Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 4 Oct 1966

Vol. 224 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Local Government (Planning and Development) (Amendment) Bill, 1966: Second Stage.

Mr. S. Dunne

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

By introducing this Bill, Deputy Clinton and I are striving to fill a need which was left unattended to, no doubt inadvertently, by the Planning Bill which we passed not so long ago. In the course of the lengthy debate on that Bill, many aspects of housebuilding and construction and the planning of estates were dealt with and a number of us who have constituents living in new estates surrounding the city— mainly in Dundrum, Churchtown and Walkinstown on the south side and in Santry, Blanchardstown and Palmerstown on the other side, as well as many others in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown constituency which is contiguous to ours—felt very concerned because, though it had been thought the Planning Bill could be made effective in respect of estates which had been completed prior to its passing, in fact as it turned out the Planning Act, at least in the opinion of the Law Agent of Dublin County Council, a very able man and a meticulous lawyer, did not give to local authorities the right to require planners and building developers in the estates I have mentioned to put the estates in a condition fit to enable them to be taken over by the local authorities.

What this means—I may be sounding a bit complicated about what is really a very simple thing—may be simply explained by giving an example. The manner of building houses under the Small Dwellings Acts has followed a pattern in the Dublin suburban areas. A housing developer acquires a section of land; he develops it by installing water and sewerage services and goes on to build on it himself or has a builder or a number of builders erect houses on it. The houses are sold by the builder to people, most of whom would have availed of the Small Dwellings Acts to get loans and grants from Dublin County Council and from the Department of Local Government or loans from the commercial building societies.

In many such cases, when all the houses in an estate were built and tenanted, it was found that a number of things remained still to be done. For instance, footpaths were often left unfinished, open spaces were left in an unsatisfactory condition, in some instances being no better than refuse dumps. In general, it was found that many of the estates had not been brought to the condition required by the county council and which had been set out in the plans originally submitted by the developers to the county council. In turn, the county council have taken the stand that they could not provide the ordinary maintenance services such as roads and the collection of refuse bins until the builder or the developer had got the estates to the required condition; in other words, to a point at which they could be taken over by the local authorities.

It was thought by many of us— indeed the Minister went on record giving an assurance to the House— that the Planning Act provided powers for Dublin County Council to compel builders and developers who had not completed such estates in accordance with their plans to do so. We thought that the Act also provided penalties for those who declined to do so. The view of Dublin County Council's Law Agent is that the Act has no retrospective effect, that it could operate in respect of estates which were begun subsequent to the passage of the Bill but not in respect of estates which had lain there, especially some which had lain there for years before the Bill was passed, that the county council had not in this matter the power to act with retrospective effect.

That is the simple problem with which we are faced. Members of the Dublin County constituency come up against this problem very often. Quite a number of the estates around the perimeter of the city have active residents' associations and we have attended meetings of many of them. Almost invariably this problem is brought to light at these meetings but there is the difficulty of having anything done about it in the light of the county council Law Agent's interpretation. Deputy Clinton and I and, I am sure, Deputy P.J. Burke, although not perhaps in a position to append his name to a private Bill of this kind because of his membership of the Government Party—we understand that—felt it desirable that we should introduce this Private Members' Bill to enable a discussion on the true legal position in respect of which members of the local authority have been advised, and to put beyond yea or nea the right of the local authority to act against developers or builders who have left estates unfinished, even if such estates were left in that condition prior to the passage of the most recent Town Planning Act.

That is the simple purpose of this amending Bill. I do not know what the views of the Minister's departmental legal advisers are. I recall that the Minister expressed the view that the powers to do this were already there, but there is doubt about that, and doubt expressed by legal men. Where there is such doubt, the obvious thing to do is to remove the doubt. It may very well be that the Minister's view is correct, that the power is there, but how is one to know, if one proceeds in court, that the court may not take the opposite view? Courts are a maverick kind of institution and very often take the most unexpected view of what might appear to us to be the most obvious solution to a problem. It does appear to us that the most effective procedure would be to have this Bill accepted by the Minister, or, alternatively, if the Minister would adopt the Bill as his own, it would suit us just as well. All we are seeking is a solution to this very sore problem.

Hardly a week goes by that the Deputies for Dublin County—and, I am sure, those Deputies who operate on the fringe of the city—do not receive representations from residents' associations on this very problem, the fact that there are heaps of mud around the estate, unfinished paths, unfinished fences, with the open spaces left in a completely unusable condition, very often left open even for tinkers to camp on them or be misused in one way or another. I am sure the Minister understands what the Bill is about, and I urge it upon him most sincerely and strongly in the interests of all the residents in the suburban areas concerned.

