asked the Minister for Local Government in respect of the open space at Fortfield Road and College Drive, Terenure, Dublin the requirements of the Dublin County Council which have not been fully complied with; if he is aware that the developers of the estate have recently assigned their interest to the Irish Life Assurance Company Limited; and whether the County Council can, and will, impose any sanction against the developers or their assignees to secure proper development of the estate.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Terenure (Dublin) Open Space.
62.
Mr. Ryan
I am informed that the main requirements of the Dublin County Council which have not been complied with consist of the construction of a kerb wall around part of the open space in question and the completion of shrub and tree planting. It is a matter for the county council to consider what steps might be taken by them to secure proper development of the estate, including the development of the open space.
Would the Minister say if there is, in fact, any action they can legally take in relation to an open space which they have not been invited to take in charge?
I think that action is being taken at the moment.
The Deputy should not encroach on Deputy Ryan.
63.
Mr. Ryan
asked the Minister for Local Government if he will detail the steps taken by the Dublin County Council to secure development of the derelict site at the junction of Fortfield Road and College Drive, Terenure, Dublin; and if he will state the last date upon which any action was taken in the matter.
On 25th March, 1961, the county council wrote to the person believed to be the owner of the site, drawing attention to its objectionable condition and suggesting remedial action. Certain works were carried out subsequently and promises to carry out further works to render the site non-derelict were received by the council.
On 18th April, 1963, the local authority instituted proceedings under the Derelict Sites Act, 1961, by serving a notice under Section 15 of the Act. A reply was received on the 6th May and on 16th May a notice under Section 2 was served on the person ascertained to be the owner inviting him to make an offer with respect to the carrying out of works to prevent the site from continuing to be derelict or with respect to the future use of the land. The owner replied on the 10th July, 1963, that he proposed to use it as part of a site for a new dwellinghouse. He was refused permission under the Town and Regional Planning Acts in respect of his building proposals and this refusal was upheld by me on appeal. My decision was conveyed to the parties on 18th November. It is for the county council now to decide what further action under the Derelict Sites Act would be appropriate.