I move amendment No. 1:—

After line 52 to insert the following definition—

the expression "statutory undertaker" means a person authorised by a British Statute or an Act of the Oireachtas or an order having statutory force to construct, work, or carry on a railway, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, tramway, gas, electricity, or other public undertaking.

It is proposed to insert a new section in the Bill for the protection of what are known as statutory undertakings. The definition of a statutory undertaking is set out in the amendment.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 5, to delete all from and including the word "and," line 7, to the word "thereof" in line 9.

A planning scheme may be made for an area in which there would be private as well as public roads, and by the omission of the words proposed to be deleted the term "road" will receive its ordinary meaning. A footpath or bridge or pipe, arch or gully on an ordinary road is generally regarded as part of the road.

I move amendment No. 3:—

In line 9, at the end of the section, after the word "Act" to add the words "and every officer so appointed shall be paid such remuneration as such local authority shall, with the consent of the Minister, determine."

The words we propose to insert by this amendment will make it clear that suitable remuneration can be paid to officers appointed for the purpose of the Act.

I move amendment No. 4:—

Before Section 8 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Where a notice is required by this Act or by a planning scheme to be given to a person, such notice shall be addressed to such person and shall be given to such person in some one of the following ways, that is to say:—

(a) where such notice is addressed to such person by name, by delivering it to such person;

(b) by leaving it at the address at which such person ordinarily resides;

(c) by sending it by post in a pre-paid registered letter addressed to such person at the address at which he ordinarily resides;

(d) where the address at which such person ordinarily resides cannot be ascertained by reasonable inquiry and such notice is so required to be given in respect of any land or premises, by delivering it to some person over sixteen years of age on such land or premises or, if there is no such person on such land or premises, by affixing it in a conspicuous position on such land or premises.

(2) Where a notice is required by this Act or by a planning scheme to be given to the owner or to the occupier of any land or premises and the name of such owner or of such occupier (as the case may be) cannot be ascertained by reasonable inquiry, such notice may be addressed to "the owner" or "the occupier" (as the case may require) without naming him.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a company registered under the Companies Acts, 1908 to 1924, shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident at its registered office, and every other body corporate and every unincorporated body shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident at its principal office or place of business.

This is a re-draft, and it makes the section a little more explicit than it was previously.

Amendment 4 will be substituted for Section 8 of the Bill.

I submit there is no proposal before the House to delete Section 8 as it stands at present.

Yes, but it comes automatically. There are no words in common; consequently an amendment could not very well be drafted.

I move amendment No. 5:—

Before Section 9 to insert a new section as follows, that is to say:—

Save as is otherwise provided by this Act all expenses incurred by the Minister in the execution of this Act shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

This is the usual expenses section.

I move amendment No. 6:—

In sub-section (2), page 7, to delete all from and including the words "of the county" in line 9 to the words "area" in line 11, and substitute the words "or board by whom such expenses were or are to be incurred."

This is a drafting amendment. The words proposed to be substituted make the intention of the sub-section clearer.

I move amendment No. 7:—

Before Section 11, but in Part I of the Bill, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) No provision contained in a planning scheme shall apply to any land or to any structure on, in, or under any land which is at the relevant date occupied by a statutory undertaker for the purpose of his undertaking so long as such land or structure continues to be so occupied, unless or save in so far as either such statutory undertaker consents under this section to the application of such provision to such land or structure or the Minister by order made under this section directs that such provision shall apply to such land or structure.

(2) A planning authority by whom a planning scheme has been or is being made or the responsible authority under a planning scheme may request any statutory undertaker, who on the relevant date occupies for the purposes of his undertaking any land in the area to which such planning scheme relates or is intended to relate, to consent to the application of any provision in such planning scheme to such land or to any structure on, in, or under such land.

(3) Where any such request as is mentioned in the next preceding sub-section of this section has been made by a planning authority or a responsible authority to a statutory undertaker and such statutory undertaker does not, within two months after the making of such request, either give or refuse the consent mentioned in such request, such statutory undertaker shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to have given such consent at the expiration of the said period of two months.

(4) Where any such request as aforesaid made by a planning authority or a responsible authority to a statutory undertaker is refused by such statutory undertaker within two months after the making of such request, such planning authority or such responsible authority (as the case may be) may appeal to the Minister against such refusal, and on such appeal the Minister may, if he is of opinion that such refusal is unreasonable, by order declare that the provision the subject of such request shall apply to the land or structure mentioned in such request either, as the Minister shall think proper, without restriction or to such limited extent or subject to such conditions as the Minister shall think proper to specify in such order.

(5) Before making an order under this section in relation to any land or to any structure on, in, or under any land occupied for the purposes of a railway, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, tramway, gas, or electricity undertaking, the Minister shall consult with the Minister for Industry and Commerce in regard to such order.

This is an amendment to introduce before Section 11 a new section for the protection of statutory undertakings. Statutory undertakers are in a different position from other industrial and commercial concerns. The services which they provide for the public are carried on in pursuance of statutory authority. Where powers have been expressly obtained in that way their rights and interests should be safeguarded. The clause now proposed will afford the necessary protection.

I move amendment No. 8:—

Before Section 11, but in Part I of the Bill, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Any Minister or statutory board having control of land to which this section applies may, if and so far as he or they so thinks or think proper have regard to the purposes for which such land is under his or their control and to his or their primary duty in regard thereto, co-operate with a planning authority or a responsible authority with a view to securing that such land shall be so used and maintained as to conform with the general objects or any particular object of a planning scheme, and may, where he or they so thinks or think proper, enter into an agreement with such planning authority or responsible authority for the purpose of providing for such co-operation and for financial and other matters consequential thereon or incidental there-to.

(2) Where, in the case of land to which Article 11 of the Constitution applies, the making of leases of such land or, in the case of any other land to which this section applies, the alienation of such land by a Minister or a statutory board is subject to the sanction, consent, or approval of the Minister for Finance, no agreement shall be made under this section in regard to such land without the consent of the Minister for Finance.

(3) This section applies to all land which belongs to Saorstát Eireann by virtue of Article 11 of the Constitution and to all land which for the time being is State property or is vested in any Minister or statutory board whether by statute, purchase, gift, or otherwise.

(4) In this section the word "land" includes structure, and the expression "statutory board" means a board of commissioners or other board or body established by statute or statutory order and exercising any function of government or discharging any public duties in relation to public administration.

Property owned by the State or under the control of any Minister or statutory board would not be subject to any provisions in a planning scheme. The section is intended to provide machinery that where it is deemed proper to do so, having regard to the purposes for which the property is used, an agreement may be made with a planning authority or a responsible authority to secure that the property will be used and maintained so as to conform with the general objects or any particular object of a planning scheme.

I move amendment No. 9:—

In sub-section (4), line 12, to insert at the end of the sub-section the words "provided always that where the majority of the district planning authorities affected by such resolution have passed same, the Minister may, upon the application of one or more of such district planning authorities, make an order making such resolution binding upon all the district planning authorities affected by same, and thereupon such resolution shall be deemed to have been duly passed by all such district planning authorities and approved of by the Minister."

This amendment seeks to provide that where the majority of a number of adjoining district planning authorities are prepared to co-operate in setting up a regional planning authority, their efforts shall not be frustrated by one dissenting body refusing to co-operate in any scheme of planning being carried into operation. There is a danger that one of several district authorities, lacking in a proper conception of its duties, might thwart the efforts of progressing neighbouring authorities. There is that danger under the section as it stands. I would ask the Minister, if he cannot accept the amendment, to clarify the section in such a way that any dissenting authority could not have their way as against the majority in deciding on a certain action.