Mr. Clinton

The decision to bring this matter before the House by way of Private Members' Bill was made only when it became clear that the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act of 1963 was ineffective and failed completely to provide the legal basis for enforcement in connection with the taking in charge of unfinished estates. Such estates in County Dublin are considerable in number. Because of the failure to take these estates in charge, the effective services that a large number of people should be getting have been denied to them for a very considerable period, as long as 20 years in some cases. We have at least one instance of an estate that is 20 years built and the people there, who have been for many years on full rates, are still denied the normal services to which they would otherwise be entitled. As the House will appreciate, this leads to considerable discontent and agitation by the people concerned. It leads also to a certain disinterest in the community in which they live and a feeling that they have been let down badly by the local authorities and by the public representatives generally.

It is almost impossible for any public representative to explain to ordinary people that there are very real difficulties in the way of taking over the estate and giving them the services to which they should be normally entitled. They just feel—and this is normal, too—that they are being deprived of these services deliberately by the local authority in order to save money. As we know, if the estate is not in charge, the most limited services are all that these people can get. They get a dustbin collection, because they must get that under the Health Act, but the roads are not swept, the grass margins are not properly kept, and the open spaces in most of these estates that I know are just like a jungle. I often wonder how it is they are not caught under the Noxious Weeds Act by another Department. There seems to be little enforcement of that Act in the unfinished estates and in the open spaces in County Dublin, and these open spaces are an eyesore all the time.

In common with other public representatives, I have had this problem on my plate for quite a number of years and, indeed, for a number of years before the legislation of 1963 was enacted. During the passage of that legislation through this House, I took a particular interest in the possibility of having this legislation applied retrospectively to these unfinished estates where developers did not live up to ordinary, reasonable responsibilities and allow people to get the amenities to which they are entitled as ratepayers. We all know that when these people went into the estates, there was considerable exemption from rates for seven years. Now they start to pay rates straight away, and, of course, the estates to which I refer are all on rates and most of them on full rates.

The great difficulty that seems to arise about the application of this section 35 is that it cannot be applied retrospectively in cases where the permissions granted were not tailored to the 1963 legislation. I am aware the practice has been, during the years from 1934 to 1963, that when a developer came along with a plan and specification, he got permission on the plan and specification, but there were no expressed conditions in regard to the carrying out or the completion of that development. The conditions were implied but not expressed and because of that, the 1963 legislation is now ineffective and cannot be applied retrospectively because, apparently, the existence of conditions cannot be proved. In cases where the conditions were exactly spelled out and specified, section 35 would be effective in retrospect, especially if taken in conjunction with subsection (2) of section 92 but there were no such cases.

It might be no harm to refresh our memories by reading section 92, subsection (2):

A general or special permission granted under the Act of 1934 shall be treated for the purposes of this Act, including in particular sections 30, 31 and 35, as a permission granted under section 26 of this Act and a record of such permission shall be included in the register.

It is all right to say that a permission under the 1963 Act can be regarded as if it were a permission under the 1934 Act, but it is generally recognised that under the 1934 Act, there was no real power of enforcement. The local authorities had interim control and permissions were granted subsequent to the production of plans and specifications and a builder or developer was expected to carry out the development according to these specifications, but it would be unreasonable to expect the officers or the law agent of any local authority to anticipate the legislation enacted in 1963 and, apparently, it would have been necessary to anticipate that legislation and to tailor the permissions accordingly, if sections 35 and 92 of the 1963 Act were to be applicable and effective now.

I want to impress upon the Minister that this Private Members' Bill was not introduced lightly. It concerns every public representative in County Dublin. There are similar difficulties experienced in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and, as Deputy Dunne has said, on the fringe areas of the city. Deputy Dunne said that his name and mine had been appended to this Bill and that but for a misplaced loyalty, Deputy Burke's name would also be appended to it. I say that Deputy Burke is in full sympathy with the amendment proposed in this Bill because I have listened to him trying to explain to people, as I have been trying to explain to them, why various estates had not been taken in charge and why, having been in existence for from ten to 20 years, they were not getting services.

Everybody wants this change. We are simply asking the Minister if the type of amendment which we propose does not satisfy him, to find a way out of the difficulty. We do not mind who does it or how it is done, as long as it is done.

