——about any decision that I made but, on thinking over it since, I think that when I made that statement I was thinking mainly of cases in the first category, mainly of cases in which the ultimate decision was that the permission was granted. Deputy Belton need not worry. I have no qualms about the case that the Leader of his Party mentioned. I think I was quite justified and when I come to it, I will substantiate that. I have no qualms. It is about the other type of case that I have some qualms. I sometimes feel quite worried about some cases in which I have accepted the point of view of third parties, organisations, custodians of the public weal, who objected to permissions granted by local authorities in particular cases.
There are two cases that I should like to refer to—two proposals to erect single houses in beauty's home, Killarney. In both of these cases, there were appeals and in both cases I accepted the technical advice given to me. I accepted the contentions of those people who, as I say, look after the public weal and I refused permission but I have serious qualms as to whether I did the right thing or not. I have doubts as to whether I may not have been unconsciously influenced by the knowledge that in the case of any disputation with regard to a development in Killarney, of all places, the granting of permission is condemned from the word "go" merely because of the fact that it is in Killarney. In fact, in one of these cases not alone was the proposal in connection with a site in Killarney, but the proposer was a German and, therefore, it was doubly condemned. The fact that valuable employment was being provided by the individual would not be of any relevance.
One case was an application for outline planning permission at Ballinlough, Killarney. In this case the planning authority granted permission, the local planning authority whose decisions, according to a lot of the people who spoke here, should be sacrosanct. However, they granted permission and an appeal was submitted to me by a third party, by Bord Fáilte. I was advised that outline permission should be refused for the reason that the proposed development would conflict with views and prospects and detract from the amenities of the area and that the change from agricultural to residential use would detract from the character and beauty of the area.
After a lot of consideration I accepted that view, and I rejected the application. I reversed the decision of the planning authority on the grounds that the proposed development of this site, which is located in an unspoiled and undeveloped area on the shores of Lough Leane, would seriously detract from the outstanding natural beauty of the area and would reduce the visual attractiveness of the views and prospects of Lough Leane which are to be obtained from its northern and eastern shores. That roughly was the case made by Bord Fáilte Éireann, and I reversed the decision on appeal.
One of the submissions that was made to me when I was dealing with this was that the site in this case was owned by a small farmer, and that the rejection of this permission that was granted by the planning authority, the upholding of the appeal, would mean a substantial financial loss to the small farmer who was struggling to earn a livelihood in the area. I accepted the view to which I have already referred, and with considerable qualms. I accepted it because I think the technical advice that is available to me is of the highest quality, and I appreciate that places like killarney are a national asset and that it is important in the national interest that they should be maintained.
The second case was for the same area, the erection of a bungalow at Tomies East, Beaufort, County Kerry. In this case the appeal was by the proposer. Permission was refused on the grounds that the proposed development would be contrary to the objectives of the planning authority to preserve the views or the prospects of special amenity or special interest in the area since the prospect from the northern and eastern shores of Lough Leane would be impaired. The proposal would be a departure from the rural character of the area and would set a precedent for similar development which would detract from the beauty of the area.
On behalf of the appellants, it was suggested that this would not have this result, that the house would be located well back from the lake shore, would be well hidden by trees and shrubs. It was also represented by the appellants that this house would be situated on their own land, that they would co-operate with the planning authority as regards siting the house, landscaping and planning. It was also contended that the appellants intended to retire from farming, intended to hand over the farm to one of their sons and to use the proposed house for their impending retirement.
Again I turned this down, and I have no doubt but that from the point of view of maintaining the national asset I was right. However, I cannot help having considerable sympathy with the old couple who wished to hand over their farm and to build a house on what they considered the most attractive part of their own land. However, that is what planning is about, and I decided in this way. The fact that these decisions inflicted hardship on two individual landowners in this area seems to me to be justified, but it is in cases like that that I have some qualms with regard to any decisions that I have made. In regard to one of these, as I said, this was a reversal of a decision made by a planning authority, and the peculiar thing is that some of those who campaigned against the decisions made on appeals are also those who support the idea that the decision of the planning authority should be the final one.