I think Deputy Doyle knows that the whole principle of this Bill is permissive. There is nothing in it, so far as planning schemes are concerned, of a mandatory nature. The Deputy's suggestion would mean changing the whole principle of the Bill. We cannot do that. It may be that, after some years of experience of the operation of this machinery which we are now asking the House to provide for the country, we may be in a position to make mandatory certain sections of this Bill, or certain principles which underlie them. It may be wise to do that, but I would suggest that we have not arrived at that stage yet. Another point is that if we adopt the amendment or an amendment similar to that suggested by the Deputy we might easily put ourselves in the position where we would have a small and relatively unimportant local authority in a position to force a greater body like, say, the Dublin Council, the Cork Council or the Dun Laoghaire Borough Council. Smaller bodies might be in a position to force the greater body to go ahead with a scheme which it did not think wise to adopt. That, I suggest, would not be a wise procedure. The principle, at any rate, is one which is not within the scope of the present Bill, and one which we cannot adopt.

As the Minister is not accepting the amendment, I assume that he has given it more careful consideration than I have. Does he not see the possibility of the case being reversed? The Minister has given the case of the smaller bodies. Suppose in the case of the Dublin authority they were embarking on some scheme which would be of general benefit in the way of town planning, and they were obstructed by a smaller neighbouring body, what action would the Minister then take? It is not provided for here.

In that case, if this present principle be adhered to all through, and the Bill be passed on the lines now introduced, I presume what would happen would be that the officials of the Local Government Department, or the Minister, or those concerned, who might approve of the general lines of the planning proposal that was made, would bring whatever influence they might have to bear on the other local authority with a view to getting them to see the wisdom of adopting the plan.

I should like to submit for Deputy Doyle's consideration that the terms of Section 14, which gives a wide area as a planning region to the City of Dublin and the City of Cork, would completely obviate any of the difficulties that he visualises. In the case of any of the smaller areas, the terms of Section 15 (1), which enables the Minister, in certain circumstances, to add part of a contiguous area to an urban area for planning purposes, would overcome most of the difficulties that are likely to arise.

I move amendment No. 10:—

In sub-section (6), page 8, line 24, to delete the word "prescribe" and substitute the words "by order appoint."

This is a small amendment which requires that the regulations shall be made by Order under the seal of the Minister.

I move amendment No. 11:—

Before sub-section (8), page 8, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

The Minister may, if and whenever he thinks proper so to do, by order direct that a specified regional planning authority constituted under this section shall pay contributions towards the travelling expenses incurred by members of such authority in attending the meetings of such authority, and thereupon, as from the coming into operation of such order, Section 63 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), and the Fifth Schedule to that Act shall apply to such regional planning authority as if such authority were a county authority within the meaning of the said Section 63.

This sub-section will enable a planning authority to pay contributions towards the travelling expenses of members in accordance with the provisions of Section 63 of the Local Government Act, 1925, and the Fifth Schedule to that Act.

I move amendment No. 12:—

Before sub-section (5), page 10, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

Where an order (in this section referred to as the principal order) has been made under this section, the Minister may by order revoke the principal order at any time before but not after the district planning authority for the planning district enlarged by the principal order has passed a resolution for the making of a planning scheme for the contiguous area or an area including the contiguous area which is the subject of the principal order.

This is a proposition to insert a new sub-section. Where a contiguous area is added to a planning district and the planning authority for that district does not proceed to make a scheme for its contiguous area or an area including the contiguous area, it is desirable that the contiguous area should be restored to the county health district for planning purposes. To do so, it is essential that the Minister should have power to revoke the order extending the county borough, borough or urban district, as the case may be.

I move amendment No. 13:—

In sub-section (1), line 11, after the word "resolution" to insert the words "in the prescribed form."

This is a drafting amendment. The resolution of a planning authority to make a planning scheme, one month's notice of which has to be published, should be set out in explicit terms, and it is proposed to prescribe a form of resolution. The words proposed to be inserted will enable this to be done.

I move amendment No. 14:—

In sub-section (1), lines 14 and 15, to delete the words "daily newspapers" and substitute the words "successive weeks in three newspapers (of which at least one is a daily newspaper)."

It is essential that the fullest publicity be given to the intention of the planning authority to make a planning scheme. Under the Bill, as introduced, only one publication is required and this is to be in two daily newspapers. The amendment requires three publications in three papers in successive weeks, and also enables two of the newspapers chosen to be local weekly papers so that better publicity can be got in that way.

I move amendment No. 15:—

Before sub-section (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

A resolution under this section shall not be invalidated by the making of an amendment therein after the giving and publication of notice of such resolution in accordance with this section and before the passing of such resolution, unless the effect of such amendment is to include in the area to which such resolution relates an area which was not so included when notice of such resolution was so given and published.

This amendment is intended to secure that the resolution as published may be amended at the meeting of the planning authority at which it comes up for publication. It might be found desirable to proceed with a planning scheme for an area less than that specified in the public notice, and if it were so decided the planning authority could pass the resolution with the necessary amendment. The resolution could not be varied so as to include any area not specified in the published notice.

I move amendment No. 16:—

Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

Where the planning authority by whom a planning scheme (in this sub-section referred to as the existing scheme) was made pass a resolution for the making of a planning scheme revoking, amending, or varying the existing scheme, the Minister may by order revoke such resolution unless the area to which such resolution relates includes an area to which the existing scheme does not relate or in which the existing scheme is not in force.

This amendment is moved as it is necessary that the Minister should have the power to revoke a resolution of a planning authority for the making of a planning scheme, revoking, amending or varying an existing scheme where no adequate reasons exist for the action proposed to be taken by the planning authority. The Minister's power to revoke is confined to the case where there is already a planning scheme in force and does not extend to a resolution to make a scheme for an area where no scheme is yet in force. Section 28 of the Bill provides that a planning scheme may be revoked in whole or in part, or amended or varied by a subsequent planning scheme, and Sections 29 and 30 deal with the revocation, or modification of a planning scheme at the request of the responsible authority on the grounds set out in sub-section (1) of Section 29.

I move amendment 17:—

In sub-section (6), page 13, line 1, after the word "shall" to insert the words "within the prescribed time."

This is a minor amendment. It is desirable that a time should be specified for the insertion in Iris Oifigiúil of the notice of the order approving of a planning scheme.

I move amendment 18:—

Before sub-section (8), page 13, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

Whenever an order approving of a planning scheme is annulled under the next preceding sub-section of this section, such planning scheme shall be deemed to have been resubmitted, on the day on which such annulment occurred, to the Minister in the form in which such scheme was approved by the said order, and thereupon this Part of this Act shall apply in respect of such planning scheme as if such resubmission were a submission under this section of such scheme to the Minister for his approval by the planning authority by whom such scheme was made and as if such submission were the first occasion on which such planning scheme was so submitted.

This amendment provides that where an order approving of a planning scheme is annulled by either House of the Oireachtas the planning scheme will be deemed to be resubmitted to the Minister and dealt with by him as if it were the first occasion on which the scheme was submitted by the planning authority.

I move amendment 19:—

Before sub-section (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

Where the whole of a planning scheme is annulled by the High Court under this section, this Part of this Act shall apply and have effect in respect of such planning scheme as if the Minister had, on the day on which such planning scheme is so annulled, made an order requiring the planning authority by whom such planning scheme was made to make and submit to him a new planning scheme.

This amendment makes clear the procedure to be followed where the whole of a planning scheme is annulled by the High Court. The resolution to prepare a planning scheme cannot be revoked in such a case, and it is therefore necessary that the planning authority should be required to submit a new planning scheme.

I move amendment 20:—

In sub-section (1), page 14, line 58, to delete the word "scheme" and substitute the word "order," and in line 59, after the word "or" to insert the words "such scheme."

This is a drafting amendment. It is only an order of the Minister approving of a planning scheme that can be annulled by either House of the Oireachtas. The whole of a scheme can be annulled by the High Court. These amendments are necessary to make the section absolutely clear.

I move amendment 21:—

In page 15, line 11, to delete the words "either before or" and substitute the words "at any time."

This is also a drafting amendment. A planning authority could only proceed to revoke a scheme after it had been brought into operation by an order of the Minister under Section 26.