I had another look at this Bill today. Whereas the amendment proposed to section 35 of the Principal Act may not fill the bill, that is:

(10) The provisions of this section shall apply in respect of works of whatsoever kind (which shall include the acquisition and development of open spaces) whether commenced before or after the passing of this Act,

could I recommend that the Minister might consider something along the following lines to meet the problem which I have tried to spell out, perhaps not very clearly:

For the avoidance of doubt, where before the enactment of the Act of 1963 permission for a development was given consequent on submission of plans and specification therefor there shall be deemed to be annexed to such permission a condition that the development shall be carried out and completed in accordance with such plans and specification?

I have gone through the Principal Act in some detail and feel that if we had this sort of coverage in a subsection that is all we would need to clear the 31 outstanding cases that I am aware of in County Dublin.

I mentioned the estates where we are in difficulty because I wanted to impress on the Minister that this is no small problem. I know that at Question Time and other occasions the Minister has expressed the view that the 1963 Planning and Development Act was fully effective and gave complete cover in this type of difficulty. As I have said, it has been given as his opinion by our legal adviser in Dublin County Council that that is not so, for the reasons, more or less, which I have tried to outline and which I hope the Minister will try to understand.

I know that the Minister was questioned on this aspect at the time the legislation was going through the House and assured us on more than one occasion that the legislation could be fully and effectively applied retrospectively and represented the end of our difficulties. Unfortunately, we expected that to be the case and honestly believed it to be the case and, as a result, we visited the various areas where residents were in serious difficulty and were protesting and told them that it was our opinion that when the legislation which was going through the House was enacted, they would be delivered from their troubles. As time went on, we found that that was not the case and that the same difficulty and the same problems were arising because developers, for their own good reasons, did not want to hand over estates. In many cases they do not want to hand them over because they have done either a bad job or a middling job, and certainly have not done a job that is to the satisfaction or the specifications of the engineers and planners in the areas concerned and also because it involves them in extra expense in bringing the various services up to reasonable standards.

In addition, in many of the areas to which I refer it was a condition of planning permission that a reasonable area would be set aside as an open space which we all considered at the time would be a public open space for the full and unrestricted enjoyment of the people in the area. Some smart legal man in Dublin has discovered that, in fact, this is not a public open space but a private open space and Dublin County Council are confronted now with the position where we are obliged to purchase what we believed would be the property of the council free of charge on conclusion of development. We have to move in now and bargain with these people and try to buy at a price. Even doing that, we are still confronted with the fact that the developers simply will not finish, will not do any better job, and have sold all the houses in the area. They are no longer in any way induced to continue the job. They do not feel obliged to do so.

When the unfortunate people in these estates were buying their homes, they were shown nicely ornamented plans on which were depicted green open spaces and imaginary trees. They got the artist's impression. They were deceived by many of these developers. They were shown on paper all the amenities to which they would become heir, if and when they bought a house from a particular builder or developer. Most of these amenities have, in fact, never materialised. Indeed, what appeared to them to be an open space for the enjoyment of the people is now a jungle for dumping refuse and for rat infestation—certainly not a place where their children could go out and play as they expected.

This is not a small problem. I think I will be backed up in this by every public representative in the area. It is a problem of considerable dimensions and I hope the Minister will give us the power to solve it. There are 31 such estates in County Dublin at present. These are all cases where planning permission was granted simply on plans and specifications produced. Conditions were implied and not expressed. These are the places where the developers and builders are in a position to dig in their heels, thumb their noses at the county council and decide they will finish these estates when it suits them. It just does not seem to suit them. There is no legal pressure we can put on them to finish these estates. That is the opinion of the legal adviser. The only pressure we can bring is the fact that these people in a number of cases will be involved in further development in the county somewhere. There is always the feeling that their future applications might not be treated with all the favour they might normally expect if they were good developers and did the job in a reasonable way.

For the records of the House, it is no harm that we should list these estates in trouble where we want the powers to put the matter right: Annaville, Dundrum; Linden Lee, Stillorgan; Orchardstown Park, Butterfield; Goatstown Avenue; St. Mary's Park, Drive and Crescent—it is 20 years since St. Mary's Park got permission—Wynberg Park, Blackrock; Woodbrook Drive, Butterfield; Woodlands Drive; Churchtown Close; O'Connor Estate, Rathfarnham Avenue; Dromartin Estate; Clonkeen Road; Johnstown Estate, Cabinteely; Manor Estate, Woodley Park, Kilmacud; Landy Estate, Templeogue; Quality Homes, Butterfield; Beechfield Estate, Castleknock; Brookfield Park Estate, Strandbrook; Corbawn Estate, Shankill: Howards Field Estate, Malahide; Beechmount Drive, Bird Ave; Wainsfort Park; Greentrees Manor Estate; Hollywood, Goatstown; Cherry Garth, Mount Merrion; Granite Field; Lambert Estate and Lambert Estate Extension; Orchardstown Estate and Grange Park.

