When the House adjourned last night I was dealing with matters which would come under the general heading of physical planning in my Department. I referred to the Buchanan Report and the Government's statement in May 1969 on that report. The Government stated that they did not feel that growth centres as such were the full answer to the question of redressing imbalances in regional development and the recommendations made in the report would have to be considered in depth. Since that statement was made very intensive study and consultation have, in fact, been carried out. Local democratic bodies, because of their very special responsibility for physical planning and the provision of the infra-structures, will obviously be very deeply affected by regional planning and must, therefore, be brought into the consultation process. The planning authorities in each region were asked to form themselves, together with the representatives of industrial and tourist promotional interests, into regional development organisations. These have since been established in all regions. These consultative bodies were asked to submit a report giving as much factual information as possible about their regions. They were asked to indicate their views as to how development should proceed.
At the outset there were considerable difficulties in setting up these regional development organisations but all have now completed their reports. These reports are available to me and are now being considered by the regional planning committee. This is an interdepartmental committee set up to advise the Government on regional planning. The work of the committee is well advanced and I expect in the near future to raise this question of regional planning policy and the measures necessary to implement it for further consideration by the Government. The Government is alert to the need for regional policies and the need to correct the imbalance in regional growth. There can, of course, be no instant planning. There is a great deal at stake here affecting the lives of all members of our community. In the evolution of suitable regional policies the only sensible approach is through thorough investigation of all the implications and full consultation with all local interests.
There has not, in fact, been any avoidable delay. I make no apology for any of the delays in carrying out this process of study and consultation. In saying that, I should not like anybody to think that the Government have shelved action on regional development. Certain practical steps have already been taken. Apart from the establishment of regional development organisations, the House is aware that the IDA has been reorganised and are preparing regional industrial plans. They are working in very close co-operation with the regional development organisations. Also, over the years industrial incentives and similar incentives in other State activities have been assisting the regions. The House must accept that the preliminary census figures that were made available some time ago showed the practical results of these plans and of the policies being followed by the Government.
A number of Deputies expressed concern in regard to land prices. I am concerned, too, with this particular problem and it was for that very reason that I set up the Kenny Committee to consider, in the interests of the common good, possible measures for controlling the price of land. I am hoping that the committee will succeed in putting forward a reasonable and a workable way of dealing with the problem. However, it must be emphasised that it is not true to say that nothing has been done about this matter of land prices. Everyone knows that the basic reason for high land prices is the imbalance between supply and demand. In order to correct this imbalance the Government have been encouraging local authorities to acquire and develop land for housing purposes well in advance of their needs and I have pursued this policy with the local authorities as actively as possible. The best way to illustrate the success of that policy is to give the actual figures for the number of potential sites that are available now to local authorities or which have been, or are being, acquired by them or which are being developed or capable of being developed. The number of sites in these categories increased from 27,000 at the end of August, 1965, to 74,000 at the end of August, 1971. It will be seen, therefore, that there has been quite a degree of progress in that direction.
The Dublin area, which is where our main housing problem is, is worthy of special mention. The number of sites available to the local authorities in the Dublin area or being acquired by them increased during the period referred to from 8,500 to 29,500. The House will appreciate that many of these sites were purchased with the additional allocation of £3 million which the Government made available to Dublin Corporation for the specific purpose of acquiring land.
Coupled with the rolling programme of acquisition and disposal, this pool of land will enable the corporation to exert a very significant influence on the level of land prices in the Dublin area. Builders requiring land can now go to the corporation for sites and this, also, should act as a stabiliser of prices by reducing the amount of competition between individual builders for the available serviced land. This competition was a significant factor in increasing land prices in Dublin in recent years.
I wish to refer briefly now to planning control. Many Deputies raised issues in relation to the impact of planning control and the problems that it creates in individual cases. In my opening statement I referred to the fact that I had asked planning authorities to examine their planning policies in a critical way in the course of the review of the development plans which is now necessary. These reviews will be going on during the next year or so and the authorities were asked by me to consider very carefully the restrictions on development which were imposed in their current plans. They were asked to establish the restrictions that were really important and, if necessary, clarify and strengthen those and to see if other controls could be curtailed or modified. The whole purpose of this is to give the public a clear view of what is or of what is not likely to be permissible because the whole planning process can be improved if this is done. Indeed, I would expect that, following this review, more refined and detailed planning policies which can be shown to be fair and essential would command general public support.
