I beg to move:
" To delete the section."
SECTION 11.
(1) If the Minister is satisfied on any representation after holding a public local inquiry, that a local authority—
(a) has failed to take the requisite steps for having a satisfactory town planning scheme prepared and approved in a case where a town planning scheme ought to be made; or
(b) has failed to adopt any scheme proposed by (1) owners of any land, or (2) any recognised association or society in a case where the scheme ought to be adopted; or
(c) has unreasonably refused to consent to any modifications or conditions imposed by the Minister;
the Minister may, as the case requires, order the local authority to prepare and submit for the approval of the Minister such a town planning scheme, or to adopt the scheme, or to consent to the modifications or conditions so inserted.
Provided that, where the representation is that a local authority has failed to adopt a scheme, the Minister, in lieu of making such an order as aforesaid, may approve the proposed scheme, subject to such modifications or conditions, if any, as he thinks fit, and thereupon the scheme shall have effect as if it had been adopted by the local authority and approved by the Minister.
(2) If the Minister is satisfied on any representation, after holding a local inquiry, that a responsible authority has failed to enforce effectively the observance of a scheme which has been confirmed, or any provisions thereof, or to execute any works which under the scheme or this Act the authority is required to execute, the Minister may order that authority to do all things necessary for enforcing the observance of the scheme or any provisions thereof effectively, or for executing any works which under the scheme or this Act the authority is required to execute.
(3) Any order under this section may be enforced by mandamus.
The point of view taken on this matter is that a local authority might be stubborn and might vitiate the whole principle of the Bill.
My opinion is that if the local authority has to pay the expenses of the carrying out of a scheme, they ought at least to have the option of refusing to go to expense in connection with any scheme they may not desire.
All the Public Health Acts in Ireland were spoilt by giving an option of this kind. Notifications of every sort were spoiled by giving the local authority power to object. Certain things ought to be compulsory.
It should be borne in mind that this is not done until there is a public local inquiry. Objections as to certain possibilities have to be made known and publicly avowed. Then the Minister will consider the question after all that has been gone through before he can make mandatory his decision.
Objectors have full opportunity of having their cases heard.
But the people are very slow to take steps to save themselves. They never talk until the rates come on them and then they all complain.
Apart from the question of compensation there is nothing in the scheme that involves practically any expense on a local authority except such clerical work as may be necessary. It is not a scheme which necessarily involves expense excepting what may be involved by way of compensation.
But somebody will have to be paid for preparing the scheme.
There will be clerical expense. The expense will be comparatively little in respect of the small local authorities. With respect to Dublin and Cork, the big expense has already been undertaken; that is to say, the survey has been made. The preparation of a scheme is in the main the work of the architect or engineer already in the employment of the local authority.
In Cork the City Council have regulations as to the method of putting up buildings.
That comes under their present by-laws. Town planning involves a great deal more than that.
I am afraid so much work has been going on developing the lands around Cork City that it is rather late now to start a new scheme of planning.
The town planning scheme cannot operate to alter anything that has already been done unless, of course, it is unsightly.
Senator Johnson indicated that this will not involve much expense. If plans have to be executed, where is the expense to come from?
The preparation of the plans will not involve much expense. The probabilities are that this will reduce rather than increase expenditure, inasmuch as, instead of allowing buildings to be erected today higgledy-piggledy and then in ten or fifteen years' time, when making necessary improvements, having to pay compensation for the improvements, they will henceforth be properly planned. By making proper plans now you will be saving the next generation of ratepayers from payment of compensation. That is the main effect, so far as expense is concerned.
You are not proposing to give any powers to local authorities compulsorily to carry out those things?
Power to make the local authority carry out the scheme?
Yes, but there is nothing in the Bill which says that the local authority will undertake any more schemes in future than in the past.
You mean that the local authority will compel any one who is building to build in the right way. That is quite right.