I am listing these to let the Minister see that this is no small problem. This refers to County Dublin. I am aware there is a number of similar estates in Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown. I have no notion of the number of people involved in these estates but I know they are people on full rates entitled to a number of services they are not getting. The roads are not swept. It is not possible for these people to get a bus service into the estate because CIE consider they would be trespassers if they moved into what is described as a private estate. This whole question of public and private must be decided if people are to be allowed live reasonably and not go through all this again.

Our only anxiety is to find a way. I hope the Minister will not take it that he is in any way tied to the exact form of the amendment we propose. Perhaps the second solution. I have mentioned might meet the difficulty better. I am not a legal person. I know it is difficult to tie down the legal people. I am saying that with one of these legal gentlemen close to my elbow. I hope he has something to say on this. I trust the Minister will find a way out of the difficulties, having heard those difficulties spelled out as well as I can spell them out. Sections 35 and 92, though they gave the impression of having retrospective effect, cannot be applied retrospectively because the permissions were not in accordance with legislation enacted 30 years later.

Mr. P.J. Burke

This is one of the most controversial problems for public men in County Dublin. The Minister discussed it with Deputy Clinton and myself and other members of the county council. He did everything possible for us. As a result of our representations, he introduced section 35, and for that I am deeply grateful. This matter is completely above politics. Members of all Parties have been invited to attend meetings concerning these estates over the years. We were abused and told we were only bluffing. When section 35 was introduced, we told those people we had a cure for all their ills. This is one platform on which we do not try to score off one another because this is a problem concerning every one of us. The Minister met a joint deputation to discuss the problem. I do not know why we have it in County Dublin. I suppose the explanation is simply that there was more private enterprise development in County Dublin than in any other constituency.

I often went to the builder and to the developer and appealed to them to meet us. I went to Dublin County Council and on a few occasions we went jointly to the builders. I want to pay a compliment to the decent builders and decent developers who have done their job without any pressure but we have a hard core who have succeeded in avoiding doing what they should do. I have in mind St. Mary's Park which has been developed for about 20 years. The estate went into liquidation. The ground rent was sold but, having taken over the liability, the new owners will not do the job. They bought the ground rent but they will do nothing about roads, paths and the open spaces which are rat warrens. We had to send out inspectors to try to poison the rats which were actually getting into those houses by the back door. That situation is due to the fact that the original developer did not do his job. They are not concerned with the big problem which we have to face. Things became so bad in that estate that we wanted to do the job ourselves but the trouble is that if we create a precedent in County Dublin by doing this work, then every other developer there will ask us to do the same thing for them.

As I have already said, section 35 of the 1963 Act is an excellent section. I was delighted to hear Deputy Clinton say he was not anxious to force this, provided the Minister and his officials would have another look at the section to see how to surmount the problem. Our advice by our legal department in Dublin County Council is that while it is an excellent section, it has no retrospective effect. I have often opposed retrospective legislation in this House as it is slightly undemocratic but sometimes, with greater enlightenment, one has to change one's outlook. We want to catch these people through some kind of retrospective legislation. Our legal adviser, Mr. Matt Purcell, is one of our most conscientious lawyers. The Minister, Deputy Clinton, Deputy S. Dunne and I thought that section 35 was a cure for all ills but our legal adviser has told us that while it is an excellent section and while we shall never again have the same difficulties in County Dublin as a result of the section, nevertheless it is very desirable that we should have retrospective power here.

Recently, I was elected chairman of the Dublin Health Authority. People write to me asking if we cannot do anything about the rats. The reason for all the trouble is neglect by the developer. I was asked to put my name to this but I refused and I am now explaining my position. One can be embarrassed occasionally as a public representative, but in fairness I must say that Deputy S. Dunne and Deputy Clinton were very gentlemanly about it. I discussed this with the Minister and I know I am pushing an open door. If the Minister were representing County Dublin, he would realise the problem facing us. It is strange how ironic and how sarcastic people can be but I do not blame them because if any of us had to live in the same conditions as these people in St. Mary's Park, then we should feel the very same towards persons who, in our view, were not doing their job. We even had the advice of senior counsel on section 35 of the 1963 Act.

