnson

This is not a Housing Bill of any kind.

Mr. Barrington

Does not the Bill give power to remove unsightly buildings?

Mr. Johnson

If they are dilapidated.

Mr. Barrington

People should not be put out of dilapidated buildings until accommodation is provided for them.

Mr. Farren

In practice it works out that houses condemned by public health authorities are not taken down if there is not alternative accommodation available. There are thousands of houses in Dublin that would be closed by the public health authorities if other accommodation were available. If the house is in such a condition as to endanger the lives of the inhabitants it would be taken down.

Mr. Johnson

I do not think under this scheme it is possible for a local authority to deal with inhabited houses. That is not intended.

Chairman

The new section refers to " dilapidated structures." Of course, a house is a structure.

Mr. Farren

Speaking from my experience, I would say that no local authority would take down an inhabited building until alternative accommodation is provided for the occupiers.

Mr. Barrington

It would be as well to make it clear in the section.

Chairman

That could be done by adding after the word structure, " Not being an occupied dwelling-house."

Mr. Johnson

I agree.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.