I move amendment 22:—

In sub-section (1), page 15, line 16, to delete the word "The" and substitute the word "A."

This is just a verbal amendment.

I move amendment 23:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

Whenever an application under the foregoing sub-section of this section is received by a planning authority, the chief executive officer of such planning authority shall forthwith give to each member of such planning authority and publish the like notices of such application as are required by this Act to be given and published of the intention to propose a resolution for the making of a planning scheme.

Under the section as it stands a planning authority when it receives an application from a responsible authority for the revocation or modification of a planning scheme could not without due notice pass a resolution for the making of a scheme revoking or amending the existing scheme because Section 20 requires that not less than one month's notice of the intention to pass a resolution deciding to make a planning scheme must be given. An application from a responsible authority based on either of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 29 would require to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, and the amendment proposes to make it mandatory on the chief executive officer of the planning authority to give the same notices as are required by Section 20 of the Bill as if the application were a resolution for the making of a planning scheme. After the expiration of at least one month from the publication of the notices the planning authority can be summoned to a meeting to consider the application and decide either to refuse the application or pass a resolution for the making of a revoking or amending scheme as the case may require.

I move amendment 24:—

In sub-section (2), line 30, before the word "consider" to insert the words "after notice has been given and published in accordance with the next preceding sub-section of this section."

This is a consequential amendment to amendment 23. It is consequential on the passing of 23.

I move amendment 25:—

In sub-section (2), (b), line 35, after the word "scheme" to insert the words "and pass a resolution for the making of such amending planning scheme accordingly."

This is also a consequential amendment.

I move amendment 26:—

To delete sub-section (3).

This is also a consequential amendment on the passing of No. 23.

I move the following amendments, 27, 28, 29 and 30:—

In sub-section (1), page 16, to delete all from the word "by" in line 1 to the word "or" in line 3.

In sub-section (1), page 16, line 3, to delete the word "an" and substitute the words "a revoking or."

In sub-section (2), page 16, line 6, to delete the word "an" and substitute the words "a revoking or."

In sub-section (3), page 16, line 10, to delete the word "an" and substitute the words "a revoking or", and in line 13, after the word "such" to insert the words "revoking or."

These are all consequential on the passing of amendment No. 23.

I move amendment 31:—

In sub-section (3), line 45, to delete all from the first bracket to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "to execute such work, undertake such service, or acquire such land for such purpose either under a statute other than this Act, or under a provision of this Act expressly conferring such power, or under a statute which is, by virtue of this Act, declared by a planning scheme to be in force in the area in which such work is to be executed or such service is to be undertaken or such land is to be acquired, as the case may be.

This amendment is intended to make clear what the duties are exactly that can be assigned to a responsible authority by a planning scheme.

I move amendment 32:—

Before Section 33, to insert a new section as follows:—

Every planning scheme shall provide for the establishment and maintenance by one specified responsible authority of a register (in this Act referred to as the register) of all such things as are required by this Act to be entered in the register in relation to or for the purposes of such scheme, and shall also provide for the keeping of such register open to public inspection free of charge in a convenient place at all reasonable times, and, where appropriate, for the making of entries in such register by responsible authorities who are not the responsible authority charged with the duty of maintaining such register.

This amendment is difficult to discuss separately as its object is not clear without reference to other later amendments. It is obviously necessary that claims by a responsible authority either for betterment arising out of particular property or for expenses incurred by them in doing works on property which under the Act are to be done at the owner's cost should be charged on the property. At the same time it would not be equitable that the subsequent purchaser of the property should be made liable for such claim unless he is given an opportunity of knowing of the claim before he completes his purchase. I am introducing a group of amendments, of which this is the first, for this purpose. This amendment provides for the establishment of a register in which such claims must be registered and which will be open to public inspection.

Can the Minister say that the position will be this: whether there will be a waiver of a claim for compensation even though the place was bought by a person without knowledge that there was a claim against them?

We are trying to make arrangements that there will be a register kept everywhere that the local authority is planning a scheme. They must keep a register and all claims of any kind will be entered in this register. We are later on bringing in an amendment to secure that this register will be open to inspection by the public and we are trying to see that every facility will be given to the public to know of any claims or charges against any property, that might arise. We will have to take it for granted that all people who purchase property will have their attention called to the fact that the planning of the scheme was made according to the rules laid down so that people proposing to purchase the property would examine the register kept in the public office of the local authority for their own safeguard, so that there would be no necessity for any waiver, but that they will take the property as it is.

I move amendment 33:—

In sub-section (1), (b), page 17, line 4, after the word "structures" to insert the words "and the objects which may be affixed to structures."

This amendment is intended to secure control of projecting signs affixed to structures or objects attached to gable ends of houses and in residential areas which would seriously affect the amenity of these particular areas.

I move amendment 34:

In sub-section (1), (c), page 17, line 7, to delete the word "general".

I move amendment No. 35:—

In sub-section (1), (e), page 17. line 14, to delete the word "public".

I move amendment 36:

In sub-section (1), page 17, to delete paragraph (g).

This amendment is intended to provide machinery for dealing with matters that could not be definitely settled by a planning scheme such as design, colour and materials of buildings and other structures to be erected in the area after the scheme came into operation. On further consideration of the matter I have come to the conclusion, in view of possible divergencies in opinion on questions of this kind, that a different procedure is desirable. An amendment to the Second Schedule will be proposed dealing with the matter, and also a new clause which will permit of an appeal from a decision of a responsible authority regarding the design, colour or materials to be used in the erection of buildings and other structures. I therefore wish that paragraph (g) be deleted. Later on, we will deal with amendments 40 and 75 in reference to the same subject.

I move amendment 37:

In sub-section (3), page 17, line 31, after the word "provisions" to insert the brackets and letter "(a)", and make the remainder of the sub-section a paragraph, and add at the end of the sub-section another paragraph as follows—

or

(b) controlling and limiting the purposes for which any particular land or all land in any particular part of the area to which the scheme relates may be used, including prohibiting the use of such land for any purpose except a specified purpose or class of purposes.

This paragraph is brought in here from Part III of the Second Schedule in the Bill as introduced. In that position the powers given by the paragraph can only be used for the purposes connected with amenities. In my opinion this is too narrow. These powers may be required for almost all the purposes of a scheme. I therefore propose to put in the paragraph here in such a way as to widen its utility and to remove the paragraph from its present position.

I move amendment 38:—

Before Section 34 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) At any time after a planning scheme comes into operation, the responsible authority shall, in addition and without prejudice to any power of acquiring land conferred by any other Act, have power to acquire land in the area to which such scheme relates in any of the following circumstances, that is to say:—

(a) where the land is required for the improvement, in accordance with such scheme, of the frontage of any road or for controlling, in accordance with such scheme, the development of the frontage of any road, or

(b) where the land is held in separate plots and, by reason of either the inconvenient arrangement or shape of such plots or the multiplicity of interests in such land, it is not reasonably practicable for such land to be developed in accordance with such scheme unless such land is acquired by the responsible authority, or

(c) where the land is part of the site of a road which has been closed in pursuance of a provision contained in such scheme.

(2) For the purpose of the acquisition of land by a responsible authority under this section, Sections 203, 214, and 215 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, as amended by Section 8 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1896, and Section 68 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), shall apply as if those sections as so amended were herein re-enacted and made applicable to such responsible authority with and subject to the modifications made by this Act in the procedure under the said sections.

(3) A responsible authority may at any time, with the consent of the Minister, sell or let by public auction or private treaty in suitable lots any land acquired by such authority under this section.