I do not agree with the wording of the amendment by my two colleagues but I was delighted when Deputy Clinton said that we really want the Minister to take action to deal with the situation. I appeal to him to do so. It is certainly a great pleasure to know that, by reason of section 35, we shall never have the same trouble with estates again.

I should like to say to our very good developers in the city and county of Dublin that we appreciate the good job they have done and that it is only this hard core that constitutes the difficulty. If we set about the job ourselves, we are immediately opening the floodgates for every other estate and for every other small developer. That is something we must not do. We have been forced in the case of St. Mary's, but we have been told by the local authority, and rightly so, that we should not do these things. I have tried to make our position clear and I make an appeal now to Deputy Dunne and Deputy Clinton. If the Minister will give an assurance that he will have another look at this, together with his officials, that will, I think, meet our position.

Mr. Cosgrave

I should like to support the principle enshrined in this amending Bill. The Minister has been told what the problem is as it affects a great many residents, particularly in the County Dublin area, which includes the borough of Dún Laoghaire. To a certain extent, these problems also affect parts of city constituencies which have been developed as a result of the extension of the city boundary.

The problem is primarily, but not exclusively, confined to newly developed areas in which there has been a good deal of housing development. It is a problem with which Deputies who represent constituencies unaffected by such development may not be familiar and may even have some difficulty in understanding or appreciating. As Deputy Clinton said, the problem here is to find a way in which to ensure that legislation can be made effective. None of us is wedded to the particular terms of the amending Bill but I am sure there will be general support for whatever type of amendment may be necessary to achieve the desired result. This is in no sense a Party political matter since the problem is one which affects people of different Party political persuasions.

It must be emphasised, and clearly understood both by the Minister and his officials, that the problems created for residents in these new estates are acute and pressing. Those who reside in the areas and public representatives who have had representations made to them, in many cases made repeatedly over very long periods, understand and appreciate the difficulties that exist. Indeed, in relation to certain parts of Dún Laoghaire and Rathdown, repeated representations have been made over the past 20 years. The same is probably true of other parts of County Dublin. This goes back to the post-war expansion in housing development.

In most of these newly-developed estates the problems are identical: one is delay in taking over the roads, due in some cases to the fact that the developers have failed to complete certain works, possibly minor in character, in order to comply with the requirements of the county council specifications. Another is failure to complete works of a more serious character. In other cases lights have not been provided, though that is probably not a major problem. The fact that roads are not taken over means that CIE refuse to provide bus services into these estates because they have no legal right to run buses on roads that are not designated as public roads. Another problem is the fact that playgrounds and parks are not provided or, if space is left for ultimate developments, steps have not been taken to complete the necessary works. All these problems occur sometimes in fringe areas in which development has taken place and sometimes in entirely new estates which have assumed a character of their own. It is correct to say that the residents of these estates invariably show a most commendable public spirit in organising themselves into voluntary committees and residents' associations for the sole purpose of ensuring that amenities and services are provided. As the Minister and the House will appreciate, the majority of the residents are either newly-married or persons with young families.

In a certain number of these newly-developed estates, there is the problem of inadequate schooling facilities. Whilst that is not strictly a matter for the Department of Local Government, lack of a definite decision in respect of playing fields, parks and general layout in certain cases has impinged on the development of schooling facilities because sites have not been provided, or a decision has not been taken or plans which have been submitted cannot be implemented because of delay in getting general approval. As was mentioned here, in the last analysis, there may be a doubt about the effective authority to enforce compliance with plans.

I am naturally more familiar with the problems relating to my own constituency. The problem in Dún Laoghaire is not by any means as acute, with one or two exceptions, as it is in the Rathdown portion of the constituency, but there are certain parts of Dún Laoghaire Borough in which residents have been affected by these problems. It is true to say that in every part of the Rathdown portion of the constituency, from Mount Merrion and Stillorgan out to Foxrock, Cabinteely, Deansgrange, Kilmacud, Gledswood and Clonskeagh, estates have been developed and what exasperates the residents more than anything else is the fact that, with the exception of road cleaning arrangements and facilities under the scavenging section of either the county council or the corporation, no service has been or is being provided, although in all cases the householder or ratepayer concerned is liable for rates in respect of the house. In many cases a number of these ratepayers have been paying full rates for a considerable number of years.