There is one planning issue that deserves special mention. Some Deputies referred during the debate to the question of the stringent control on development on our national roads network. To my mind there is no room for argument on this matter. These roads are of the most vital importance and planning authorities have a clear duty to protect them from development which would in any way impair the degree of traffic safety on them and to protect them from development which might reduce their capacity and tend to negative the value of the very large scale public expenditure that either has been or will have to be incurred in bringing these roads up to a required standard of safety and design. Deputies will be aware that this question of roadside development along national roads was the subject of detailed study by An Foras Forbartha, a study that was carried out at my request. The main conclusions in that study were that situations created by development along national primary routes interfered with the functions of such routes and that all forms of development on these routes have severe adverse affects on traffic safety and also have an adverse affect on traffic flow. The study showed that much of the heavy national investment in primary roads had been dissipated by the effects of roadside development.
Following full and careful consideration of that report I issued a circular in January last to each of the planning authorities asking them, as general policy, not to permit the location of new means of access to or new development on national roads outside of the built-up areas. At the same time, the circular indicated that I recognised there would have to be some exceptions but that these would be the minimum. For instance, the special position of the farming community was recognised so that farmers wishing to build houses for their own occupation and on their own land would have to be treated exceptionally. However, I stressed in that circular that in the interests of the safety of these persons and of their families, permission should not be granted for building alongside a national road if any alternative site was available for the purpose. The circular advised that the matter should be discussed with the person involved as soon as the planning application was submitted and that in so far as possible applicants should be assisted in finding an alternative location for their proposed building. The policy that I have asked planning authorities to adopt on this matter is a reasonable one and is designed to secure the greatest safety of persons as well as protecting the heavy capital investment in our national roads.
A number of other points on traffic conditions were raised during the debate and particular reference was made to the Dublin area. This interest on the part of Deputies cannot be said to be surprising since the problem posed by increased traffic congestion is exercising the minds of experts throughout the world. While it can be said that here in Ireland our problems are not as serious as those of more densely populated areas abroad, nevertheless, we have our problems and they are not minor ones. In tackling these problems it should be borne in mind that we do not have at our disposal the vast sums of money that wealthier nations can afford to spend on their attempts to come to terms with this problem. We must cut our cloth according to our measure. I am satisfied that in the Dublin area it would not be either feasible or economic to construct a road network that would accommodate all the vehicles which drivers wish to bring into the city centre. To do that, even if it were feasible, would completely destroy the character of the city. Accordingly, some compromise must be made. Whatever the compromise is to be, it should provide reasonable access to the city centre area for vehicles. Of course, this implies that there will have to be some restriction on the volume of traffic entering the centre. This is essential for the continuance of the business life of the city. In the long-term, the solution lies in the improvement of the street network. In the medium or short-term, the answer lies in getting the greatest possible use out of the street network existing at the present time.
The corporation have been very actively pursuing a number of courses which, I feel, will have a beneficial effect on the flow of traffic in Dublin city. The House probably already knows—I have mentioned it before— that the corporation have set up a special section to deal with traffic and the city manager has appointed a senior officer of the corporation to be responsible for traffic matters.
Work is proceeding on schemes of traffic management to improve traffic flow on radial routes into the city. I have already approved of the use of Road Fund moneys for such works on the Rathmines, Ranelagh, Harold's Cross, Donnybrook and Drumcondra routes. Studies of the other routes have been carried out by traffic consultants for the corporation and I expect that schemes for these routes will be submitted to me in time. A scheme of linked traffic-light control for junctions on the north and south quays has been approved by me and I understand that final details of a scheme for linked traffic-light control of O'Connell Bridge are nearly ready. I have already given approval to the preparation of plans for pedestrian subways at O'Connell Bridge.
As regards off-street car parks, the corporation are studying the recommendations of their traffic consultant in regard to the provision of further parking facilities in the city centre.
The House already knows that I made regulations some time ago prescribing the roadway markings to indicate box junctions. These are now to be seen in certain areas throughout the city. The box system of control, if properly observed, is effective in preventing blocking of junctions. This will be a great help in getting the flow of traffic moving smoothly.
In addition, I made regulations under which unlawfully parked vehicles —for example, vehicles parked dangerously or in an obstructive way— may be towed away.
