asked the Minister for the Environment if he is aware that Dublin Corporation, at their meeting on 5 February 1979, were forced against their unanimous wish to pass a motion conceding a contravention of their town development plan because of the compensation that would otherwise have to be paid; if he will urgently consider amending the Planning Act, 1963, a loophole in which allowed this situation to occur; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Town Development Plan.
8.
The contravention of their development plan is a matter for the planning authority subject to the provisions of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 and 1976 and I have no function in the matter. I do not consider that, having regard to the rights to property guaranteed by the Constitution, there is any loophole in the provisions of the Planning Acts in relation to payment of compensation in certain cases where planning permission is refused or granted subject to conditions. While the provisions of the Acts are kept under review I have no immediate proposals for the amendment of the compensation provisions.
Does the Minister share the concern of Dublin Corporation at the manner in which they were forced to accept this contravention, and will the Minister tell the House whether he is prepared to allow all the owners of private open spaces in the city to turn sports clubs into millionaires' clubs?
No. There is no reason to think that this should happen. In relation to the manner in which the planning authority was forced into it, I only read what was in the paper the same as anybody else. This provision was made in the 1963 Act and in the 1976 Act it was not considered that there was a loophole in it and I do not accept that there is one. Any planning authority who receive an application for sports grounds such as the one the Deputy refers to must take other issues into consideration, such as whether services are available for the development. They could also ensure that some open space is left or that there is provision for a road, if it is needed, in whatever development takes place. The planning permission could be restricted to take all these factors into account. It does not follow that every sporting ground in Dublin will now jump in and receive compensation, having been refused planning permission. Compensation has not been given or refused in this case yet because the decision is being appealed.
This is a matter of great public concern.
A question, Deputy.
Is the Minister aware that most of the sports grounds in the city can now be turned into housing estates including Lansdowne Road, Dalymount Park and Croke Park, if the associations who own those grounds see fit to exploit their new riches provided by the loophole in this legislation?
They would have to get planning permission and to be entitled to any compensation they would have to be refused.
If as a result of the decision of the planning committee of Dublin Corporation they decided not to grant planning permission and they were subsequently served with a notice for compensation, would his Department regard such a request for extra funds sympathetically? Part of the difficulty in this regard is that the local authority in this case feel that because their funds are fixed and because they cannot overdraw in any current year, they have no option, because they cannot meet the funds for compensation. Will the Minister clarify the position of local authorities who given the choice between compensation and planning permission, wish to opt for retaining the use of the open space and pay the costs? Will the Minister indicate the procedures that could be adopted and how Deputy Mitchell who is a member of such a local authority can proceed to petition the Department for extra funds for which they have not budgeted?
I would suggest that the Deputy put down a question for a start. With regard to how I would receive an application as suggested, there is no such application in front of me. The compensation element does not arise in this case.
The responsibility is the Minister's, not ours.
Can I ask——
(Interruptions.)
With due respect to the Minister the question is specific. Presumably the people who provided the information for the Minister's speech have given him some background information. The whole thing hinges on the question of availability of compensation.
This is debate, Deputy. The Deputy might put down a motion.
With due respect to the Chair this arises out of the question.
The Deputy is not asking a question. We are arguing now.
I am attempting to ask——
The Chair has permitted rather much of this.
I am attempting with the permission of the Chair to ask the Minister what his attitude to compensation would be if such an application came before him.
There is no application before me. The Deputy is asking hypothetical questions. There is no application either before me or the corporation at present.
A question is being put to the Minister now.
If the Deputy is going to ask hypothetical questions about every question put down by another Deputy, we will not make much progress here.
If the Minister answered the question we would.
Is the Minister aware that the Dublin City Manager indicated to the Corporation that this precedent could be followed by similar sporting organisations? Is the Minister further aware that if this precedent is followed the Dublin development plan will be blown sky high and will become irrelevant?
The Deputy is arguing a point.
In the circumstances will the Minister now reconsider his position and take some action to close this loophole?
Question No. 9.
The Deputy should remember that an application for planning permission can be refused if a proposal is in contravention of the Local Authority Planning Act so I do not see a problem.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister is right but he is not aware that if the planning authority refuse planning permission they must pay compensation. That is the loophole. Will the Minister block it?
It is not a loophole. This whole question of compensation is a constitutional matter. The Deputy asked if this opens up the whole city in relation to sporting grounds.
It does.
I fail to see how the Deputy can compare one with another because it depends on plans for a specific location, and so on.
(Interruptions.)
I asked the Minister if he was aware that the Dublin City Manager told the local authority that this was creating a precedent and that there were similar sporting grounds in the city which could now follow suit? Will the Minister do something?
Question No. 9 please.
We will have to wait to see if they will follow suit. There is no compensation payable in this case as yet.
But £400,000 would have been payable had the corporation decided otherwise, and that is what we had to vote on.
Question No. 9.
An Bord Pleanála has still to deal with it.
Question No. 9 please.