The Association of Municipal Authorities passed a resolution to the effect that there should not be an appeal against a decision of the planning authority. This was taken up by various newspapers and by television, and secured a great deal of support. One of these cases was one in which, if the principle embodied in that resolution was in operation, the decision could not have been reversed. There is another such case which has not been mentioned on this Bill but no doubt will be, because it was brought up on my Estimate, and most of the cases that were mentioned on my Estimate have again been mentioned here. It is of the same type as this. It is a case in which a local planning authority granted permission for the development and a third party appealed against it. There has not been a lot of comment about it, and I think that is because of the fact that I upheld the appeal and reversed the decision of the planning authority.
This case involved the proposed erection of a hotel at Palmer's Hill, Cashel, County Tipperary, and the local planning authority, which was Cashel Urban District Council, granted permission for this. There was an appeal by a third party, who and as Deputy Hogan rightly pointed out, could be described as having a competing interest. It was a hotel owner, but Deputy Hogan forgot to mention that in addition to the other hotelier who lodged the appeal, there were also some bodies who interested themselves in this. There was Bord Fáilte Éireann again; there was An Chomhairle Ealaíon and An Taisce.
This was a proposal to erect a substantial hotel, a 60-bedroom hotel, in a position just opposite the Rock of Cashel. The local planning authority, who we are told are in the best position to decide on these cases, decided that permission should be granted for this. The permission granted was appealed to me. Some of the views expressed in the appeal were that a building on this site would be disastrous to the surroundings and amenities of the Rock of Cashel, one of the most famous monuments, if not the most famous, in Ireland. Another view was in relation to the
...adverse effect which a hotel here would have on the unique vision of the rock which presents itself when seen on the way in to Cashel on the Dublin Road. The rock was one of the most important ancient monuments in the country. It was singular in that it adjoined an arterial road and the town and its most aweinspiring view presented it as an isolated picture unchallenged by any other structure and in a beautiful rural setting.
It was also said:
The first sight of the Rock of Cashel from the Dublin approach, as one rounds the bend at about 1¼ miles distant, must be one of the most dramatic and exciting views in the world. As one approaches nearer it is cut off from view for a short time because of the topography and then it suddenly bursts into view again in all its detailed splendour when one rounds the bend at the proposed site; the words "fantastically beautiful" fail to do it justice. But its extreme importance architecturally is the extraordinary impact it makes because of its isolation. To allow any building or structure, no matter how good its design, architecturally to change this vision as appears from the approach road would be disastrous, so extraordinary is the impact it makes because of its isolation. It would be the same as putting a modern building on the Acropolis or beside San Michele or in close proximity to the Taj Mahal.
But the local authority, who are in the best position to judge, decided that this was the place for a hotel and this desirable project should go ahead. Members of all political Parties expressed their opinions. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture gave evidence at the oral hearing in support of the permission granted. Mr. P. O'Brien, chairman of Cashel Urban District Council, also supported it. Mr. A. Murphy, another member of the council, supported it. In a newspaper cutting about a protest meeting that was being organised to oppose the decision I made in refusing this permission, Mr. R. Wood, another member, is quoted.
These were all from the different Parties so that the political pressure in this case came from all sides, in this House from a member of my own Party. The chairman of the urban district council is a member of the Labour Party. Another member is an Independent member of the urban district council and another is a member of Fine Gael. I understand that the protest meeting was very fully attended and that they were very vociferous in their condemnation of the impertinence of the Minister in refusing the application.
It might be no harm if I quoted what the chairman of the urban district council said:
He welcomed the present proposal with open arms and if it is a battle between beauty and local employment we are more interested in the latter. In cross examination Mr. O'Brien said that he would not object to development on any part of this road and in fact wouldn't mind if the Rock of Cashel were removed to make way for a suitable development project!
He was a member of the Labour Party.
As I said, all the political pressure on me from every side of the House was to allow it, but I did not allow it. I accepted the advice and the contention put forward by Bord Fáilte Éireann, An Chomhairle Ealaíon and An Taisce and I disallowed it. The decision I made was received with great disappointment by the professional protesters. They were obviously waiting, knowing, as they did, the strong political pressure from all sides being exercised in favour of this. They were waiting gleefully in anticipation of the result to pounce and represent this as a subordination of the national interest to the interest of a particular development. I know that Opposition Deputies were also waiting and they were disappointed, not knowing by whom the corruption was supposed to be exercised in this case.
