Before the debate was adjourned, I had practically made all the points which I considered to be important, having had experience of planning in the Dublin region. I want to say that I am not nearly so critical of our housing development as other Deputies appear to be. I have seen development in various parts of England and on the Continent and I must say it left me feeling rather proud of the efforts made here. What we need is more housing and every facility for providing more housing and removing all the restrictions that arise in the course of trying to get more building done. If I have any criticism to make of our architects, it is that they appear to place far more importance on the outside appearance of a house than on the interior comfort for the people who have to live in the houses, things like insulation and the exclusion of draughts and so on.
I am sorry the Minister was not able to be present when I was speaking before and apparently he is not able to be here today. I am not fully satisfied with Section 35. We regard it in Dublin as an extremely important section. It is the section which gives power to a local authority to insist that a developer carries out the work fully which he proposed to do in accordance with the provisions of the planning permission. What rather disturbs me is that its application is fully retrospective and that is indicated in Section 82 also.
I should like to refer to page 25 of the Minister's speech where he deals with Section 35. He said:
As drafted, Section 35 of the Bill has the advantage of enabling the planning authority to place responsibility on a developer, to make it an offence for him not to discharge his obligations, and to recover from him any expenses which they incur in making good his default. If the planning authority fail to serve an enforcement notice under the Section they may be compelled to do so by the Minister. If the developer is in receipt of ground rents, they may be attached——
What if he is not in receipt of ground rents? I want to develop that further.
—they may be attached for the purpose of recovering expenses if such is necessary. The most important aspect of the section is, however, that it will be possible to apply it not only to future cases, but to many of those currently being dealt with.
My comment is: why not all? What are the cases to which it is not applicable in retrospect? Are we referring here to cases where we have no way or no means, where there are no ground rents to be attached? This is the position in many cases because ground rents are very often sold and disposed of before a development even begins. Unless there is some provision in the new legislation prohibiting the sale of ground rents in advance of the completion of development, we lose all effective grip on the developer and many people will in future continue to suffer as they have suffered up to the present as a result of development not being completed and the refusal of the local authority in those circumstances to take the estate in charge.
I should like to know also if it is still the intention that the developer must make a request to have a particular estate taken in charge before the local authority can proceed to take it in charge because that condition has been an instrument for holding up the taking in charge of many estates. The developer often has more reasons than one for not making that request.
There is another matter of importance. A developer at his own expense brings services such as sewerage and water to the edge of a development and does not want any other developer to continue the development in an adjoining property. The fact that he has brought the sewerage gives him a lien on adjoining property. I, personally, think that that is all wrong. It excludes all other bidders for the property. There should be some way of compelling a developer to surrender rights to these services on payment of adequate compensation by the person who wishes to develop the adjoining property.
It is very important that Section 35 should be completely tied up because of the frustration that it has caused, especially in the Dublin region, where we have had considerable experience of this matter.
I should like to refer to building densities, in preparing a plan and determining building densities, very often in regard to the rural areas of a county the density is fixed at one house per five acres. In the case of a person who has been resident in the area all his lifetime and whose people have resided there for generations, and who, although he may be comparatively poor, is very anxious to build his own house, it means that he must first secure the sterilisation of five acres which, again, often means that he must buy five acres, before he will have a site which will be acceptable for the building of a house. That should not operate in the case of old residents of any area. They have a right to have their house built in the area in which their people have been living for generations and they should not be required to incur the unnecessary expense of sterilising five acres because they want to build their own house. There is no indication in the section that this can be taken in charge.
There is great necessity, also, for the coordination of the activities of Government Departments and local authorities in connection with the laying of the various services in housing estates, and cooperation in paying for the services. That would obviate the necessity for repeated excavation work on the same road and the same footpath, with everybody's objection and to everybody's disturbance.
I want now to refer to unauthorised structures. What exactly will be regarded as unauthorised structures? Take, for example, a case where a building proposal was made to the local authority and where they failed to reply to the application within the period laid down—two months. The applicant has no written evidence that he got permission to carry out the building. Even though, legally, he has permission, by default, is he to be regarded as a person who has erected unauthorised structures? That is an important point. A considerable number of buildings have been erected in areas where there were no bye-laws governing this matter and because there is no written permission in existence these buildings are unauthorised structures. Is the power being given in this Bill to have these structures knocked down at the expense of the person who put them up? That is a matter that should be attended to.
