Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 22 Mar 1984

Vol. 349 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - County Dublin Tree Felling.

Mr. D. Andrews

I am very grateful to the Chair for allowing me to raise this matter and I am grateful to the Minister for being present to hear what I and others have to say about this ongoing tragedy in connection with the felling of trees on the Dorney Court Estate, Shankill, County Dublin. I will be approaching this subject on an all-party basis. This is national tree week and I should like to think that what we are doing is relevant in that context. I have agreed to share my time with other Deputies in the constituency and so give meaning to my call for an all-party approach to the subject.

I raised this matter on 6 March by way of Private Notice Question. I asked the Minister if he was aware:

...that 200 trees on the Dorney Court Estate, Shankill, County Dublin, most of them in excess of 100 years old and including oak, ash, sycamore, chestnut and Scotch pine, would be felled within days; the action, if any, he intends taking to save and preserve the trees; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

At column 1321 of the Official Report the Minister stated in reply:

The company applied for a felling licence in respect of 102 trees on 22 December 1983. A prohibition order was issued in the normal way and served by the Garda on the company. The effect of this order was to prohibit any felling until the matter had been investigated by a forest and wildlife service inspector. Inspection took place on 9 and 19 January 1984. The inspector recommended a licence for 33 trees. These were numbered on the site map.

The Minister went on to develop the answer. An inspector from the Department recommended a licence. Did the Department or the Minister authorise the issuing of a licence? On the one hand, the developer has full planning permission and included in that is the right to fell 102 trees. However, he cannot fell those trees without a licence under the 1946 Act dealing with fisheries and forestry. Has the developer received such a licence?

Over 60 trees have been felled. No later than yesterday a resident, one of the many irate and concerned residents, attempted to block a number of gargantuan vehicles put in by the developer to knock down the trees. In The Irish Times today there is a report by Mr. Frank McDonald in which the resident said:

eventually, the gardaí arrived on the scene, but they were told by a representative of the county council

I do not want to mention his name

that it was all in order. He said the developers had permission, but when he was asked to produce a copy, he said it was in the office.

There is no such tree felling licence and I hope the Minister will confirm that when replying.

I raised this matter this morning because of the large number of phone calls I received from local residents late last night and this morning informing me that the developer went in on the site again and continued to fly in the face of legality. The county council, by the presence of a representative, presided over an illegality. The developer has full planning permission. The residents do not object to the developer building homes. There has never been any objection to the development as such, but they object to the felling of the trees.

Those of us who know the area will accept that it is a lovely linear park belt type area. It is a tragedy that we should preside over the destruction of these trees. It is national tree week and we should be preserving or attempting to preserve what will be a heritage for the next generation. The developer has stated that he will plant a tree where trees are felled but that is not the point. When we see an old ash, sycamore or oak we recognise that it is irreplaceable. My children and possibly my grandchildren's generation will never see a fully developed tree on that site.

Arising out of my raising the matter this morning, the Minister, Deputy O'Toole, met the five Dáil Deputies for the constituency at 12 o'clock this morning. I record my appreciation of his courtesy. He did not hide anything. He confirmed that at no stage was a tree felling licence granted. As has already been pointed out, departmental officials may have recommended that a number of trees be removed. The conflict is that, on the one hand, the local authority are giving permission for the destruction of 102 trees incorporated in the original planning permission and, on the other hand, they appear to take it on themselves to go ahead with the destruction of the trees without communicating with the Department. If that is the case it is a serious vacuum in the law which must be plugged. I believe the Minister when he told us that the planning permission was given, the licence from the Department was applied for, the application was lodged with the local Garda Síochána and that he received notification of that application on 22 March 1983. On 3 January 1984 he issued a prohibition order which would allow a look at the application and would allow the application to be processed in the ordinary way. It would allow the Minister's Department to liaise with the local authority as the planning authority. The Minister sent out officials from Bray to the site and I understand that the developer requested that 33 trees out of the 102 trees to be felled should be dealt with urgently and on 3 March 1984 the developer felled three trees without permission. On 5 March 1984 a letter issued from the Minister's Department to the developer stating that he was in breach of the 1946 Act and that any further breach would mean legal proceedings. On 9 March 1984 an official from the Minister's Department met on site with a citizen, who shall remain nameless. He was asked to relodge his application for a tree felling licence for the remainder of the trees still standing. Subsequent to that another 30 or 40 trees were felled yesterday without the licence, as I understand it.