This section will give a very necessary power to a local authority for the acquisition of land in an area to which a planning scheme relates, where such acquisition is necessary for the purpose of securing proper road frontages, or for the proper development of separate plots of land which by reason of either the inconvenient arrangement or shape of such plots, or the multiplicity of interests in such land, cannot be properly developed in accordance with the planning scheme. It will enable a local authority to deal with land which is the site of a road that has been closed in pursuance of a scheme. These are the only additional powers conferred by the Bill on local bodies for the acquisition of land. They are necessary for the proper planning of an area. In all other respects the local authority will rely on their existing statutory powers. Section 32 of the Bill, as amended, makes this position clear. It is therein laid down that a planning scheme shall not assign to a local authority named therein as a responsible authority, the duty of executing any work, undertaking a public service or acquiring any land for any purpose unless such local authority already possess or can be given the necessary powers for the purpose under existing law and the special powers now proposed.

The amendment is a substitute for the existing sub-section.

As I understand it, this amendment 38 is intended to replace Section 34.

Yes, we are deleting Section 34 and substituting this amendment 38.

I move amendment 39:—

Before Section 35 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Where a responsible authority proposes to acquire (otherwise than by agreement) land for the purposes of a planning scheme, whether in exercise of a power conferred by a statute other than this Act or of a power expressly conferred by this Act, the advertisements mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 203 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, may be published in any month and, in such case, the notices mentioned in the said sub-section shall be served in the month next succeeding the month in which the said advertisements are published.

(2) Any enactment, whereby a local authority acquiring land under the Lands Clauses Acts is required to obtain a provisional order or to carry out any other preliminary procedure before putting into force in relation to such land the powers conferred by the said Acts for taking land otherwise than by agreement, shall not have effect in relation to the acquisition by a local authority of any particular land in pursuance of a provision in a planning scheme expressly requiring that land to be acquired by such local authority for the purposes of such scheme.

This amendment proposes to effect a modification in the procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land which I referred to when dealing with the last new section added to the Bill. Under the Public Health Act of 1878 the initial advertisements in connection with the compulsory acquisition of land under that Act can only be issued in the months of September, October or November. Where land is required for the purposes of a planning scheme these advertisements may, if this section is added to the Bill, be issued in any month, and the statutory notices to be served on owners, lessees and occupiers issued in the following month. Sub-section (2) of the section proposes that in the case of land which a provision in a planning scheme expressly requires to be acquired for the purposes of a scheme, the provisional order procedure shall not be necessary. The land shall be definitely acquired by the scheme, and the amount of compensation shall be determined by arbitration in the usual manner. It will be only on rare occasions that a scheme would contain any provision expressly requiring lands to be acquired by a local authority. In most cases land required for any public purpose would only be reserved by the scheme for such purpose as is specified in the scheme, and the duty of acquiring it would devolve upon the appropriate responsible authority in the usual manner. In the event of a scheme definitely acquiring any land, the usual formalities would have to be observed as regards service of notices and the owners, lessees and occupiers would be afforded the same facilities of making objections as they would have if the land were being acquired under the provisional order procedure. The provisions of a scheme will be subject to close examination at all stages of its preparation, and be also subject to the Minister's approval and be laid before the House, and it is considered that the section proposed may be added to the Bill.

I move amendment 40:—

Before Section 36, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Where a planning scheme contains a provision conferring on the responsible authority power to regulate and control (whether generally or in particular areas) the design, colour or materials of structures, any person aggrieved by a decision of the responsible authority made in exercise of such power may appeal from such decision to the justice of the District Court having jurisdiction in the district in which is situate the structure to which such decision relates, and on such appeal such justice may, as he shall think proper, affirm, vary, reverse, or annul such decision.

(2) A planning scheme which contains any such provision as is mentioned in the next preceding sub-section of this section may contain a provision that the appeal under that sub-section shall lie to a special tribunal constituted in such manner as may be stated in such provision in lieu of the justice of the District Court, but in such case an appeal shall lie from every decision of such special tribunal to the judge of the Circuit Court having jurisdiction in the circuit in which is situate the structure to which such decision relates, and the decision of such judge shall be final.

(3) The grounds on which an appeal under this section may be brought shall include the ground that carrying into effect the decision the subject of such appeal would involve unreasonable expense having regard to the character of the locality in which is situate the structure to which such decision relates and to the character of the neighbouring structures.

This section is being introduced in connection with an amendment to the Second Schedule to enable a provision to be inserted in a planning scheme enabling a responsible authority to regulate and control the design, colour and materials of buildings and other structures. Details of this nature could not readily be embodied in a planning scheme. Besides it would be well to have a good deal of latitude in settling questions of this kind on which different points of view are likely to arise, especially in the case of buildings to be erected after the scheme comes into operation. It is, therefore, proposed to allow a scheme to make provision enabling the appropriate responsible authority under the scheme to regulate and control the design, colour, or materials of buildings, subject to an appeal either to the justice of the District Court, or to a special tribunal constituted by a scheme, with a further appeal therefrom to a judge of the Circuit Court. I think the section now proposed will improve the machinery of the Bill and should fully safeguard the interests of all parties concerned.

This section gives a right of appeal from an order dealing with design, colour, materials, etc. The person aggrieved has the right to appeal to a justice of the District Court. I should like to ask why an appeal to the District Court is provided for. Sub-section (2) states that a planning scheme may contain a provision that the appeal under that sub-section shall lie to a special tribunal constituted in such manner as may be stated in such provision in lieu of the justice of the District Court, but in such case an appeal shall lie from every decision of such special tribunal to the judge of the Circuit Court. I think that in either case an appeal should not be allowed to the district justice or the Circuit Court. An appeal of this kind will not be on a question of law. The Minister himself should have the decision in such cases as he has an expert staff and these are the people who will have the technical knowledge in such a case as that. I think I might go so far as to say that the amendment I have put down would have the support of district justices and Circuit Court judges. Whatever their work may be, I have yet to be told that they are endowed with a knowledge of town planning and that is the duty which you are putting on these justices and judges under this section.

I should like if the Minister would give us some explanation of this section. The Minister is taking very wide powers under the Bill and in this particular section. The person who is about to erect buildings may be disposed to erect them in brick. The town planning authority may be against brick and in favour of stone. While I have great respect for the District Courts, I do not think that the District Courts are at all a competent authority in such questions as this. I would rather have a special court set up to deal with this special question. It is a very wide power to give to a local authority, but I am not against it. Under this section a local authority can say to a person about to build, "You shall erect in stone." That may add considerably to the expense of the building. If the person desires to appeal, the appeal should be to a competent authority and not, with all respect, to a justice of the District Court. He would not be a competent authority to deal with the question.

With regard to the point raised by Deputy Good, if the Bill goes through, the local authority will have power to decide, as the Deputy rightly said, whether a scheme should be in brick, stone, cement or timber, or whatever else they think right or proper. There is a provision in sub-section (2) for a special tribunal, if the planning authorities so decide, and then there is an appeal from that special tribunal to the district justice. This matter, as perhaps Deputy Doyle and Deputy Good are aware, has been discussed with a number of people interested, professionally and otherwise. We have had considerable discussions with them as to the provisions of this particular section, as well as others. We have given it careful consideration and I have gone into it very thoroughly with a number of Deputy Good's colleagues in the building trade and in the architectural profession. I am not quite certain, but I think they were satisfied with this amendment to the Bill. I am not certain that we quite agreed eventually as to whether it should be the Minister or the district justice. As the Minister will have to have the final say in the scheme, he would be in a way prejudging his final opinion on a planning scheme if he were to be the appeal authority on the details of the scheme. Therefore, I think it would not be well for the Minister to be the appeal authority on the details when he would have to be the appeal authority on the final scheme as put up by the planning authority.

We talked of different ways of meeting the problem. Finally we resolved that the most expert opinion that could be got by the people concerned—the planning authority, the local authority, and wherever there might be an aggrieved party—would come before the district justice. They would bring experts—artists, engineers and architects—and lay before the district justice all the information that would be naturally at their disposal. District justices may not be highly skilled in art, but I do not see that the Minister would be either, or that he would be any better authority than the district justice, if he had put before him the different points of view of whatever experts might be available. I think the district justices are commonsense individuals with a good deal of experience. The opinion of the average district justice, I think, would be as valuable as the opinion of any other tribunal, taking into account that he would get all the expert evidence that would be available. However, in case there is disagreement there is a further appeal to the Circuit Court. I think it would not be wise to make the Minister the final authority, for the reason I have stated. We are providing sufficiently for an appeal court to make it reasonable to believe that a commonsense decision will be arrived at.

