Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 Oct 1992

Vol. 423 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - Shankill (Dublin) Land.

Mr. Gilmore:

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this matter on the Adjournment. The Office of Public Works are attempting to sell off to private interests eight-and-a-half acres of land in Shankill which is needed by the local community for amenity purposes. The land is part of the Chantilly Stud Farm which was cut off by the Bray-Shankill bypass. It is located between the bypass and St. Anne's primary school.

For some time past the local community in Shankill have been seeking this land for amenity use. Specifically, a local football club — Vale View Football Club — wished to locate their permanent home on the lands. In addition, St. Anne's primary school have been seeking part of the lands for playing facilities. In response to these wishes, Dublin County Council had been engaged in discussions with the Office of Public Works with a view to acquiring the land. Negotiations had taken place between Dublin County Council and Office of Public Works valuers. Those negotiations broke down in February last because the Office of Public Works were seeking the full development value of the land. I understand they were seeking £100,000 per acre. However, Dublin County Council were seeking to purchase it at its amenity value. The Office of Public Works suggested arbitration, a worthless suggestion, because agreement had not been reached on the basis for arbitration, that is whether it would be at amenity or development value.

About two months ago the Office of Public Works put the lands on the open market for building purposes. At that time the Office of Public Works may not have been aware of Dublin County Council's zoning intentions for the land. However, they can be under no illusion about it now.

On 13 May last Dublin County Council decided to rezone the land from residential to amenity use. Because the review of the development plan is not yet complete this rezoning has not been confirmed. It will almost certainly have been confirmed by the time any potential planning application is lodged. It is virtually certain that planning permission would be refused for any development on this land. Therefore, there is no point in attempting to sell the land unless, of course, the Minister is endeavouring to make a present of it to some property speculator who, having failed to obtain planning permission, will then take Dublin County Council to the cleaners for planning compensation.

The sale of this land makes no sense since it is needed as an amenity by the local community. Dublin County Council are still interested in acquiring it at amenity value, confirmation of which I obtained as recently as 5 o'clock this evening. It is being rezoned for amenity use and so cannot be built on. If the Minister proceeds with its sale, ultimately it may result in a net loss to the taxpayer.

I now repeat the plea I made previously to the Minister of State — which he has so far rejected — to withdraw this land from sale and instruct his valuers to reenter discussions with Dublin County Council valuers to sell this land at amenity value.

The Minister cannot claim that he was not aware the land was intended for amenity use. The Minister for Finance, in a written reply to me to a parliamentary question on 27 November 1990 stated:

The question of the possible use of portion of the lands for sports facilities has recently been raised and this matter will be taken into account in considering the sale proposals made by the County Council.

I must ask what has changed the Minister's attitude since then when, exactly two years ago, it was known this land was intended for use as a sports facility, at which time apparently the Minister was prepared to take that into account in reaching agreement with Dublin County Council in relation to its price.

However, the Minister now tries to deny that Dublin County Council were even interested in the land. It does not make sense for one public body to sell out of public ownership land which is needed by another public body, especially when the whole transaction could ultimately cost the public purse much more than would be saved.

The land was up for public auction last week and no bid was made. Indeed, any potential purchaser, given the circumstances surrounding this plot of land, would be well advised to steer clear. I would ask the Minister of State to withdraw the land from sale at this stage, have his valuers consult Dublin County Council valuers again and seek to agree a price. Dublin County Council are still interested, still willing to acquire the land which I contend would be the best method by which to deal with what has now become a very controversial plot of land.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. N. Treacy):

I am very pleased to be given an opportunity to respond to Deputy Gilmore and to put the facts on the record.

The land at Chantilly stud farm, the subject of the Deputy's motion, has been occupied by the State since 1865. The land is State-owned and has been leased in the past to UCD as a veterinary field station. The creation of the Shankill-Bray by-pass a few years ago divided the Chantilly lands and rendered two sites, one to the east and one to the west of the new road, surplus to requirements. These lands are zoned for residential development in the 1983 development plan.

Dublin County Council first expressed an interest in acquiring the surplus lands in 1989. Negotiations took place between the relevant officials of the property branch of my Department and the Dublin County Council on the matter, but agreement could not be reached on price. The Office of Public Works offered to go to independent arbitration to try to settle a price, But I understand this offer was not taken up by Dublin County Council.

I should like to put the record straight, that we have made this land available for sale — we are obliged to do so — we have made it available to Dublin County Council and Dublin County Council have not made any offer for this land.

Mr. Gilmore:

That is not true.

Mr. N. Treacy:

We cannot be both vendor and purchaser. Dublin County Council, and Deputy Gilmore, in particular, want the State to provide free, land which is the property of the State, for both themselves and the local community. We are not in that business nor can we be in it.

Dublin County Council finally withdrew from negotiations in February 1992. With no obvious buyer in sight, the Office of Public Works, in accordance with Government policy on the disposal of surplus property — designed to generate income to help deal with our national debt — offered the lands for sale on the open market. As the Deputy is no doubt aware, an auction for the Chantilly lands was organised by estate agents appointed by the Office of Public Works and was held on 6 October last. There were no bids at the auction. I understand an effort was made to deter people from bidding. The property remains for sale. The Office of Public Works and their estate agents have already received one good offer since the auction. We are still open to further offers. When an acceptable offer is made the property will be disposed of.

I want to assure Deputy Gilmore that I am familiar with these lands. I visited them along with my officials the week prior to the auction. I did so at the request of my colleagues, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, and Deputy Hillery. I saw the lands for myself and instructed my officials to proceed with the auction. I want to inform Deputy Gilmore also that I am fully aware that both he and another local representative frustrated the sale, spoke at the auction and deterred people from bidding.

Mr. Gilmore:

I will do so again, if necessary.

Mr. N. Treacy:

I want to warn Deputy Gilmore that a Member of this House has a certain responsibility to discharge the laws of this country and may not intimidate or may not frustrate a decision by any agents of the State to proceed to dispose of property. The Deputy would want to be careful how he proceeds in future.

Mr. Gilmore:

The Minister of State should not threaten me.

Mr. N. Treacy:

I am just giving the Deputy good advice. I can appreciate the Deputy's interest and that of his Oireachtas colleagues, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Hillery, in seeking to have these lands made available for amenity purposes in the Shankill area. However, I must put on record the fact that the Office of Public Works are not the authority with responsibility for providing public and amenity areas at a local level. Their brief in relation to national parks is well known but in this instance what is at issue is entirely different. In this case they can have regard to the land only as a property asset, deal with it on that basis only, in accordance with prudent management of the State's portfolio and, on the basis of the State Property Act, 1954, subsequent Government decisions — more particularly one taken in 1988 which directed the commissioners to dispose of all State property which becomes surplus and lodge the receipts against the national debt. That is our mandate and we must fulfil it. We are not in the business of giving away taxpayers' property free of charge to any organisation——

Mr. Gilmore:

Except to a speculator.

Mr. N. Treacy:

I beg the Deputy's pardon. We do not deal with speculators. We act in a bona fide manner, as designated in the State Property Act, which specifies how State property is to be disposed of, either by public auction or public tender. On this occasion, the commissioners decided to proceed by public auction, which was frustrated. That will not be tolerated.

If Dublin County Council wish to acquire this property — there is an offer on the property — we are still open to receive offers from them. If we receive a decent offer we shall be only too delighted to do business with them.