Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 17 May 2001

Vol. 536 No. 4

Adjournment Debate. - Army Barracks.

The city of Dublin and the whole country is rightly outraged by the failure of the Department of Defence to transfer the 13.65 acre site at Clancy Barracks to Dublin Corporation for social and affordable housing for our citizens. As I told the Taoiseach yesterday, every night recently up to 200 homeless citizens have had to sleep rough and a record 7,500 families are on the Dublin Corporation housing lists. I know a number of these unfortunate citizens myself. The explosion of homelessness and our housing lists has been a regrettable feature of the growing inequality in Irish life under the past four years of this Government. For that reason I asked the Taoiseach today urgently to reconsider his decision on Clancy Barracks and to allow time in the House for a discussion of housing strategies around the country.

The Dublin city and region housing strategy makes sad and alarming reading. We need a minimum of 75,000 housing units until 2005, of which Dublin Corporation's share will be at least 26,000 or an average of 4,300 houses a year. About 2,500 of these units should be social and affordable housing. The current housing list stands at 7,420 families and the four Dublin local authorities together have a current list of 14,831 families, or perhaps 50,000 people, who are living in very overcrowded conditions or who are homeless.

Under this Government house prices have exploded by nearly 150% in the past five years in the Dublin area, where developed housing land is so scarce, and by over 120% in the rest of the country. Rents have also more than doubled and the Government has bluntly refused to regulate rents in any way or to contain the worst excesses of the landlord class, which is made up of perhaps its staunch supporters. The most serious problem of all is the lack of land for affordable housing in the Dublin city area. Only three significant tranches of land remain – the docklands area, my own northern fringe area, and Pelletstown.

The bottom line of the Dublin city housing strategy which was amended last Monday night to become the law of the land is that at the end of 2005, even with the Part V provision introduced by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, there will be at least 6,500 families on the Dublin housing list, almost the same number as at present.

Against this background, the release of 13.65 acres of land by the Department of Defence on the edge of the inner city and in a most attractive location close to the Liffey, the railway and surrounded by three major parklands, seemed to offer a very important landbank for perhaps 300 to 500 social or affordable houses, community and local commercial development. The site offered perhaps up to one and half years supply of corporation building land.

Dublin Corporation officials and the Departments of Defence and Environment and Local Government are giving very different versions of their negotiations on this matter since 1998. Last Monday at Dublin City Council, where I lead the Labour Party, we were told that the Clancy Barracks site was not offered to Dublin Corporation. That is what I was led to believe. Today the Taoiseach and the Minister for Defence asserted that it was offered to the city but at an amazing market cost of £40 million. In effect the homeless of Dublin were going to have to finance the re-equipment and modernisation of our Army, the total cost of which is £50 million. Who is telling the truth? Are the Taoiseach and his Ministers hiding behind erratic and desultory negotiations to shift the blame for this debacle on to the Dublin City Manager, Mr. John Fitzgerald, and Assistant City Manager, Mr. Sean Carey?

I am aware that there are listed buildings on the site and that there were concerns about how much social housing could be accommodated there, yet every Dublin citizen would think that negotiations on such a vital matter for the city should have been brought to an early and successful conclusion with the transfer of the land to the city at a reasonable sum of £5 million to £10 million to provide necessary accommodation. As the leader of the Labour Party's councillors on Dublin City Council, I call on the Lord Mayor, Alderman Maurice Ahern, to call a special meeting of the council to get to the bottom of this matter and find out what input we have had through our city manager and his officials since 1998.

I realise the matter is being dealt with by auctioneers, but a precedent was set in the case of Devoy Barracks in Naas, which was returned to be used for housing having been on the market. It was withdrawn following an outraged chorus from those in south Kildare. I call on the Taoiseach and the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, to bring this crazy situation to an end and to allow Clancy Barracks to be used for social and affordable housing.

The recent closure of many barracks has freed up important sites in towns, allowing plans for important new community, health, industrial and housing initiatives to progress. Increasing demand for social housing and related programmes and the Government's new decentralisation initiative mean it is quite likely that the freeing up of military locations for alternative uses will be used to assist Government programmes.

