Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Jun 1971

Vol. 254 No. 6

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Dublin Site.

53.

Mr. Cosgrave

asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware of the concern of the residents adjacent to Quinn's Road, Shankill, County Dublin at the recent moving of mobile homes on to a field on Quinn's Road without adequate sanitary facilities and in spite of an order by the county council, confirmed by him, refusing permission to use the field for this purpose; and if, in view of the lack of sanitary and other facilities, he will state what action he can take to remedy the situation by having these mobile homes removed.

54.

Mr. Desmond

asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware of the continued efforts of a developer (details supplied) to circumvent both his and Dublin County Council's planning, development and sanitary decisions concerning the use of a site at Quinn's Road, Shankill, County Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the regulations relating to the provision of mobile home sites and caravans generally.

Mr. Molloy

With your permission, Sir, I propose to take Questions Nos. 53 and 54 together.

As I informed the Deputies in reply to their questions of 19th May, 1971, I made an order under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, on 14th May, 1971, refusing outline permission for the development of a site at Quinn's Road, Shankill, as a mobile home park. Enforcement of the control provisions of this Act in relation to any unauthorised development which may have taken place on the site is a matter for the planning authority in the first instance.

Apart from the fact that in general planning permission is required for the provision of a mobile home or for the use of a site for the keeping of caravans, provisions of the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1948 are relevant. Under section 31 of the 1948 Act a sanitary authority may prohibit the erection or retention of temporary dwellings if they are of opinion that such erection or retention would be prejudicial to public health, or the amenities of the locality or would interfere to an unreasonable extent with traffic on any road. In addition in any sanitary district where section 34 of the 1948 Act is in operation, it is an offence to keep temporary dwellings on lands for more than 18 consecutive days, or 36 days within a period of 12 months unless a licence, granted by the sanitary authority, is in operation.

Mr. Cosgrave

Is the Minister aware of the concern regarding the slowness of the procedure? Is there any action under which either the planning authority or the sanitary authority, or his Department in conjunction with them, can take to have the caravans removed because of the failure to provide the facilities and because of the breach of the Order that was made? In addition, the area in question was scheduled in the draft plan as an amenity area.

Mr. Molloy

I am aware of the concern to which the Deputy has referred.

Mr. Desmond

Is the Minister aware that notice of 28 days is given to the proprietor to remove the caravans, and that subsequently he has to be brought to court? In many cases the proprietor gets an adjournment and for four or five months a large number of mobile homes can be parked on a large site and the local authority seems to be powerless? Will the Minister give an assurance that he will look at the existing legislation with a view perhaps to the authority being able to obtain an injunction or something of this nature?

Mr. Molloy

I am aware of the need to strengthen the enforcement provisions in the Act. I have been looking at this aspect of the Planning Act for some time and may be coming forward with proposals some time in the future. However, that does not arise out of this case.

Mr. Cosgrave

Perhaps the Minister would discuss this case with the county council with a view to seeing if steps can be taken more speedily to abate the nuisance.

Mr. Molloy

The local authority have taken steps already.

Mr. McMahon

The local authority take what steps they are empowered to take. The point is that it is much too slow. It is happening throughout County Dublin where the local authority have refused permission for development and the Minister, on appeal, refused permission also. In many cases the applicant goes ahead and when he gets the mobile homes on the site he makes application for retention, which holds up prosecution while this is being considered. When the application is turned down by the local planning authority, he appeals to the Minister and this holds up prosecution while the applicant goes ahead with the development.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am calling Question No. 55.