Will the district justice have power to call in an assessor? You are calling upon him to deal with subjects that are not within his province, questions of colour, stone and other commodities of that character. To guide him, would you give him power to call in an assessor to advise him on such questions?

I am not an authority on the courts. I do not know what power the District Court judge has to get an assessor, but I imagine that he could get any expert information that he might require. At any rate, would it not be most likely that the parties to the case before the district justice would each of them submit the best expert evidence they could fee and in that way the district justice, having heard the best authorities they could produce, could give quite as good an opinion as a Minister or anybody else? You might have a Minister who would be colour blind and you might have a district justice just the same. If they have expert evidence, as they are likely to have, they will, I feel sure, give a commonsense decision. If the district justice considered it necessary to get an assessor on a matter requiring expert opinion, I do not know that he would be precluded from employing one; I doubt if he would be.

I would like to be satisfied that he has the power.

I do not know, even if we gave him the power, that we could, under the Bill, enable the district justice to get the money to pay the assessor. If we give him the power to get an assessor, who is going to pay the assessor?

We can settle that under another clause.

I do not know if we could do it under this Bill.

I am afraid the District Court judge would be faced with a difficult problem to solve. The Minister has mentioned that the judge will have the best expert advice. He will probably have one expert who will strongly favour brick and another expert who will strongly favour stone. How is the district justice to judge between the two without the advice of some architect who would be a competent assessor and adviser?

The Military Tribunal will settle it.

I do not want to go into the merits or demerits of the Military Tribunal. I want to facilitate what can be regarded as a satisfactory settlement of a difficult matter.

If one expert favours stone and another expert favours brick, perhaps if the district justice made a concrete proposition it might settle the matter.

Deputy Good's difficulty is not clear at all. Under the provision that is made in this amendment the Deputy's difficulty does not seem to be very clear. Where a local authority has decided that in a certain area brick shall be used in the putting up of buildings, I do not think it is contemplated under this amendment that a person can get a decision from a district justice, from which there would be no appeal, that he can build in concrete or stone. We might have less difficulty in accepting the district justices if we knew what the difficulties are likely to be. I am not able to visualise what kind of difficulty is likely to arise. If difficulties arise which require arbitration it seems to me that the district justice would be put in as arbitrator between the local authority and somebody who feels that at some particular point in carrying out his work he is being wronged by the interference of the local body. I cannot imagine a person going to the District Court to protest against a colour scheme or against a particular material. When a tribunal is being provided for in connection with a special plan I would like to know whether that tribunal will be one suggested by the planning authority.

It will be suggested by the local planning authority.

I do not know if Deputy Mulcahy is aware that the local authority takes power under this Bill to deal with the materials for the construction of buildings. I agree they have not that power at the moment. Any person can put up any building he likes, composed of any material, and the local authority cannot protest provided that the building conforms with the local by-laws. Under this Bill the local authority can indicate the particular type of materials for a building.

Where there is a planning scheme.

It is a wide and drastic power and it is essential that we should take precautions to protect the builder so that he will not be put to any heavy expense. In order to do that I am suggesting that the courts which are adequate for a particular purpose are inadequate for the purpose here laid down and I suggest they should be strengthened by giving them the independent advice of some architect who would be appointed as an assessor. That is a way that will commend itself to most people as being fair and reasonable for the solution of the difficulty.

May I point out that sub-section (3) of the proposed amendment to Section 36 sets out one type of ground on which an appeal may be brought? It says:—

"shall include the ground that carrying into effect the decision the subject of such appeal would involve unreasonable expense having regard to the character of the locality in which is situate the structure to which such decision relates and to the character of the neighbouring structures."

That kind of question is, I think, one that a district justice is as well qualified as any other man of intelligence or commonsense to give a decision upon, especially as he will have the evidence of very competent people on both sides and it will be largely a question of fact as to the type of structure. I think the district justice will be perfectly competent to give a decision.

I am sorry to differ from the Minister. I have great respect for the powers of the judges of the District Courts but I think you are giving them a matter to decide there that they are not competent to decide. It is not within the province of a district justice to deal with this question; it is entirely within the province of an architect and I think the district justice, before he comes to any decision, would like to have the views of an independent architect. That is all I ask for.

Does the Deputy not agree that architects differ just as doctors differ?

But you will have two of them differing; the one who wants stone will differ from the one who wants brick, and who is to decide between them?

The district justice, whose decision in that case is as good as any other.

I question it.

I beg to move amendment 41:

In sub-section (1), lines 27 and 28, to delete the words "justice of the District Court having jurisdiction in the district in which such structure or land is situate" and to substitute in lieu thereof the word "Minister," and in line 30 to delete the word "justice" and substitute the word "Minister."

I think we have much the same type of argument in this case. Section 42 provides the right of appeal to a justice of the District Court against an order of a planning authority to exercise their powers under the Act against an owner who has done something in contravention of a planning scheme. The amendment is to substitute an appeal to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health instead of the appeal to the district justice. If the appeal were purely on a matter of law, as I have already pointed out, the latter authority would be the most appropriate to deal with it, but as has already been argued on the other amendments, it is quite the reverse. In the new section proposed by the Minister to be inserted before Section 11, but in Part I of the Bill, the right is given to a statutory undertaker—that is a gas company, a canal company, or a railway company—to appeal against a provision in the planning scheme. That is an appeal to the Minister. Therefore, the Minister has set a headline in his own amendment. I suggest that in the case of sub-section (1) of Section 42, the appeal should be to the Minister also, rather than to the district justice.

I take it that the questions the district justice will have to decide under this section will be questions of fact purely—whether the scheme has been contravened, whether the responsible authority's proposal goes further than what is necessary to remedy the contravention, and perhaps whether the notices have been properly served. These are matters more for the district justice than for the Minister. It is a type of question that the district justice has to decide every day in court. He has no discretion to go into the merits of the scheme or the merits of the provision laid down in the Act. These are purely matters of fact and nothing else—matters of compliance with the regulations or with the different sections.

I move amendment No. 43:—

Before sub-section (3), page 21, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

All moneys recoverable under this section by the responsible authority in respect of expenses incurred by such responsible authority shall, immediately upon completion of the work or thing in the doing of which such expenses were so incurred, become and be a charge on the land on which such work or thing was done or, in the case of any work or thing done on or to a structure, on such structure (if and so far as it still exists) and the land on, in, or under which it is or was situate.

This relates to something we have been discussing already. It makes the expenses payable to a responsible authority enforcing the provisions of the scheme, in relation to any property, a charge on the property. The charge will have to be registered under amendment 64.

I move amendment No. 44:—

In sub-section (3), page 22, line 2, after the word "section" to insert in brackets the words "(whether by action of debt or by enforcement of the charge created by this section)".

This is a consequential amendment on the passing of 43.

I move amendment No. 45:—

SECTION 47.

Before sub-section (3), page 23, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

A planning authority may at any time revoke or amend a general permission previously granted by such authority, but such revocation or amendment shall not prejudice or affect the validity of such general permission during any period prior to such revocation or amendment.

When a resolution for the making of a planning scheme has been passed, a planning authority may grant a general permission applicable to the whole or to a particular part of the area to be planned for the construction, demolition, alteration, extension, repair or renewal of structures of a particular class or classes. As the preparation of a scheme advances it might happen that the general permission given was too wide in character, and that certain structures which were being erected or were likely to be erected, in conformity with such permission, would contravene the provisions of the scheme when made. It is therefore desirable that a planning authority should be expressly empowered to revoke or to modify a general permission, as otherwise, structures erected which did not conform to the scheme would have to be demolished at the expense of the planning authority.

