Vol. 463 No. 4
15 Mr. N. Ahern asked the Minister for the Environment if he will make a decision on the redevelopment/refurbishment of Ballymun flats. Dublin 11 or pending the decision if he will approve the next phase of the refurbishment work. [6616/96]
60 Miss Flaherty asked the Minister for the Environment if he will sanction the commencement of phase two of the Ballymun refurbishment scheme in 1996, in view of the three year gap in the completion of phase one. [4650/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 15 and 60 together.
Dublin Corporation's detailed response to the consultants' report which evaluated the completed refurbishment work in the pilot phase, and made recommendations on the future of the Ballymun flats complex, was received in my Department in mid-January. The corporation's proposals are being examined and a decision will be made as soon as possible.
Since completion of the pilot phase, I have approved the corporation's proposals for the reroofing of the spine and tower blocks at an estimated cost of £2.5 million. I understand that the corporation has sought tenders for this work.
I accept that the Minister of State received the final report of the corporation in mid-January. I am sure she was not taken by surprise by that report. The corporation has worked with her Department throughout the evaluation process and the Department received several draft reports on the matter. Does the Minister of State realise that the previous phase of refurbishment was approved in 1991? This action was carried out by a Fianna Fáil Minister and a PD Minister of State. Nothing has happened in the interim. Does the Minister of State realise that some people see the evaluation process as a delaying tactic and that morale is beginning to fall? Unless action is quickly taken, many people will be disappointed and much of the community spirit that was built up will dissipate.
It was quite recently that I received the evaluation report from Dublin Corporation. It is understandable that such a period of time was spent on that evaluation. This was not my doing. It is the responsibility of Dublin Corporation and is understandable in the circumstances. This is a major refurbishment scheme, on an unprecedented scale, and the cost involved is quite significant.
I did not claim to be taken by surprise by the contents of the report. However, I must inform the Deputy that the corporation's response is very extensive and comes to a total of 300 pages. It includes a main report and two detailed technical reports. I assure the Deputy that I take this matter seriously but the Department only recently received this extensive report from the corporation. The report contains much information and is being considered with great interest and commitment.
I accept that it is a very expensive job. However, the refurbishment for the first two years would only amount to £10 million or £11 million. Does the Minister of State realise that a financial allocation would not be needed this year if she approved the scheme today because much planning and technical work needs to be carried out? To ensure that work is carried out in 1997, the Minister of State must approve it now so that technical work may commence.
If the Minister of State will not commit to the complete demolition of the tower blocks, will she permit the corporation to proceed to begin phase ll of the refurbishment? Phase ll could be divided along the lines of the 1991 scheme and approval given for completion of the outside work. A gesture is required, even if approval cannot be given for the entire scheme. Will the Minister permit the corporation to proceed with the technical outside work on phase ll? This would suffice at present.
There is a major report from the corporation in my Department which outlines in full the work that must be carried out. The estimated cost of such work is £110 million. I have already indicated my desire for progress by sanctioning an allocation of £2.5 million for work for which tenders will be invited. That is an indication of the commitment I am making to this project. It does not serve anybody to view this project in terms of short-term, stop-gap measures. Dublin Corporation's comprehensive report is being treated with immense seriousness by my Department. The project must be considered in its entirety because of its importance and the implications involved. If the Deputy is seeking gestures, I have already made a commitment of £2.5 million.
That is not part of the scheme.
I assure the Deputy that my Department is treating this as an important matter. We will seriously take on board the findings of Dublin Corporation. It has taken much time for the corporation to finalise the report and I would be remiss if I were not to take its contents fully on board.
Question 16 is in the name of Deputy Flood who is not present. Being a priority question, it cannot now be dealt with by the House.
