Vol. 513 No. 1
82 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the situation in relation to the fatality and injury caused by premises collapsing at Washington Street, Cork; the situation in relation to the demolition of premises at this location; the steps, if any, being taken to avoid a repetition of these occurrences; and if local authorities have adequate powers, resources and personnel to deal with these situations. [1682/00]
On 30 December last the parapets of Nos. 33 and 34 Washington Street Cork collapsed resulting in the death of one person and serious injury to another. This was a tragic accident and I am sure Deputies on all sides would wish me to convey our condolences to the victims and their families.
The responsibility for the maintenance of private property is a matter for the owners of such property. However, where dangerous structures are concerned, local authorities have extensive powers under the 1964 Sanitary Services Act. Under this Act a local authority may serve notice on owners of buildings requiring them to carry out specified works to prevent the building from becoming dangerous. They can also enter property and carry out work on a dangerous structure where there is an immediate danger to public safety, and recover the costs involved. Local authorities also have powers to inspect buildings to obtain any information for any purpose of the Act.
Since 1992 national building regulations set out the minimum legal requirements in relation to the design and construction of new buildings and the extension to, material alteration of and changes of use of existing buildings. Otherwise, the regulations do not apply to buildings built before this date. Part A of the First Schedule to the regulations sets out requirements in relation to the structural stability of buildings.
My Department has been in contact with Cork Corporation. In response, the corporation informed my Department that it engaged consultants to advise it generally on the incident and its implications. Specifically, it requested the consultants to investigate and report on the possible causes of the failure of the parapets and to assess reports, commissioned by owners from their engineering advisers, in relation to the safety of other buildings in the locality. Cork Corporation also used its powers under the 1964 Act, including service of notices requiring buildings to be vacated and works to be carried out, including demolition of certain buildings or parts of buildings.
I am satisfied that adequate resources are available to local authorities, through outsourcing or otherwise, to deal effectively and efficiently with the problems which dangerous buildings can present. The powers available to local authorities to take action in relation to dangerous buildings, which I outlined earlier, are extensive and I am not aware that any changes to the statutory position are necessary. In particular, it is important that nothing should be done that would obscure where the primary responsibility for safety of buildings lies, which is with the building owners. In conclusion, while the powers available to local authorities appear to be satisfactory, I propose to review the position generally when the report commissioned by the local authority is available and in the light of any views which Cork Corporation might have.
My heart goes out to the relatives of the young woman who was fatally injured in this accident. I also extend my sympathies to those who were injured. Let us also not forget those who are suffering continuing loss due to the closure of part of one of Cork's major streets.
I do not point the finger of blame at anybody. Is the Minister satisfied that Cork Corporation has sufficient resources and assistance? Has there been a request or is the Minister able to make further help available, by way of personnel or otherwise, to Cork Corporation? I wish to raise the general situation throughout the country but I will come back to that. How long will the current situation last in Cork? Is the corporation adequately resourced to deal with the problem it is confronting?
I am satisfied that Cork Corporation has the resources to do what is necessary. This issue is covered by the legislation so the corporation can take action under the Act. It can carry out work on a dangerous structure where there is an immediate danger to public safety and it can recover the cost thereof. It also has building inspectors and so forth.
Part of the street has been closed for some time but it is hoped to reopen it by next weekend. The corporation took action on a number of matters although I am not sure I should mention them. Perhaps I could give the Deputy the information off the record. He will be aware that dangerous structure notices were served on a number of houses on Washington Street to require demolition to first floor level. Notices were served on other houses to require demolition to ground floor level. In a number of other buildings the corporation served notices to vacate in the days following the accident but remedial works were immediately undertaken by the owners to render them safe. That is the up-to-date position.
There is another important aspect to this matter. The Minister referred to the 1964 Act and what can be done under its provisions. However, nobody knew this building was dangerous. Can we learn a lesson from this awful tragedy? Can the Minister think of a procedure whereby local authorities could improve the situation by anticipating these occurrences? Could they be given power to enter buildings where such occurrences might take place? They have powers to deal with dangerous buildings, but what about potentially dangerous buildings? Can anything be done from a legislative point of view or otherwise to prevent such occurrences again?
Before the Minister replies, I will take a brief supplementary question from Deputy Hayes.
The building control sections of each local authority are charged with responsibility for checking out complaints about buildings. Will the Minister ask each local authority the total number of staff within each building control section? My information is that there is a deficiency in terms of the number of people within each local authority section who can carry out these inspections to ensure quality is assured.
I do not have the detailed information the Deputy requested about each local authority. Over the past two and a half years, however, we have ensured that local authorities have building control officers – many of them did not have such officers before then. It is also important to point out that this task does not have to be carried out directly by a local authority officer. It can be carried out, as in the case of Cork Corporation, by engaging consultants or outside bodies. I suggest it takes that route.
Deputy O'Keeffe asked the pertinent question of what might be done in light of the tragedy. That is currently subject to a review. The experience we gain from the tragedy in Cork will form part of that review. A number of suggestions have been made, one of which was the compulsory inspection of buildings. If they do not comply, they will not get a certificate—
Perhaps buildings over a certain age.
Something like that. The difficulty is that if such a policy were implemented, many buildings would be left uninsured and the victims of accidents such as the one we have been discussing would not be able to claim compensation. That is one problem. It is not easy to give the Deputy an answer that would satisfy people who have suffered as a result of this. Perhaps an increase in the monitoring of such buildings on a more regular basis and ensuring that older buildings are monitored on a regular basis might be one of the recommendations to emerge.
There is an MOT test for old cars so there should be a test for old buildings.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