In addition to these examples of the application of traffic management techniques, a number of experiments have been undertaken by the corporation, or are in progress. As the House knows, some of these suggestions were made by me to the corporation and to the other authorities as being worthy of consideration as measures which might help to improve traffic flow and which might be of benefit to the city centre area. The first of these was an experiment, in co-operation with the Garda authorities, in total observance of the rules of the road and of the various parking and traffic control measures which were already in force. I am pleased to say that there was large scale public co-operation in this, that the experiment was very successful and very helpful and has influenced many of the measures which have been taken since in relation to traffic control in Dublin city. A further measure was the experiment carried out for one week in the use of a special bus lane on the Fairview route. The results of this experiment are still being examined but from my own personal knowledge of the experiment in operation, it was not completely satisfactory. The only thing I learned from that was that, certainly, if the roads in Dublin were of a size sufficient to enable a special lane to be reserved for buses only, it would be worthwhile doing that on a permanent basis, but until the roads structure in Dublin is capable of accommodating a special bus lane, I do not believe we will take any further steps in that direction.
Those experiments were followed by experiments in pedestrianisation, first of Henry Street and now Grafton Street. These were generally so well received that the corporation and, indeed, the business interests concerned, arranged for their continuance beyond the period of one month envisaged at the outset. These experiments in Henry Street and Grafton Street are being kept under review on a month to month basis.
What I have said will give some indication of the various short-term measures which are being taken. Other measures will be taken as seen fit in future. This is a matter of urgency and, in the light of the needs of other areas, I will make available all the funds that can be spared to deal with this urgent problem. On a lesser scale, Dublin traffic problems are repeated in other urban areas throughout the country and I want to assure the House that the same approach is being adopted by the authorities in these areas, namely, traffic management as the short- or medium-term solution and improvements to the street networks as the long-term solution. This year and last year I made special traffic management funds available for areas where the problem is most acute.
I now come to long-term measures to overcome the problem of traffic congestion. I am sure everyone will agree that a long-term solution, aimed at providing free access to town centres for all motor vehicles, is just not practicable. Such a solution would, first of all, demand huge amounts of capital —one of our scarcest resources—and also would involve an unacceptable measure of interference with existing urban structures and layouts. There must be limitation of access for inessential traffic and, as a corollary, adequate parking facilities and good public transport and suitable high-capacity radial and ring routes for through traffic. Traffic studies have already been made by consultants in a number of the larger urban centres and the recommendations that they have made to the local authorities in these matters are being considered.
In the Cork area the corporation have implemented certain traffic management recommendations made to them in their consultants' traffic study report and they are still examining the major recommendations in that report. These involve the familiar and difficult question of balance between the needs of traffic movement and the preservation of the environmental character of the city and clearly require very careful consideration before any final decisions are made. I look forward with interest to the making of decisions on that report.
In the Limerick area, interim traffic management proposals have also been implemented and further consideration of long-term proposals for new and improved traffic routes, and an additional bridge, awaits the results of a regional land use/transportation study which has been undertaken by the Limerick, Clare and North Tipperary Regional Organisation.
In Waterford, the major long-term project is a new through traffic route and bridge, north of Redmond Bridge. Consultants have already presented a preliminary report for the design of the bridge. In Athlone, the recommendations of the traffic study report have been approved in principle and plans are proceeding for the provision of a southern relief road. The line of a northern ring road and a new river crossing is being investigated. In Drogheda plans are well advanced for the provision of an inner relief road and a new bridge between Dublin road and North road. In Galway city, the traffic management report has been acted on and the main proposals are at present being implemented.
Considerable progress has been made in the formulation of plans for long-term developments in Dublin but much study is required before we can be sure these schemes will be effective and avoid undue interference with the environment of this historic city. The Dublin transportation study, which was conducted by An Foras Forbartha with the assistance of the United Nations, will provide an important review of the transportation needs for all forms of transport in the Dublin area taking into account expected future development for residential, commercial and other purposes. Studies are continuing on the design of the proposed inner ring road around the city centre and consultants have been retained by the corporation to conduct a traffic management study of the proposed route and a street network within the ring. I want to assure the House again that this study will include an evaluation of the environmental aspects of the proposals with very special reference to the sensitive areas such as the Liberties and the parts of Georgian Dublin which are included in the proposed route.
A preliminary report from the consultants engaged in the design of the proposed quay level bridge from Memorial Road to City Quay, east of the Custom House, has been received and is being considered. Consultants are also engaged in a study for a possible further river crossing down-stream in the Macken Street area. Plans are in hands for the improvement of sections of the important radial routes of Dublin, including the Stillorgan Road as far as Foster Avenue, the Lucan Road between Chapelizod and Palmerstown and the Santry section of the airport road.