Supposing a town planning authority has approved of a scheme or part of a scheme and that part of the scheme is proceeded with, can it revoke the scheme then?

This is to give power to the local authority, not necessarily to revoke——

It says here to revoke.

To revoke or to modify the particular permission given in regard to a particular building. It will not revoke the scheme.

Suppose part of the building has been erected. Then the person from whom the permission has been revoked will have to be compensated?

Yes.

I move amendment No. 47:—

In sub-section (1), (f), page 23, line 45, after the word "therein" to add the words "and confirm such special prohibition with and subject to such amendments."

This is a drafting amendment.

I move amendment No. 48:—

In sub-section (1), lines 18 and 19, to delete the words "the coming into operation of such provision" and substitute the words "making an application under this section."

This is a drafting amendment.

I move amendment No. 49:—

Before Section 51, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) The responsible authority under a planning scheme may, within one month after the date of an award of compensation under the next preceding section of this Act to any person, give notice (in this section referred to as a suspensory notice) to such person of the intention of such authority to take steps to effect or obtain the revocation or amendment of the provision in such planning scheme on account of the coming into operation of which such compensation was awarded.

(2) No award of compensation under the said next preceding section shall be enforceable until the happening of the event specified in whichever of the following paragraphs is applicable, that is to say:—

(a) if within one month from the date of such award the responsible authority has given a suspensory notice in relation to such award and within four months from the giving of such notice the appropriate planning authority has passed a resolution for the making of a planning scheme to revoke or amend the provision to which such notice relates:—the coming into operation of a planning scheme made in pursuance of such resolution or the revocation by the Minister of such resolution, as the case may be;

(b) if within one month from the date of such award the responsible authority has given a suspensory notice in relation to such award and within four months after the giving of such notice the responsible authority has appealed to the Minister against a refusal by the appropriate planning authority of an application for a revocation or modification of the provision to which such notice relates:—the determination of such appeal by the Minister;

(c) if, in the case mentioned in the next preceding paragraph of this sub-section, the Minister when determining the appeal requires the planning authority to make a revoking or amending planning scheme:—the coming into operation of such revoking or amending planning scheme;

(d) in any other case in which the responsible authority has, within one month after the date of such award, given a suspensory notice in respect of such award:— the expiration of four months from the giving of such notice;

(e) in any other case whatsoever:—the expiration of one month from the date of such award.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections of this section, the right of any person to recover the amount of an award of compensation under the next preceding section of this Act on account of the coming into operation of a provision in a planning scheme shall cease on the coming into operation of a later planning scheme by which such provision is revoked or amended, but such cesser shall not prejudice or affect the right (if any) of such person to recover compensation under the said next preceding section on account of the coming into operation of a provision in such later planning scheme.

This new section is consequential upon Section 29 under which a responsible authority may apply to the planning authority for the revocation or modification of a planning scheme on account of the amount of compensation which has been or is likely to be awarded under the Act, or otherwise in respect of provisions contained in the planning scheme. Where such an application is made on account of the amount of compensation awarded, the section provides that the award shall not be enforceable before the coming into operation of a revoking or amending planning scheme, where the responsible authority gives within one month of the date of the award a suspensory notice under the section to the person to whom the award was made, and within four months from the giving of such notice, the appropriate planning authority has passed a resolution for the making of an amending scheme. If the planning authority fails to consider and deal formally with the application of the responsible authority, and the latter appeals to the Minister under Section 30 of the Bill, within four months from the giving of the suspensory notice, the award shall not be enforceable until the determination of the appeal of the Minister, and where the Minister on determination of the appeal requires the planning authority to make a revoking or amending planning scheme, before the coming into operation of a revoking or amending scheme. If the planning authority fails to take action, and there is no appeal by the responsible authority, the award would be enforceable on the expiration of four months from the giving of the suspensory notice; in any other case after the expiration of one month from the date of the award. If the provision in the planning scheme which gave rise to the award of compensation is revoked or amended, the right of the person to recover the award ceases on the coming into operation of the amending scheme, without prejudice to his right to recover any compensation he may become entitled to on account of the coming into operation of a provision in the later scheme. I recognise there is a certain amount of hardship involved where a person becomes entitled to compensation, and a responsible authority seeks to postpone payment until a revoking or an amending scheme has been approved. On the other hand, there is a danger that planning authorities will not undertake to prepare planning schemes if they are likely to involve the payment of heavy compensation. I feel that it is necessary in this respect to safeguard public funds, and I, therefore, recommend that the section be added to the Bill.

The amendment contemplates, I think, sir, that a planning authority, having ascertained that the plan which it has adopted will involve such an amount of money and payment in compensation to different people, would wish to change their minds and not go on with it. I think it would be well to assure ourselves that, in accepting this amendment, it does not leave the danger that there will be persons who, because a particular plan was proposed, incurred, perhaps, considerable expense in seeing that they get their rights in the matter of any compensation that might be coming to them as a result of the plan being put into operation. That plan might be cancelled and an alternative plan made, leaving them subject to legal and other costs that they perhaps had incurred in defending their claim for compensation under the original scheme. I ask the Minister if there is a loophole in the Act by which it is possible that persons would find themselves, after the operation of what is proposed by this amendment, liable to pay legal and other expenses that they had to incur in defending their original claim for compensation.

Section 53, I think, will cover that. That point has been thought of and covered. We are anxious to see to it that persons who did suffer loss because a certain area was marked out for a planning scheme and they were prevented from building or had gone on a certain extent with building, will be entitled to compensation for loss or damage as a result of interference with their plan.

I move amendment 50:—

In sub-section (1), line 33, after the word "entitled" to insert the words "on making an application under this section."

This amendment is similar to that proposed to Section 50.

I move amendment No. 51:

In sub-section (1), page 24, lines 48 and 49, to delete the words "the coming into operation of such planning scheme" and substitute the words "making an application under this section".

This amendment covers the same subject.

I move amendment No. 52:—

Before Section 53 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Whenever—

(a) a planning authority passes a resolution for the making of a planning scheme (in this section referred to as the proposed scheme) which if made would revoke or amend a previous planning scheme, and

(b) such resolution is revoked by the Minister, and

(c) any person has, after the passing of such resolution and before such revocation, refrained from doing any work in an area to which such previous planning scheme related and the proposed scheme if made would relate, and

(d) either such person applied to such planning authority, after the passing of such resolution and before such revocation for a special permission in respect of such work and such special permission was refused, or such person so refrained in pursuance of a special prohibition made after the passing of such resolution and before such revocation, and

(e) such person suffered loss by refraining from doing such work, such person shall, on making an application under this section, be entitled to be paid by such planning authority by way of compensation the amount of such loss.

(2) Every application for the payment of compensation under this section shall be made to the responsible authority within twelve months after the date of the Order by which the revocation mentioned in the next preceding sub-section of this section was effected.

This proposed section is consequential on the new sub-section added to Section 20, and will enable a claim for compensation to be made to the planning authority by any person who has suffered loss by refraining from doing either a work for which a special permission was refused between the passing of a resolution by the planning authority and the revocation of the resolution of the Minister, or a work which he was specially prohibited by the planning authority from doing within the like period. I consider the provision necessary, and recommend that the section be added to the Bill.

I move amendment No. 53:—

In sub-section (1), page 25, line 17, after the word "entitled" to insert the words " on making an application under this section."

This covers the same points as amendments 51 and 52.

I move amendments Nos. 54 and 55:

In paragraph (a), lines 48 and 49, to delete the words "and continued."

In paragraph (b), line 56, to delete the words "and continued."

These amendments enable a person who has begun any work under a general permission to continue such work even after the general permission has been revoked, provided no special prohibition is made against the work.

Does compensation apply only to work done?

That is a matter for the arbitrator. He would have to take all the circumstances into account.