It is Government policy to ensure the Defence Forces are adequately equipped to undertake the roles assigned to them. Establishing realistic equipment requirements and priorities for procurement forms a major element of strategic planning activities within the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces. The objective is to acquire, maintain and manage equipment, weapons and ammunition for the Defence Forces at the appropriate level of operational readiness in a cost effective manner. The strategic focus of the investment programme between 2000 and 2010 is to acquire a broad range of equipment to achieve a balanced increase in operational capacity throughout the Defence Forces. It will be necessary to prioritise and reconcile the equipment requirements for the Army, the Air Corps, the Naval Service and the Reserve Defence Force within the total resources available. A multi-annual budgetary strategy, vital to achieving value for money, is central to this plan.

Clancy Barracks, situated on the south bank of the River Liffey and formerly known as Islandbridge Barracks, dates from about 1857. It was accepted at the time of the decision to dispose of six barracks that the relocation of units currently at Clancy Barracks to other Dublin barracks and the Curragh would take some time. It is anticipated that this process will be complete before the end of this year.

On 16 July 1998, following the Government decision, Dublin Corporation was requested to change the zoning designation on Clancy Barracks to provide for housing and/or commercial development at this location. On 6 July 1999, Dublin Corporation confirmed the land was zoned Z1 to protect, to provide and improve residential amenities.

On 16 November 1998, Dublin Corporation requested it be given the first opportunity to acquire the property. On 16 June 1999, at a meeting with the Department of the Environment and Local Government and my Department, the corporation sought clarification regarding the date of closure of the barracks, the area involved, and expressed a wish to have the property made available to relieve the housing crisis in the Dublin area. The corporation indicated it would be prepared to pay full market value and requested permission to inspect the barracks, which inspection took place on 1 July 1999. Further visits to the property were undertaken on 17 July and 22 October 1999.

On 1 November 1999, at a meeting between my Department and Dublin Corporation, the corporation indicated it was anxious to acquire the property for a mixture of affordable and social housing. It was mentioned that the barracks contained a number of listed buildings which would pose architectural problems in matching the old with the new. Further plans outlining internal and external services, including drains and sewerage, were requested and were supplied on 8 December 1999.

On 8 February 2000, the corporation informed my Department that its planning officer had indicated that a large number of buildings on the site were of architectural merit and might be required to be retained on redevelopment. The corporation notified the Valuation Office of the report from its deputy planning officer. On 24 March 2000, the Valuation Office valued the property at about £40 million. It must be borne in mind, however, that the price to be realised will be determined by the market.

On 14 April 2000, the corporation was informed of the value of Clancy Barracks and it indicated it would consider the valuation and discuss its implications with the Department of the Environment and Local Government. On 7 July 2000, the Department of the Environment and Local Government indicated it was the corporation's view that the acquisition of the barracks to provide social housing did not offer an attractive proposition because of the limited capacity to provide low rise housing. It was believed that the public interest would be best served from a housing and planning point of view if the Department of Defence offered the property for sale on the open market, having regard to the very significant range of conservation challenges.

On 10 July 2000 my Department noted the corporation's views and informed it that I intended to dispose of the property on the open market as soon as possible. On 31 July 2000, Dublin Corporation advised my Department that the optimal solution would be for the land to be sold on the open market subject to a brief to be agreed between the Department and the planning authority. The brief could cover key requirements such as an appropriate mix of uses and the requirement to yield 20% social and affordable housing under section 5 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1999.

At a meeting on 9 April 2001 this year between the Department of Defence, the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the corporation, it was indicated that the site offered more potential for a private developer who could have a mix of developments on the site than for the corporation for social housing.

I add that the Department did not change its views on the sale of Devoy Barracks in Naas, which was negotiated by the appropriate local authority and me. The barracks was not withdrawn.

I was disappointed that Dublin Corporation did not agree to purchase Clancy Barracks. As I have said many times, evidence from cases where barrack lands were disposed of will show that the Department of Defence has given 100% priority to community needs. All sites so far have been sold to local authorities, health boards or other State institutions and it was my intention to do the same in the case of Clancy Barracks. Nothing on the record will show that the position was otherwise.

Did the Department of Defence offer the site to the prison service?

The Clancy Barracks site was not offered, but another site was.

Barr
Roinn