asked the Minister for Local Government if, in view of the evidence given at the Youghal bridge inquiry to the effect that the reconstruction of the present bridge was feasible and would reduce considerably the burden on the ratepayers, he will reconsider his decision to make an Order for the construction of a new bridge.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - New Bridge at Youghal.
Having carefully considered the evidence given at the inquiry and the inspector's report, I am satisfied that the scheme decided on, which was the scheme submitted by Cork and Waterford County Councils, was the most economical ofthe various practicable proposals put forward. I also satisfied myself that the existing bridge could not be reconstructed at the cost suggested in certain evidence given at the inquiry and that no reconstruction scheme could be undertaken without the bridge being closed to traffic for a period of from two to six years. The latter consideration alone would have made the proposition completely unacceptable to local interests.
Is the Minister aware that the engineer who gave evidence at the inquiry on the subject of the reconstruction of the bridge also submitted plans for carrying out the work without upsetting traffic on the bridge? He is a gentleman with qualifications as least as high as those of the engineers concerned on the job.
Further arising out of the Minister's reply, may I impress on the Minister the very grave anxiety and worry caused to the people of Youghal and surrounding areas——
What is the question?
I am impressing on the Minister——
This is Question Time.
Then may I ask the question if he will give very serious consideration, as he will be the final arbiter, before sanctioning a bridge at Ardsallagh, which is half or threequarters of a mile away, that the people of Youghal do not want or desire? The people of Youghal want the bridge where the present bridge is and nowhere else.
I have indicated in reply to Deputy Corry that after careful consideration I have come to certain conclusions. I quite freely admit that in a case of this kind, where there seems to be a local prejudice in favour of the re-erection of a bridge at a certain point, that local prejudice, even if there does not appear to be much evidence to sustain it, should be met if at all possible and if it can be met withoutunreasonable cost and without exposing the authorities concerned to considerable risk and danger. I have examined this proposal from all its aspects, knowing as I do and having heard the views of the local people when in Youghal some time ago and anxious to meet their wishes. I have examined the evidence as a layman tendered on both sides and I have come to this conclusion, not because I wish in any way to run counter to any local view but because, on the evidence before me as a result of the inquiry and on the basis of the inspector's report of that inquiry, no other conclusion was possible.
Would the Minister reconsider his decision in this matter, as the new bridge will cost £500,000 compared with £250,000 for reconstruction of the old one? After all, £500,000 is not found on the roadside.
I have stated in my reply that in the conclusion to which I came on the evidence before me the reconstruction of the existing bridge is not practicable unless the bridge is to be closed for a period of two to six years, and I take it that would not be a pleasing prospect to the people of Youghal.
I am prepared to back the opinion of the engineer who gave evidence at the inquiry on that matter and who put in the proposal.
May I ask the Minister this question? During his visit to Youghal within the past 12 months the Minister was interviewed by a very responsible body of people in Youghal, all of one opinion, that the bridge should not be built further up the river than parallel to the present site. The Minister has stated he is acting on the advice of his inspector. May I respectfully suggest to the Minister, in view of the fact that he has heard the views of people in Youghal, that he should not flout their wishes by erecting the bridge further up? This, Sir, is a very important matter.
The Deputy should find some other method of raising it. He is making a speech.
I would ask the Minister, so, to give very serious consideration to the matter before he finally sanctions a bridge at Ardsallagh which people do not want on that site.
I have assured the Deputy that I was prepared to load the dice heavily in favour of the local view if I could find sustaining evidence from the technical point of view. Unfortunately, although I went into consideration of this matter in that frame of mind, I could not find technical evidence to support such a course and, therefore, no other decision was possible but the one I have made.
One final question, a Cheann Comhairle. As I am one who has been more closely in touch with the site of this bridge than anyone else, may I ask if the Minister is aware that on the contemplated site of the proposed new bridge at Ardsallagh, within my memory extending over 35 years we have had four landslides on the particular road where the bridge is now proposed to be built; and within the past five years Youghal Urban Council had to expend £7,000, approximately, to change the course of their water supply? This is a very serious matter, Sir, and whilst I am not an engineer, these four or five landslides make it seem absolutely farcical to decide on that site.
No fears have been expressed in any shape or form by the technical people concerned along the lines suggested by the Deputy.
Time will tell. In view of the reply given by the Minister, I wish to give notice, Sir, that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
I give notice I wish to raise it also.
A Deputy
Cork East!
I am prepared to hear both Deputies.
I will have a say in it, too.