Let us assume for a moment that they come to a conclusion that such a building would be better erected with very much more expensive material, and that it has proceeded a certain distance in the other material, would compensation cover the more expensive material? Recollect, the building owner might not have gone on at all with the building if he had known that it would have been necessary to go to the additional expense in the first instance. Would he be compensated against the increased cost of the later order?

I cannot give a "yes" or "no" answer to that question. I believe that all the facts material to the consideration of the case should be, and I take it would be, put by the claimant before the arbitrator. He would have the local authority looking after its interest too. I take it that he would be entitled to be compensated for the actual outlay, and as well for such incidental and consequential outlay or consequential damage in addition to outlay which he may have suffered as a result of not being allowed to go on in a particular style, or to complete his building within a particular period or in a particular place. I think all those circumstances are entitled to be taken into account, and that he is entitled to claim damage for any consequential loss he may have suffered.

If the Minister will look into the matter to see if that is so, I am satisfied.

I move amendment 56 and 57:—

In paragraph (c), lines 59 and 60, to delete the words "on or in relation to which any work was in progress on the relevant date."

In paragraph (c), lines 62 and 63, to delete the words "such work done after the relevant date and" and substitute the words "any work on or in relation to such structure done."

These amendments are consequential on the power to revoke a general permission. There may now be a special prohibition in respect of a work, begun after the relevant date, under a general permission which is afterwards revoked.

I move amendment 58:—

To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

Whenever a responsible authority makes an application under this section for payment of betterment, such authority shall, within one week after making such application, enter the prescribed particular of such application in the register, and, if such responsible authority does not so enter such particulars, such application shall, at the expiration of such week, be and be deemed always to have been null and void.

This requires an application by the responsible authority for betterment to be registered and provides that failure to register within one week renders the application null and void. The amendment is for the protection of purchasers.

I move amendment 59:—

In sub-section (5), page 28, to delete all words from the word "keep", line 1, to the word "such", line 3, and substitute the words "enter in the ", and in line 8 to delete the word "such" and substitute the word "the."

This is consequential on the amendment relating to registration.

I move amendment 60:—

In sub-section (6), page 28, line 11, to delete the words "registered under" and substitute the words "entered in the register in accordance with the foregoing sub-section of", and in line 21, to delete the word "registered" and substitute the words "entered in the register."

This is also consequential on the amendment relating to registration.

I move amendment 61:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

In assessing the amount of any compensation payable under this Act the arbitrator shall have regard to the actual value of the property in respect of which same is claimed during the ten years previous to the date on which the planning authority passed the resolution for the making of the scheme under which the compensation is claimed, and shall not take into consideration any additional value accruing after that date.

This amendment seeks to save the planning authority from being mulcted in heavy expenses by way of compensation. Any grants that will be made will be conditioned by the costs to the responsible authority. I think the Minister will more or less agree that in Dublin we are accustomed in cases where people are making claims for compensation under these conditions to find that there is a tendency to magnify the amount of their claim. Furthermore, it should be laid down as a principle that compensation should be payable in respect of the actual value of the land and not in respect of its potential value and particularly so when the value when it arises is not the result of the efforts of the owners but is owing to development by the local authority. I would ask the Minister in the interests of the ratepayers to see that there should be some restriction in the Bill whereby the arbitrators could deal with this on the lines of the amendment. This amendment does not deprive any property owner of any value accruing up to the date of the arbitration, but it does prevent them seeking to profit out of whatever development might be made by the local authority.

I realise what the Deputy seeks to achieve by this amendment. I know that it is often said that property in Dublin and elsewhere has been sold at too high a price to the local authority when clearing for housing purposes. Under the Bill compensation arising from restriction on control of property, or damage or loss sustained would be determined in accordance with the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, as amended by the Acquisition of Land (Reference Committee) Act, 1925. The principle therein laid down is that the value of the property is to be taken to be the amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise.

Compensation arises not from the making of a scheme, but from the coming into operation of the particular provision in the scheme which imposes the restriction or control, or from which damage or loss arises. A considerable period of time would elapse between the passing of the resolution and the coming into operation of a scheme. I do not think the amendment is equitable. Besides it would be almost impossible to arrive at the actual value over a period of years. The property may have varying values in the period, and the Deputy's proposal would apparently be intended to arrive at an average value. The fairest arrangement is as laid down in the Act—to grant compensation on the basis of the value of the property as sold in the open market by a willing seller and the amount to be paid for it by a willing buyer. I do not know how we would get the machinery that would enable the arbitrator to discover what the value was five or ten years previously. If such property had been sold in the open market and there had been a record of that sale it would be possible to arrive at the value but such might not happen in very many cases. There is no way of recording the value of property at any particular time except such records of sales. From the practical point of view it would not be possible to lay down general restrictions that the value should be what it was five or ten years anterior as Deputy Doyle suggests. There is no way of doing it except to leave it to the arbitrator to say what the value of the property is if offered for sale in the open market by a willing seller.

Does the Minister not appreciate the view that very often certain improvements are made in a particular area and in that area the owners very often have been keeping this land vacant for many years in the hope that some public development would take place? There are cases in which no attempt at development is made by the owner because he had in view that in a couple of years' time the local body might develop that area. Big bodies move slowly. Take, for instance, the Dublin Corporation. While a great deal of development has been done and is being done, still there are quite a number of sites and they are lying undeveloped for no other purpose than that of waiting to get an enhanced price for them from the Corporation. Though I admit that ten years is a long time to go back, and that it would be hard to know what the value of land was ten years previously, I trust the Minister will see his way to bring in a modified amendment containing the principle in my amendment. I wanted to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister.

I do not see how it could be worked out.

I move amendment 62.

In sub-section (2), page 29, line 33, to delete the words "any subsequent" and substitute the words " the Second Schedule to the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, or any other."

This is a drafting amendment. The provision of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 referred to in the sub-section were amended by the Second Schedule to the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and a reference to that Act is considered necessary.

Would the Minister say what is the limit of the sum below which there is no appeal from the arbitrator's decision? Is it £1,000?

There is no limit.

Is there not a limit under previous Arbitration Acts or under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts?

There is no limit.

Is the Minister aware that in the case of the acquisition of land by the Dublin Corporation where the arbitrator awarded, say, less than £1,000, no appeal lay but that if the sum were in excess of £1,000 the appeal would lie?

There is no suggestion here that any limit should be put.

Is there an appeal in any case?

The arbitrator's decision is final. There is no appeal at all.

Surely this may involve a very large question at issue and there should be some appeal to some superior authority—to the High Courts. There is an appeal in the other cases as where a town planning authority decides that a certain material may be more expensive than the building owner has in mind. In that case the building owner could appeal to the District Court. Here it may involve much loss. In the other there would not be a very large sum of money. Surely there ought to be some appeal in the interest of the buyer or the seller. They might desire to appeal.

My recollection is that on one occasion when an appeal was for a limited sum not exceeding £1,000 the arbitrator gave three awards amounting within about £50 of the £3,000. That was not the late Mr. Taylor and possibly there was no great question of dispute since Mr. Taylor took over that office. He is not with us now. In this case, the general impression was that sums so awarded were awarded under the understanding that there would be appeal.

I do not recollect the case that Deputy Cosgrave refers to and I do not know whether the system he refers to is still in operation. I am inclined to think at present that there is no appeal from arbitration even under the Housing of the Working Classes Act. That is speaking from recollection. The present system is in operation for a good while and the system is that the arbitrator's decision is final. If we are to have a planning scheme I suppose there will be considerable delay, as things stand, but if we are to have appeal after appeal the delays will be very great indeed. Arbitrators with whom we are familiar in Dublin have given decisions that I think were as wise and as fair as any decisions given in any court whether High Court or any other. These are men who are experts on these matters and I think their decisions have been regarded, as far as Dublin is concerned, as being fair and just.

The delay in fixing the scheme need not hinder the scheme itself.

But the matter would not be settled. It would be still open to the High Court or the Supreme Court if there was an appeal.

