(Dublin Central) asked the Minister for Finance why the residents of Innisfallen Parade, especially those adjoining Mountjoy Jail, Dublin, were not informed that a high rise building was to be erected which would overlook their property; and whether the objections made by the people most affected were given full consideration.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin High Rise Building.
23.
Mr. Kenny
The building in question which is now up to its full height is not a high rise one. It is three storeys, of domestic character and will be used as residential accommodation for single prison officers. It is set well back in the prison grounds, being 68 feet away from the boundary at its nearest point. The siting and the height of the building were acceptable to the planning authority who were consulted at the design stage. I understand that representations about the building have recently been received from one local resident and are at present being considered.
(Dublin Central): Could the Parliamentary Secretary state whether plans were submitted to Dublin Corporation for the erection of this building?
Mr. Kenny
Consultations with the planning authority, under section 84 of the Planning Act, 1963, on the plans for the building took place in April-May, 1972.
(Dublin Central): Was any notice inserted in the paper in regard to the erection of this building?
Mr. Kenny
Before a planning authority can be approached, all the regulations must be fulfilled.
(Dublin Central): I understand that the Board of Works have certain rights, that they did not insert a notice in the daily newspapers which would give an opportunity to the local residents to object, and this was practically built before the residents had any knowledge of it. If other people are required to carry out rigid regulations as regards buildings, the Board of Works should be compelled to do the same.
Mr. Kenny
The Deputy is only assuming the Board of Works have this concession. Is that right? I could not tell the Deputy offhand, but I shall let him know.
They have that concession.
Mr. Kenny
Then it is their right to use it.
(Dublin Central): I think it is a concession which should be taken away from them.
This is leading to argument.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree with the concession?
Mr. Kenny
I agree that if any Deputy or any Department have a concession or a privilege they should use it.
Even if it infringes on the right of the individual?
Mr. Kenny
That is a matter for the Constitution.
Deputy Fitzpatrick. Would the Deputy please put a brief and relevant supplementary?
(Dublin Central): I am putting it to the Parliamentary Secretary that the residents of Innisfallen Parade were not aware that this building was going to be erected. Furthermore, is the Minister aware that no proper notification was inserted in the Press to give people an opportunity of objecting? That should have been done.
Mr. Kenny
My information is that consultation with the planning authority took place in April and May—mark you—1972.
(Dublin Central): Consultation without detailed planning is a different matter. The Board of Works erected this building and it is certainly affecting the people in the area.
We cannot have any further argument on this. I am calling Question No. 24.