As I mentioned, those who have not had the experience of residing in one of these estates, or attending a meeting of a residents' association or some other group, or of having been approached by a resident or a number of residents in regard to the problem, cannot adequately appreciate the great difficulties that have been caused. In certain areas, and this applies particularly in parts of Kilmacud and Stillorgan, and even into Blackrock, there is the added problem for a number of residents of flooding. Here again, the problem, to a considerable extent, has been aggravated by a lack of adequate preliminary preparation before some of the building was allowed, or roads constructed. Houses have been built and roads constructed and no adequate provision made to take surplus water or to take off water that wells up in these areas because of their proximity to the Dublin Mountains and to the very heavy and rapid outfall from that area.

Here again, of course, the problem is a seasonal one but it is nonetheless acute and unless one is familiar with how these streams and rivers can well into torrents at very short notice, compared with their normal pattern of a trickle, then one cannot appreciate the problem created. Therefore I should like to reinforce what has been said by other speakers and emphasise to the Minister and to the Department that any reasonable proposal to amend the 1963 Act in order to make it effective would be acceptable. Many people expected that once the 1963 Act was passed, a great many of these problems, which had created so many difficulties for so many people over a great number of years, would be, if not solved, at least tackled so that they could see the end of the road. However, they have been disappointed to find that the particular provisions in the legislation do not confer or may not confer adequate legal powers to deal with this matter. Therefore, any reasonable proposal which would ensure that the legislation would be made effective would be welcomed by the residents concerned.

I should also like to point out to the Minister that another problem for many of these areas is the length of time it takes to deal with planning applications and appeals. In certain cases—admittedly, delay was greater prior to the 1963 Act but it still exists —applications in regard to certain work may be submitted and the residents of the estate may only find out, when the application is already in and in some cases decided upon, that a decision had been taken or action had been taken and that in regard to the steps which they wish to take to have their problem considered on, say, a proposed development, an alteration to include parks and playgrounds, perhaps, the time has elapsed or the notice has expired. I should be glad if the Minister would consider that aspect of the problem. I only want to reinforce what has been said from all sides of the House in favour of some form of amending legislation to enable uncompleted estates to be dealt with.

There are very numerous estates throughout the Dublin area, both in Dún Laeoghaire-Rathdown area and in certain city constituencies as well. I think it true to say that to a very considerable extent in some of the new estates the residents outnumber the old residents in the particular area. When development was gradual, it was always possible to provide for a limited extension of services, or an extension of the existing roads, to meet the people's needs but with the rapid development of a great number of these estates, there is much to be desired and because of failure to complete the work, the people are unable to get services of quite an ordinary kind, such as post-boxes, or lights, or nameplates and so on. In addition, rat infestation and dumps of one sort or another have caused serious problems and in some cases have created dangers to health. Therefore I would like to urge the Minister to bring in amending legislation as soon as possible, or, if possible, to have a suitable, amendment considered at the later stages of this Bill, to enable work on these estates to be completed.

Mr. Andrews

I should like to make a few comments on this matter. I think it has been agreed that this Bill was introduced in good faith and I should like to support Deputy Burke in accepting that proposition. Section 35 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act covers those estates built after the operative date of the 1963 Act, October, 1964, and as speakers have said, one of the great problems—certainly in the constituency I represent—is dealing with these questions from residents' associations. Residents'associations are entitled to go into estates and within a reasonable time are entitled to expect that the estates will be taken in charge by the local authority. In my constituency there are a number of estates which, after 15 to 20 years, have still not been taken in charge. I am not satisfied that this amendment, which, as I said, has been put down in good faith, will solve the problem. However, it has achieved this: it has brought the problem out into the open. I think it has done that much good. I would support an amendment to the 1963 Act which would clear up once and for all this whole question of the taking over of estates. As has been said, the problems range from lack of facilities for the provision of telephones, the lack of locations for schools, to rat infestation and dumps. All those matters arise where estates have not been taken over by local authorities.

I am not blaming the local authorities. Their functions are well settled by statute. I would support, however, any legislation which would bind the developer or the builder to hand over the estate completed within a certain time. A time limit should be placed on a builder with regard to the handing over of the estate to the local authority. One of our greatest occupations, as has been mentioned, is going around weekly from resident association to resident association. Invariably the problem is the condition of the estate one aspect or another of it, such as the continuity of the roads—a new estate road coming on to an old road and the division or joining portion not completed for ages.