The clause, "of any other material considerations" is a most objectionable feature of this planning legislation. It enables a local authority or the Minister to reject an application on any and every ground. We must be specific. We must show that we are anxious for development, not anxious, in fact, to retard development.
I am very pleased that it is proposed to grant to local authorities the power to secure necessary development expeditiously but I should hate to feel that some over-officious bureaucrat could use this as an instrument of persecution, as could easily happen. Unfortunately, some people in certain positions are capable of carrying things to extremes. If this were carried to extremes a man could not put down a flower bed in his front garden if it required a concrete surround, without permission. A case has come to my notice where three old women living in a wooden hut were getting a porch built by the St. Vincent de Paul Society and somebody stepped in to say that they had no authority and could not build without permission, that if they did build, the rent and rates would be increased, and frightened the life out of them. That sort of thing should be safeguarded against.
Planning, while not really essential for the major portion of the country, has become very essential in built-up areas, such as the city of Dublin, partly due to a decision to remove all transport and traffic off the railways and canals and on to the roads. The position will become worse in future, due to many factors. At the moment in the Dublin region about one person in seven of the population has a car. In New York one person in three of the population has a car. I would say that we will reach that point in the not too distant future. It is expected that there will be much more leisure in future, that there will be a shorter working week. In countries where that position obtains it is found that it is people on their way to and from recreation that clutter up the roads. It is absolutely essential that we should plan in advance to meet such a situation.
When dealing with Section 35, I omitted to mention a very important matter in regard to the question of ground rents. It is extremely important and certainly it has not been fully explained here and the position has not been sufficiently safeguarded. It is the question of claims for compensation. I am just wondering in what form claims for compensation can arise. It is said that they can arise only when a proposition has been turned down. In an area where there are no services at present can a person put forward a pretty large development proposal based on a local sewerage and local water supply and if that is turned down can the person concerned automatically proceed against the local authority for compensation? It is important that that position should be clarified. If that is the case, I think we will have many such claims.
In regard to compensation, what is the position of a man who has land in an area which is surrounded by building development and who is not allowed to build on that land? He is on the fringe of a development area and no further development is permitted, for one reason or another, beyond that area. He is surrounded and he has endless trespass or, if he is not to have endless trespass, he would want to build a fortification around his bit of land. Is he entitled to compensation? I think he is. His farm has been rendered practically useless for agricultural purposes and he is not allowed to build on it. His position should be clarified.
I have referred to delays of all descriptions. If there is an appeal to the Minister, there should be a time limit for the determination of the appeal and a definite reason should be given for any alteration of the decision of the local authority. If the decision of the local authority is reversed on appeal, the Minister should be required to state the reason.
My personal view, of course, is that it is wrong that the Minister should have the final power and authority that it is sought to give him in this Bill. In the first place, it makes for duplication and, in addition, it makes for many undesirable approaches to the question. I am not referring to any particular Minister because there will be many changes, I am sure. Where officials of the planning Authority refuse permission for a development, that refusal should come before the elected representatives of the local authority and if two-thirds of the members of the local authority decide in favour of the development the development should be allowed and the matter should not have to go to the Minister. As I say, the appeal to the Minister makes for duplication. If there is a large number of such appeals, and I would expect that there would be, the appeals would then have to be considered by town planning experts in the Department who would not be in any better position to give advice than the local planning officers. In fact, they would not be in nearly as good a position to do so. It would merely create extra work. The matters should be referred to the elected representatives and they should make the decision. If they do not know what the people want, they should know. In the last analysis, it is what the people want that should be allowed.
Of course, the Minister has a function. In my view, where he comes in is in regard to regional development. If there is a dispute between two local authorities with regard to regional services it is the Minister's responsibility to settle that dispute and to allow of development on a national scale but I would confine his power and authority to that aspect of planning in legislation and I would confine it very strictly because it is completely wrong that the Minister should get the powers that are sought in this legislation.
Section 35 should be more specific. Coupled with that section there should be a provision laying down the obligations and responsibilities of local authorities in co-operation with developers and others carrying out building. If you do not get such co-operation, the position will still be chaotic. There should be a more reasonable and a well-defined attitude. The obligation should exist for the taking over of estates road by road as development takes place. Such takeover should not have to await the completion of an estate. The estate in question may be a big estate or an estate that will grow. We should not have to wait until the entire estate is completed or until we get a request to take it over. The estate should be taken over street by street, road by road, and all the services provided. Otherwise, the ratepayers are being defrauded and people are being discouraged from providing for themselves their own housing accommodation.