In England it was hoped that the 50 per cent. they were taking under the betterment clause would largely run the scheme. They found that that was not so. It was not quite enough to take from the betterment. We propose to take three-fourths instead of one-half from people whose property increases in value. That will probably go a long way towards preventing expenses on the ratepayers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move:
" Section 11, sub-section (1). To delete paragraph (b)."
This amendment is proposed in deference to the suggestion of the Commissioners. It means that an outside association which has an interest in town planning and which, perhaps, may have a scheme shall not have any extra recognition. Where the Minister under the section has power, on any representation, after the holding of a public inquiry to compel a scheme to be put into operation, he shall have no such power in respect of a scheme which has been drawn up by a recognised association. The amendment is proposing to delete that portion which has reference to a scheme drawn up by a recognised association. The intention really is to deter outside associations from overstressing their anxieties; in fact their idea is to prevent faddists getting too much authority.
If Section 3 is omitted the owners will be deprived as well as the recognised associations.
There is nothing to prevent them preparing a scheme. The owners of land or the recognised associations can submit their schemes to the Minister. The section as it stands refers to cases where such recognised association or the owners have proposed a scheme and, if the local authority has failed to adopt such a scheme, the Minister may come in after public inquiry and insist.
Who objected to the wording as it was originally drafted?
The Dublin City Commissioners. It does not matter very much because we have already agreed that the scheme must be adopted by the local authority and the Minister. In this case the Minister is not going to move merely on the initiative of a recognised association or the owner.
Or the owner—why not? I think as it was originally drafted it was much better.
I do not think there is anything lost by deleting it.
I would not be inclined to delete it at the suggestion of the Commissioners.
Well the local authorities are a very important factor.
It would involve a public inquiry if they insisted on it.
That is why they wanted it taken out.
I think it is better as it was originally drafted by Senator Johnson.
Colonel Moore
What is the object of taking it out?
To meet the views of the Commissioners here in Dublin.
The Minister can insist on an inquiry being held, but I think that it is not right that a number of people should insist on an inquiry being held.
Yes, busybodies.
Well, I would not call them that.
I am against it. I want to be recorded as against it.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 42—" To delete the section " (Senator Linehan)—withdrawn.
I move amendment 43:—
Section 12, sub-section (3), line 1, page 10. To delete line 1 and the word " shall " in line 2 and to substitute therefor the following:—
" (4) In the preparation of any circular, order or instruction to be made or issued under either of the schedules to this Act or arising therefrom the Minister may "
This really is a matter of no great importance. It is, of course, felt almost inevitably that the Minister shall have the advice of professional experts in drafting such very intricate regulations as have been adopted by the British authority. As drafted, the Bill made it obligatory to consult these experts. The amendment is approved of by the Institute of Architects. It really makes it optional on the Minister to consult in the preparation of orders, regulations and circulars on the general working of the Act. It is only in the preparation of these general regulations by the experts—as you might call them—those who do the preparatory work, that the matter arises.
Is that the section we were discussing with Sir John Griffith the last day?
No, that is dealt with in the next amendment.
Amendment 43 put and agreed to.
Amendment 44 is in the name of Senator Sir John Griffith. I will move it for him. The idea in Senator Griffith's mind was that it might be desirable for the Minister, we will say in the case of Cork, that the Institute of Engineers or Architects would suggest a Cork-man, or that in Limerick they might suggest someone more familiar with that district, and so on. It would be better give them the option to suggest some man like that rather than have one man nominated. I move the amendment.
In view of the change already made these particular reasons do not apply because this is only dealing with the preparation of circulars, orders and instructions, and they would have to be the same persons.
If the Association of Architects or Engineers want that, I have no objection to it. Personally, I do not agree with the principle.
I am not very keen about it myself. Neither is Senator Griffith.
I think it is important.
It was thought so at the time, but as Senator Johnson says, it has been altered from the idea we had about it on the last occasion by some new amendment that has since been put in.
Yes, but I do not think any harm can come from agreeing to it.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, and Section 13, put and agreed to.