Vol. 223 No. 1
asked the Minister for Local Government the initial date when plans for housing development at Maryfield Estate, Artane, Dublin were submitted by the developers to the local authority; whether such plans included provision for open spaces for playing fields or space for recreational purposes; the date when approval was issued by the local authority; and whether approval was granted subject to the inclusion of such open spaces.
19.
asked the Minister for Local Government the date on which construction of dwellinghouses commenced on the Maryfield Estate, Artane, Dublin; the date on which the houses shown on the plans submitted to the local authority were completed; and what steps, if any, have been taken by the developers to develop the private open space in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Acts and the assurance given to house purchasers in the area.
20.
asked the Minister for Local Government whether he is aware that purchasers of houses in the Maryfield Estate, Artane, Dublin were shown a site plan, on which appears an open space adjoining Ardlea Road marked as playing fields and open space; and that they were assured that provision for recreational facilities was being made by the developers; and whether such plan was approved by the local authority at that time.
21.
asked the Minister for Local Government whether the developers of land at the Maryfield Estate, Artane, Dublin have applied to the local authority for permission to build houses on the space designated as playing fields and open space on the site map shown to house purchasers in the area; and what action has been taken by the local authority in the matter.
22.
asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction and concern among householders in the Maryfield Estate, Artane, Dublin at the lack of recreational facilities in the area, and of the danger to which children of the area will be exposed if an application by a developer for permission to build houses on a site designated for playing fields and open space is granted, having regard to the fact that the nearest open space of any magnitude would entail that for recreational purposes children from the Maryfield Estate, would be obliged to cross a busy main road, the Malahide Road; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
23.
asked the Minister for Local Government if he has received an appeal from the developer in respect of Dublin Corporation's refusal to permit building on a site at Ardlea Road, Artane, Dublin; if he will arrange for a public hearing at which members of Maryfield Residents Association may state their objections; if he is aware that the houses on the Estate were originally sold to residents on the clear and written understanding that a playground and park would be constructed on the site; and if he will enforce this contract.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 together.
I am informed by the Dublin Corporation that plans for the development of Maryfield Estate were first lodged with them in 1953 and by order dated 17th June, 1953, general planning permission for the development was granted subject to conditions, one of which related to the provision and maintenance of an open space at the north-west corner of the estate. General permission was granted on 1st December, 1954 in respect of a revised layout, again subject to conditions. One of these conditions provided that the playing fields and open spaces proposed to be provided should be level-led, soiled and grassed and bounded by a six feet high fence to the satisfaction of the Corporation and that the spaces be dedicated to the residents, who would be responsible for maintenance. In January, 1955, an appeal was made to the Minister for Local Government against this condition and other conditions and on 16th November, 1955, the Minister dismissed the appeal and affirmed the condition relating to the open spaces which had been imposed by the Corporation.
Development work commenced on the Estate in 1954 and subsequently, house plans and layout designs for various sections of the Estate were lodged with the Corporation. The last permission in respect of these was granted on 26th June, 1963. Houses on the Estate were completed at various dates since 1954.
On 8th September, 1965, application was made to the Corporation for permission to erect 30 houses on a site which was designated as playing fields and open space on the plans previously approved. Permission was refused by the Corporation on 22nd October, 1965, and an appeal against this decision was lodged with me on the 24th November, 1965. An oral hearing of the appeal has been requested. Objections against the proposed development have been received by me from several residents in the area and from the Maryfield Residents Association and it will be open to these parties to be present or to be represented at the oral hearing which will be arranged in the near future.
I understand that no work on the development of the open space, apart perhaps from some levelling of the site, has been undertaken by the developers. I am not aware of what assurances or guarantees about the open space were given by them to prospective house purchasers. Any question of breach of contract is a matter between the parties concerned and is one in which I have no functions. Sections 31 and 35 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1965, empower planning authorities to take enforcement action against landowners and developers where development is not carried out in conformity with the permission granted.
In considering the appeal I shall take all relevant factors into account, including the objections received by me from local residents. At this stage I could not say what the decision on the appeal will be.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the developer in question, who, I understand, is a very close supporter and associate of the Fianna Fáil organisation, subsequent to the approval of the Corporation of the plan of development subject to certain works being carried out, deliberately ploughed up the fields and interfered with the enjoyment by the householders there of even their native soil? Surely the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that there is some responsibility on him to secure that there is not this blatant avoidance of the planning requirements?
The Deputy is making a statement, not asking a question.
The plan is before the Department on appeal at the moment.
These matters have been before the Department on a number of occasions and all that appear to be happening are further appeals. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I should like to give notice that I desire to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
What question does the Deputy propose to raise?
All of these questions.
The Deputy may not raise more than one.
They were all taken together by the Parliamentary Secretary.
I will discuss the matter with the Deputy. The rule is that only one question may be raised on the Adjournment.
Question No. 21.
