Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 4 Dec 1997

Vol. 484 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Carlow Housing.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): This matter dates from June 1997, not January, which may be a misprint on the Order Paper.

Members of Carlow Urban Council approved the building of 26 houses in Shaw Park, Athy Road, Carlow after all necessary conditions were fulfilled. This was local democracy at work. The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, swept aside local democracy in the callous and uncaring way he overruled their decisions. There are 500 people on the housing list and many others are willing to build their own. Ten people form the Carlow Friendly Housing Co-operative Society and received permission from Carlow Urban District Council to build in Shaw Park. The Minister has now said they cannot.

The 26 houses, ten co-op and 16 local authority houses, are badly needed. The procedures were followed and people were given an opportunity to make submissions. Eventually departmental approval was given in June 1997. The co-operative society has accepted the tender of a local contractor, acquired the sites and drawn lots for houses one to ten. The 16 local authority houses would be under way were it not for the questions posed by the Minister.

The people waiting for houses are absolutely shattered by the Minister's refusal to allow their plans proceed. The question that must be answered is why the Minister has a special interest in Carlow. He will spend much time explaining that he is "against the loss of public space for new housing" as stated in the letter of refusal.

Shaw Park consists of 5.27 acres, half of which will be used for housing and the other half will be landscaped with amenity facilities. For many years Shaw Park has been derelict and unsuitable because of its hidden position. The housing development, as proposed on part of the park, would provide the social control which will ensure that the remainder of the park, which would be developed to a high standard, has the prospect of being enjoyed by the new residents and Carlow people in general.

There are two other parks owned by the local authority — Graiguecullen Park which consists of 12.5 acres and Hanover Park which consists of 13.15 acres. The ongoing improvement in Hanover Park, under the urban renewal scheme, will provide much needed facilities. Why has permission been refused? I suggest the reason is far less noble than loss of open spaces. Among the submissions made to the urban district council in 1996 was one from Jim Gibbons, Athy Road, Carlow who objected to the building of houses. He said:

Naturally our objections are different from those of the general public as we, the under-signed, [there were three] have our residences adjacent to the park and have little doubt but that we will suffer an invasion of our privacy in terms of being overlooked, greater noise and probable trespass.

A further comment was:

At this stage we would like to know what measures are proposed by Carlow Urban District Council to protect our interests and our property? We are conscious of this because in the past we have suffered much damage by way of theft, trespass and vandalism from the public because of the council's failure to secure their boundaries.

This Jim Gibbons is now Senator Jim Gibbons and chairman of the PD parliamentary party. I suggest it is because of his influence the Minister has banned the housing development in Shaw Park. The Minister looked after his own. This matter is serious for local democracy, for the people who looked forward to being housed and the Minister of State who has preached high standards. We now have low standards in high places with the "pals act" alive and well.

I utterly reject the contemptible allegations and insinuations made by Deputy Browne about my motivations in the stance I have taken on this issue which I consider to be very important. I did not expect the Deputy would descend to such depths. I had no knowledge of what was contained in any of the letters he has read. I will explain the situation and the reason I have suggested the local authority should have a rethink and find an alternative site.

The housing development to which Deputy Browne refers consists of two separate proposals, one for the construction of ten houses by the Carlow Friendly Co-operative Society on a site in Shaw Park made available by Carlow Urban District Council and the second for the construction of 16 local authority houses on another part of the same site.

The development of the housing by the co-operative society was to be facilitated by the disposal of sites at a subsidised cost to the society by the urban district council under the sale of housing sites scheme. The plans for the local authority housing were discussed and agreed at local level between the local authority and the Department's technical inspectorate and design approval issued in June 1997. However, because of my concern with the choice of an existing public park as a site for housing, I am not disposed to make public funds available to provide housing at this location. Schemes of this nature are worthwhile and I have no hesitation in commending Carlow Urban District Council for promoting the development of voluntary and local authority housing in close proximity on the same site.

The selection of the site is, arguably, the single most important consideration in the process of providing housing. New housing development will have a significant contribution to make to the area in which it is located. Substantial public funds are invested in the provision of social housing and the range of options now open to housing authorities affords them a measure of flexibility that was not available in former years. It is essential that authorities avail of the opportunities provided by the social housing programme to ensure that their housing schemes will not only provide good living environments but will contribute to the integrated development of the areas in which they are located.

Decisions at local level about social housing have to be taken with a view to their impact on the availability of public amenities for the area as a whole. It should not be necessary to sacrifice a public park or other designated recreational areas to housing. Carlow is a significant town with a bright economic future and it should not be beyond the capacity of the local authority to find an alternative location to enable the housing schemes to go ahead.

I appreciate it is imperative for the housing authority to meet housing need within the framework of the programmes and their capital allocations. They must also weigh carefully the balance of advantage and disadvantage in losing a public recreational resource. It has been suggested to me that parks and other similar recreational areas often become the venue for anti-social behaviour and consequently become unusable. This is a reflection on the management by local authorities of such important local resources. Denying the public as a whole is not the answer.

I am anxious that every effort be made to overcome the difficulties that have arisen. I am arranging for an official from my Department to meet the county manager, the town clerk and representatives of the co-operative society with a view to resolving the matter to everyone's satisfaction.

I know this park and had the privilege of opening a swimming pool there on a beautiful sunny day in 1971. My recollection of the park on that occasion is one of vivid colour and beauty and a happy local community assembled in this open space.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Think of reality.

I was absolutely horrified to discover from the files that this park, which in 1991 was officially named the George Bernard Shaw Park, Carlow, and officially opened by Senator David Norris, had been allowed to deteriorate since then. The local authority now propose housing schemes for the park.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): How did the Minister of State know about it?

I want to see the housing schemes go ahead. I am not convinced there are not other suitable sites in the Carlow area. I have offered the assistance of my officials to find a suitable alternative.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): If the Minister stayed out of it we would be better off.

The Minister without interruption, please.

It was running completely contrary to the best planning principles expounded by the Department of the Environment and Local Government. I am concerned that there are county managers throughout the country who are tempted to use public spaces and parks, such as this, for the purpose of building houses——

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Propaganda.

——rather than acquire land banks in the marketplace and ensure the proper organised planned development of their towns. I intend to facilitate that in this case. I reject the Deputy's insinuation that there was some other reason for the refusal.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister of State has not denied it.

I am denying it.

Barr
Roinn