Those are some of the problems with regard to resident associations. As most Deputies know, some of those resident associations have very real problems to deal with. I have always welcomed co-operation between residents, no matter what political Party they represent. They do a first-class job.

There are many estates, as the last speaker has said, in the Rathdown part of the constituency which affect us. Rathdown is the newer section of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown constituency. There are many new estates which have been built there in the past few years. Mount Merrion has been mentioned and also Kilmacud, Stillorgan, Gledswood, Cabinteely, Foxrock, Glenageary, Deansgrange and Clonskeagh and in each of those estates there are defects of one type or another. I would appeal to the Minister once and for all-I do not suggest that he should accept this specific amendment because it might add to the confusion which at present exists—to accept an amendment, or possibly try to interpret the section for us to let us know exactly how effective it is.

A thought occurred to me in relation to the legality of the section. Would ACRA, which represents residents' associations, not bring a test case under the Act to have it interpreted by the courts? As Deputy Burke has mentioned, section 35 was accepted by all Parties. I suggest, in order to get a definitive interpretation of the section, that it be brought by way of test case to the courts. This would solve our greatest problem in the Dublin County area and the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area.

Finally, I would like to reiterate that this Bill was introduced, I am quite satisfied, in a non-political manner and this is the way it should be dealt with. It should be dealt with in a mature and civilised manner. I should like to express my congratulations to speakers of all Parties who have spoken on it. They know that one of the greatest problems affecting urban Deputies is the whole question of the taking in charge of estates by local authorities.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

I want to say a few words in support of this Bill. I also am not satisfied that the Bill is the best Bill and that it sets out all the matters as clearly as it should but all the speakers tonight have impressed on the Minister the need, at least, for amendment of section 35 of the 1963 Act.

Deputy Clinton has given a list of the unfinished estates in County Dublin and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. I agree with him that those estates are ones which are not apparently covered by section 35. I think it is the intention —certainly it would be my intention —that this Bill would rectify the position regarding those estates. This would enable the local authorities to clear up the open spaces, the unfinished footpaths and the other matters referred to by various speakers.

I was surprised today to receive a notice from a tenants' association. I happened to read the secretary's report, which was enclosed with it. It referred to rat infestation. That, as other speakers have said, is one of the reasons why there was a necessity to bring in this Bill to amend the position. I, in company with Deputy Andrews and the other Deputies for the area, have attended many residents' association meetings. I want to say that anything the Minister can do, which would enable us to clear up those estates, would be very much appreciated. I want to reiterate that there is a great necessity for this from the public health point of view and also because the roads, footpaths and open spaces, which are on those various estates and that cannot be dealt with under existing legislation, will be dealt with then. I do not mind whether it is done under this Bill or whether it is done by the Minister taking over the Bill and amending it; but whatever is done, I want to ask the Minister to deal with this as quickly as possible so that the county council and Dún Laoghaire Corporation can deal with this very pressing problem.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

The intention and the spirit that moves the people supporting this amendment I do not doubt in the slightest. If the situation were as they believe it to be, I would support them, too. I want to see these estates taken over. In the 1963 Act, with the unanimous agreement of this House, we set down provisions which we were satisfied were capable of meeting the deficiencies that already existed in the law at that time.

Section 35, as I am advised, and I have been advised well, I think, and I certainly have been advised often, does cover all the cases that arise before the Act as well as catering for all cases that might arise after it. In so far as the amendment of section 35 is concerned, whether by this particular wording or any other wording, in my estimation, the amendment cannot add to what I believe is already there, that is, that there is retrospection in so far as this matter goes. What may be confusing is that the terms of planning permissions granted under the 1934 Act, through loosely drafted Orders, were lacking in clarity, not sufficiently specific, and it is as a result of this——

Mr. Clinton

That is it.

Mr. Blaney

That is the point. It is as a result of this that we now feel there is a deficiency in the law, but are we prepared, because of—I shall not say the inefficiency of the people who drafted this in those days—the insufficiency of what they drafted to advocate, through this or any other type of amendment of our present laws, retrospectively the annexing of liabilities and responsibilities that may cost in some cases not much money but in many cases could conceivably cost a great deal of money and imposing on these developers or other people years after they had finished the development a burden for which they made no provision financially in the overall economics of their development? I believe the House would not wish to do this.