I ask the Minister to take action urgently. I realise that I am going a little over my time on the basis of the agreement that I made with my Fine Gael colleagues in the constituency. I will let them come in to support my urging their Minister, as he is, after all. What happened in the past, what interfering councillor from whatever party he came, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour, and what action or inaction was taken is a source of indifference to me. I am representing my point of view in relation to the trees. I stand on that and I ask the Minister to regard this matter urgently. If this developer does not conform with the law — he may be confused in this regard with respect to the gentleman — then the Minister should issue proceedings against him. That should be the last resort.

I think I have spelled the facts out clearly and I ask the Minister to act urgently. Now I leave the floor open to my colleagues in the constituency.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Barrett,

Dún Laoghaire): It is unusual for a Minister or Minister of State to speak on an Adjournment Debate but, as Deputy Andrews said, this is not a political matter, it is a community problem that faces us all and is of great importance to anybody who has any interest in our environment. I am anxious to say a few words because when I was a member of Dublin County Council I was very much involved in getting a tree preservation order placed on these trees. To say that I was horrified to hear that they are now being lopped is to put it very mildly.

In the short time available to us, I want to make one or two points. We have all learned leasons from this sad debacle. Even if the people of Shankill and adjoining areas have lost mature trees that can never be replaced, here is a lesson for the rest of the country in future. I know, as Deputy Andrews has said, that the Minister is extremely anxious to see to it that action is taken to prevent any further damage. Our problem here is that a planning permission exists and brings into the question whether a local authority should have power to grant a planning permission where a tree preservation order exists, without prior consultation with the Department involved. This is where we as legislators come into it. Where a tree preservation order exists the same obligation should rest upon an applicant for planning permission as does in the case of a Housing Act approval which is necessary. You cannot get planning permission for the conversion of a dwelling into offices, from residential to office, unless prior permission has been granted under the Planning Acts. Arising out of what we have learned in this instance, the same should apply where a tree preservation order exists, that is that before a planning permission can be granted permission should be sought through the Department of Fisheries and Forestry to contravene the preservation order already placed. We should see to it that the Department of Fisheries and Forestry are the Department solely responsible for tree preservation. They should have the power to place a tree preservation order and should be the sole body to decide whether that order should be lifted.

Therefore, like Deputy Andrews and, I am sure, my other colleagues, I ask the Minister to take the necessary legal action — I know he is doing this — to prevent any further damage. All of us here can leave aside our party differences and, if necessary, agree on whatever amendments to legislation are necessary to see to it that this type of thing never happens again.

Mrs. Barnes

I wish to record my thanks also that this matter is being taken on the Adjournment because of its urgency and importance. I welcome the Minister here to reply to this question and I thank Deputy Andrews for allowing all of us to record this as a community matter. We are all here and involved in this because this is a national issue. If the kind of ambivalence, to say the least, and at worst the flagrant abuse or lack of licensing laws and of direction from our Department of Fisheries and Forestry continue to be ignored as they are, we shall end up with a devastated, polluted country in which it would be impossible to live, whereas we have been granted one of the most beautiful countries in the world.

I want to underline our responsibility here as legislators. Deputy Andrews pointed out that reinforcing legislation is needed. Deputy Barrett asked if there is need for a provision that no local authority could ever grant planning permission or make any decision regarding the felling of trees without the licence and permission of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. If that legislation is needed we should bring it in as an emergency. Above all else we wish to record that an irreparable loss has already occurred not alone with regard to the environment in the area concerned but to the whole ecology of Ireland, not alone to human beings but to flora and fauna. We have a huge responsibility and until we begin to take our environment seriously and, as legislators, make sure that nobody can ignore or transgress the law in this, then we are not passing on very much to our children.

Mr. L.T. Cosgrave

Along with my colleagues I would like to express my concern about what has been happening at Dorney Court. I refer first to the preservation order which I have in my hand here. This must highlight the effect preservation orders have. If they are to be made they must be given substance and back-up by both the local authorities and the Department. Also I appeal to the Minister to see that if a felling licence is granted, the trees cut under it will be supervised with the assistance of his officials or local authority officials, or even if necessary to have the Garda present. It appears that the person has been going ahead cutting trees where it is clear that he has not the necessary permission or the necessary licence. Whatever we can do in the short term to prevent either further felling or the destruction of these trees is to be welcomed. It will highlight the problem for other areas. This being National Tree Week, it is appropriate that something like this, unfortunate as it is, should highlight the danger to our trees. If the Department of Forestry and Fisheries and the local authorities exercised their powers and act in respect of orders which they have made, given consultation between the various bodies, this will ensure that these events will not take place in future.