Studies are proceeding with a view to establishing the lines for the improvement of other heavily trafficked radial roads or for new roads where they will be required to meet future needs as they arise and as they can be forecast. These will lie mainly at the approaches to the cities and the larger urban areas. The question of the future construction of motorways to cater for this problem is also under examination in the Department.
On the other sections of the main inter-urban roads local authorities are continuing their programme for the improvement of deficient sections and special attention is being given to the elimination of accident blackspots. It should not be necessary for me to say that progress on the implementation of any programme of major road improvements must, of course, be governed by the extent of the financial resources which can be made available and priorities will have to be established between individual projects.
Under the present arrangements the costs of improvements of major roads as the House knows are met from the annual income from the Road Fund concurrently with grants for other road improvements including tourist road grants, county road improvements and upkeep grants for national, primaries and other main roads. During the course of the debate some Deputies expressed disappointment at the amount of the grants allocated from the Road Fund in the current year and particularly about the limitation of the amount of upkeep grants. I must relate the grants to the expected income available to the fund and I must also have regard to the special needs of particular areas. The total amount available for grants in the current year is approximately £12.4 million compared with £12 million last year and £10.6 million in 1969-70.
With regard to the upkeep grants it should be borne in mind that in 1970-71 the rate of grant for the upkeep of national primary roads was increased from 50 per cent to 100 per cent which represented an increase of almost £500,000. This increase has been repeated again this year. The total provision for 1970-71 for upkeep grants for both national primaries and main roads amounted to £3,532,688 compared with £2,315,665 in 1969-70. The increase of some £1.2 million over 1969-70 is repeated again this year.
During the course of the debate many points were raised and as I said at the outset it would take me hours if I were to reply in detail to all the points made by all the various Deputies. I would, however, refer the House's attention to a point made by Deputy Cooney who made what I consider to be serious insinuations about my integrity in relation to planning appeals. I regret that Deputy Cooney of all people should have descended to this level. It is only natural that one party or another to an appeal should feel aggrieved if a decision does not go their way and in some cases they think or say the worst of the man who has taken the decision but I would have hoped for a more enlightened approach from Deputy Cooney. I have no doubt that out of the large number of decisions taken on planning appeals every year some can be criticised. There is not always a clearcut answer in planning and planners themselves differ. One has only to read the report of oral hearings where professional men give completely contradictory advice. If it were simply a matter of taking the planner's recommendation the decision could be left to the planning authority and there would be no need for a planning appeal at all. As I have said, I accept that some of my decisions can be criticised but I wish to make it clear that in all cases I take what I believe to be the right and honest decision. My decision is not taken in any prejudicial way, it is taken fairly after examining all the facts and recommendations put before me. I indicated in the circular letter issued to the planning authorities on 15th January of this year that I believe a reasonable, flexible approach should be taken in reaching planning decisions without, of course, violating fundamental planning principles. I believe this is necessary if planning is not to be rejected by the public as entirely unreal. In this connection I may say there is nothing fundamentally wrong in reversing a previous decision because fresh considerations may come to light and consideration which were there may not have been put forward sufficiently clearly in the first instance.
As for the specific case mentioned by Deputy Cooney, the facts are as follows: in June, 1968, the applicant sought permission from the urban district council to convert the house into six bedsittingrooms and a flat. Other residents in the street objected and the council refused permission. The applicant appealed to the Minister for Local Government and his appeal was refused. The applicant subsequently applied to the council for permission to retain the development and the council refused. The applicant again appealed to the Minister on 7th March, 1969, which was long before I took up office as Minister for Local Government. Deputy Cooney said last night that the appeal was lodged after I took up office and he implied because I took up office. The case was awaiting decision when I became Minister and having examined it, I was satisfied that on balance the appeal should be granted. There was already one house in flats in this short street and two other houses had previously been in flats—flats here as designed would provide good quality residential accommodation of a kind needed in Athlone and, indeed, in towns like it throughout the country. Deputy Cooney said that my decision turned the street into a slum. In fact, the tenants in the house in January, 1971, were the following persons: one priest, four teachers and one vet. The council subsequently revoked my decision and there was a further appeal which I decided again in favour of the applicant. Should I have reversed my previous decision?