I believe that even if they do wish to do it, purely as a personal opinion, I think it would not be moral, legal or possibly constitutional that it should be done. I may be wrong in this view. I do not believe this House will wish to pass legislation which would have the effect of, in an extreme case, bringing about a situation that might bankrupt or begger some people today, who did their developing according to the outline, or specification, or order of the planning permission they got ten or 20 years ago. They are now to be obliged by retrospective law to carry out works costing them money which they never knew they had to do and are now to be asked to do.

With regard to these cases in Dublin and elsewhere, the trouble arises out of an insufficient order, an insufficiently detailed specification, as it were, in the original planning permission, whether this happened either wittingly or unwittingly or through lack of action on the part of the local planning authority. We would not be right in saying now that because of their mistakes, the developer, his heirs, or successors must now pay an unknown sum to carry out these additional desirable works that should have been specified 20 years ago.

Mr. Clinton

In all these cases, it is a known sum.

Mr. Blaney

Known or unknown, and I give this as a personal view, I do not believe the House should be asked to do this. I do not believe the House will be prepared to do this because it is the omission of the local planning authority that has so left the order and the planning permission under which the developer in the past may have built and built fully. If we now find that that permission was not sufficiently detailed, if it omitted the things we now know to be desirable, I do not believe it would be right to pass legislation to amend the law to compel these people, if they can now be found, to do the works at any cost to them merely because there was an omission on the part of the local planning authority in the preparation of the order granting the original permission.

That is not to say that I have no sympathy whatsoever with the people who are affected by this lack of planning permission as a result of which section 35, even though it applies in retrospect, may not bring about any improvements. The fact is that it does not apply expect to works specified in the original planning permission.

There are cases where works have not been carried out that were specified in the planning permissions many years ago; there are today people, who are traceable in one form or another, who can be held to be responsible, who did not carry out in accordance with the planning permission the works that should have been done. These people have not been held under the law which I believe is contained in the 1963 Act; enforcement orders have not been served on them as is provided in the Act and recourse to the law courts has not been attempted. The law courts as we understand them are the interpreters of the laws we pass. The views of no one man, or no number of people outside or in this House, surely can be advanced by their casting doubts on what we have done here. The courts are the people who interpret this law. It is not being put to the courts and I am asking the people immediately concerned and those who are interested, and who have spoken here, why has the law as we put it through this House and as we believe it to be effective, not been put into effect. If it is defective, and I do not believe it is, the courts are in a position to determine whether this is so or not. If they determine that the law is deficient, I can assure those on all sides, who feel that by showing it to be deficient they have lost something intended originally in the Bill, that I will come to the House and amend it accordingly.

I think it wrong, though well-intentioned, that we should be told that doubts have been cast on the efficiency or efficacy of the terms of this section, or any other section or any legislation that we have passed in this House, by a legal adviser outside, no matter how eminent he may be. There is one way to find out. Take the obvious typical case of the cases that exist, serve the enforcement notice and let the law take its course. If nothing happens as a result of that, if the developer or his representatives fail to carry out the works as per the enforcement authority, then the local authority may go in and do this themselves and charge it against the people whom they have indicated and identified as responsible.

I believe it is only fair that we should not just change the law in this House because somebody says, from whatever part of the country, that it does not do what the Dáil intended it to do. Let us find out, and if it is wrong, I will be willing to come to this House and seek an amendment.

We have cases where no one can be found—where they are dead, where they are bankrupt, where they have disappeared—and there is no tangible evidence as to whom one follows. In cases such as these, I cannot see that any amendment of law or any legislation in fact will get over this problem. There is nobody to follow and even if there is in some cases, he has nothing and therefore you can do nothing about it by legislation. In this case, since it is a service to the public we are now concerned with, it obviously falls to be borne on the public purse. This work must be done for the people which they deserve as a service for the rates and taxes they are paying like any other citizen. But we must divide this into a number of different realms and we cannot deal with it merely on the basis that we amend section 35 and everything will be all right. We cannot deal with it without going beyond the bounds of reason in regard to imposing conditions never intended by the developer, when he was first doing his job, through no fault of his own. Since then, and now, we want him to do it by retrospective law. This, I think, would be wrong.

Mr. Clinton

That is not being asked.

Mr. Blaney

That is what is implied. Do not take it from me that I am trying to hang anybody behind this amendment of the law with any particular motives. I am trying to explain this as I see it, to highlight the difficulties and segregate them into their different compartments, because there are a number of different aspects in the discussions and in relation to section 35. There are at least three different types of situations we have to keep in mind.

Debate adjourned.