I appeal to the Minister to use every legal power he has at his disposal. He should certainly ensure that if further trees are to be felled they will only be felled with total permission and total supervision and that if any are illegally felled appropriate action will be taken. It must be made clear to people contemplating such action, that they face the full penalties of the law. It might be necessary even to have the law reviewed in this matter.

Minister for Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. O'Toole)

Firstly, could I say that normally the last thing a Minister wishes is to be drawn in on an Adjournment Debate. It is one of those things which Ministers do only when they have to. However, in this case I welcome the opportunity of highlighting a matter which I consider to be of serious proportions in that the law is blatantly being disregarded here. The Deputies who have brought this to our attention, both from the far side of the House and this side, are to be complimented on their swift action. I have had the privilege of discussing this matter with them today. Unless action is taken in such cases, one cannot stop people from breaking the law without using physical means. I would hope that we are not engaging in the kind of approach where physical obstacles are the only way in which we can control the situation. There are other means and I shall mention these in a moment.

The background to this case is that the local authority, Dublin County Council, granted permission to the developer some time ago, and a provision in that planning permission included permission to fell 102 trees. That is granted under the Planning and Development Acts. Under the 1946 Forestry Act, a felling licence is required to be obtained by the developer in order to fell trees. It was not until my Department got notice of an application for the felling of 102 trees that we were aware of such a development, or, indeed, of the implications for us included in the planning permission already granted.

We proceeded to deal with this application for a felling licence for 102 trees. Having received the application on 22 December last, we immediately issued a prohibition order on 3 January last. This was purely a preventative measure to block off any destructive approach which might be made by the developer until such time as it could be done legally and if and when we issued a felling licence. The process of examining the application for felling went ahead, in consultation with the local authority, and on 1 March we received a letter from the local authority pointing out that they had no objection to the felling. Our officials went out from their Bray station and reported back that they could recommend the felling of one section where the developer was anxious to start work on the site. The Forestry officials recommended that 33 trees could be felled.

We were still examining this recommendation and on 3 March, 33 trees were felled by the developer without permission being granted under the requisite felling licence. At that time, Deputy Andrews brought this matter to the attention of this House in the form of a Private Notice Question. Immediately after that incident, my officials undertook to warn the developer, both verbally and in writing, of his legal position and that he was engaging in illegal activities in going ahead along these lines. It was suggested that he submit an application for the felling of the remaining trees which were within the planning permission provision.

Only yesterday, on 21 March, I understand that more than 30 trees were again felled without a felling licence. Now, there is something amiss here and this is the first time that I have come across a case in which the planning authority — and I am not speaking specifically about Dublin County Council as this could happen in any local authority area where tree felling is involved in the development of a site for any purpose — have given permission which included proposals for the felling of trees without the knowledge of the Department responsible for the preservation of trees. It is only when an application for felling comes along on foot of a planning permission that my Department become aware of such provision in the planning permission. As has been said here there is a vacuum or a lacuna here which must be corrected, by amending either the planning Act or the 1946 Forestry Act or, possibly, both. It may very well be that the latter will be the case.

The House can take it that this matter will be dealt with urgently by me in consultation with my colleague in the Department of the Environment to see what can be done to block off that loophole. Yesterday's incident, of which I have not yet full details, may not be totally illegal in that there is provision, I understand, for the felling of trees without a felling licence if those trees are within 100 feet of existing buildings. I do not know to what extent this condition was fulfilled yesterday, or whether the felling of trees outside that distance took place. This matter has to be examined. It seems that in the case of Dorney Court a certain amount of highhandedness is being indulged in by the developer, despite verbal and written warnings. Without the House pressing me into giving details, I can assure the Deputies that appropriate action is being taken at this very moment in order to preserve trees and avert any further damage to trees on that site. I cannot be more specific than that, but the House can take it that I have acted with full rigour within the Act and as far as my powers permit. I hope that that will have the desired affect in this case.

This is possibly a unique occasion where such an item is being discussed on a non-political basis, purely on a community one, with — as Deputy Barnes said — national connotations also. This type of activity can take place anywhere and at any time. It is time that we put down a marker as to our intention of protecting the environment, and as a Minister involved in the Department of Fisheries and Forestry I assure the House that I take a very dim view of such an approach by any developers anywhere within the jurisdiction of any local authority. They will be met with the full rigour of the law.

I finish by repeating that in order to close off any loopholes which appeared to be raised in this case, I shall not be found wanting, nor will my colleague in the Department of the Environment, in amending our respective Acts to meet the needs of the day.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 27 March 1984.