Under the Housing of the Working Classes Act the housing authorities can acquire land even though the prices are not fixed at all.

They could if they acquired the land compulsorily but this is not the Housing of the Working Classes Act.

The Minister instanced delay as compared with the working of the scheme.

I am satisfied that it would not interfere with this.

I move amendment 63:

Before Section 64, to insert a new section as follows:—

Every sum of money payable under this Act to the responsible authority by way of payment for betterment shall, when the amount thereof has been determined by agreement or by arbitration in accordance with this Act, be recoverable by such authority as a civil debt in any court of competent jurisdiction and shall also become and be, as on and from the date on which the amount thereof is so determined, a charge on the estate or interest in property in respect of which it is payable.

This amendment makes the amount of a payment for betterment, when determined, a charge on the property. The charge will have to be registered under amendment 64. Provision is also made for recovery of the amount as a civil debt in case that method is found more convenient.

Is there an appeal upon this subject of betterment?

No, there is not. There is arbitration, but there is no appeal from the arbitrator.

With all respect that is a new subject in Dublin. It is a very questionable thing to say what the value of land in the future may be. There may be a very wide difference of opinion between different authorities upon the subject and to say that any one man can come in and settle that question is, to my mind, going to inflict an injustice upon one side or the other. I think there should be some appeal. Of course, in the past the Minister might argue that the land had been taken, but this is not a similar matter. Here the property owner is going to be assessed for betterment. It is entirely a new question and it is left to the decision of one man. If that decision is obviously unfair—I am taking an extreme case—I think the Minister would be well advised to have an appeal on the subject.

I agree that betterment is a new idea; something of which we have no previous experience and we do not know exactly how it is going to work. I agree it would be well to have it open to revision, but I do not like breaking a custom that has been in operation in regard to arbitrations now for some number of years, namely, that their decision upon matters of the value of property should not be questioned.

You have a new subject here. There is no previous parallel. It is entirely an estimate of what the value of future property may be. One man may go wrong to the disadvantage of either side.

I shall look into it. Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment 64:—

To delete sub-sections (1) and (2) and substitute two new sub-sections as follows:—

(1) Whenever any sum of money becomes by virtue of this Act a charge on any land, structure, or other property, or on any estate or interest therein, the responsible authority shall enter the prescribed particulars of such charge in the register within one month after the date on which such sum so becomes such charge, and, if such responsible authority does not enter such particulars, such charge shall, at the expiration of the said month, be and be deemed always to have been unenforceable, but without prejudice to proceedings by way of action for debt for recovery of the said sum of money.

(2) Whenever the Minister is satisfied, on the application of the responsible authority, that any charge created by this Act on any land, structure, or other property, or on any estate or interest therein cannot be enforced by legal proceedings by reason of uncertainty as to the ownership of such property or such estate or interest the Minister may by order empower such responsible authority to sell the property or the estate or interest therein affected by such charge.

This amendment provides for the registration of all sums charged on property by virtue of the Act within one month of their becoming so charged. It provides that failure to register is to result in making the charge unenforceable, but such a failure will not prevent the recovery of the amount. The amendment also includes power for the Minister where the title to the property which is the subject of the charge is in doubt to have the property sold, the amount of the charge deducted from the proceeds and the remainder lodged in court.

I move amendment 68:—

At the end of the Schedule to add a new paragraph as follows:—

For enabling planning authorities and responsible authorities to obtain (with or without charge) information, which they require for the purposes of or in connection with the preparation, making, or carrying into effect of planning schemes, by inspection of or obtaining copies from rate books and other similar documents which are not in their custody.

This amendment is designed to help urban authorities to secure information in regard to occupiers of property where a contiguous area is being planned. It will also be of assistance to regional planning of houses, and responsible authorities, and I recommend that it be added to the Bill.

SECOND SCHEDULE.

PART 1.—ROADS.

1. Providing for the construction of new roads and the improvement of existing roads by the responsible authority.

2. Providing for the closing or diverting of existing roads and public and private rights of way.

3. Restricting and controlling the construction of new roads and the alteration of existing roads, whether by the responsible authority or private owners.

4. Regulating the line, width, level, construction and general dimensions and character of roads, whether new or existing.

5. Enabling the responsible authority to require an owner of land, as a condition of his developing such land in any manner, either—

(a) to construct new roads or improve existing roads, or

(b) to contribute to the cost of the construction of new roads or the improvement of existing roads by the responsible authority.

6. Providing for and generally regulating the construction, or execution, whether by the responsible authority or by private owners of works incidental to the making and completion of any road, including the erection of shelters, provision of seats, and planting and protecting of grass, trees, or shrubs on such road.

PART II.—BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES.

1. Regulating and controlling, either generally or in particular areas, all or any of the following matters, that is to say:—

(a) the character, density, height, spacing, and frontage line of buildings and other structures,

(b) the design, colour, and materials of buildings and other structures,

(c) the extent of the yards, gardens, and curtilage of buildings and other structures,

(d) the purposes for and the manner in which structures may be used or occupied.

2. Reserving or allocating any particular land or all land in any particular area for structures of a specified class or classes or prohibiting or restricting, either permanently or temporarily, the making of any structures or any particular class or classes of structures on any specified land.

3. Providing for the demolition or alteration of structures which are inconsistent with or obstruct the operation of the planning scheme.

PART III—AMENITIES.

1. Controlling and limiting the purposes for which any particular land or all land in any particular part of the area to which the scheme relates may be used, including prohibiting the use of such land for any purpose except a specified purpose or class of purposes.

2. Providing for the reservation of particular lands for use as public parks, recreation grounds, open spaces, or other particular purposes, whether public or private.

3. Providing for the preservation of lakes, rivers, trees, and other natural features.

4. Providing for the preservation of buildings and objects of archaeological or historical interest.

5. Prohibiting, restricting, or controlling, either generally or in particular places, the exhibition, whether on the ground, on any structure or in the air, of all or any particular forms of visible or audible advertisements.

6. Preventing, remedying, or removing injury to amenities arising from the ruinous or neglected condition of any structure or by the neglected condition of any land attached to a structure or abutting on a road or situate in a residential area.

PART IV.—PUBLIC SERVICES.

Providing for the undertaking, improvement, or extension by the responsible authority of public services in relation to water supply, sewage, drainage, sewage disposal, and refuse disposal or any of them.

PART V.—PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATION.

1. Facilitating the establishment, extension or improvement of systems of public transport.

2. Allocating sites for use in relation to public transport and providing for the reservation of land for that purpose.

3. With the co-operation of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, facilitating the establishment, extension, or improvement of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communication, allocating sites for use in relation to such communication and providing for the reservation of land for that purpose.

I move amendment 69:

In Part I, paragraph 1, page 30, line 53, to delete the word "and" and substitute a comma, and, in line 54, after the word "roads" to insert the words "and the establishment of public rights of way".

A power for the establishment of a public right of way is necessary where a planning scheme contains provisions for the reservation of lands as open spaces or other particular purposes under Part III of this Schedule to enable dwellers in cities or towns to have ready access to the open country. If it be an open space or place of natural beauty, or a foreshore reservation, or a river parkway, a public right of way may suffice as a means of access to a particular place so reserved, instead of acquiring land for the making of a public road.

I move amendment 70:—

In Part I, paragraph 6, page 31, line 15, to delete the words "and completion" and substitute the words "or improvement".

The words proposed to be inserted are preferable to the words in the paragraph and I recommend that the amendment be accepted.

I move amendment 71:—

In Part I, paragraph 6, page 31, line 17, after the word "on" to insert the words "or adjoining."

This is a further small amendment to paragraph 6 which is considered necessary.

I move amendment 72:—

In Part II, paragraph 1 (a), page 31, line 22, before the word "character" to insert the word "size".

It is necessary that a planning scheme should control the size of buildings and other structures, as well as the other matters referred to in the sub-paragraph, and in the absence of control over size a responsible authority would be unable to secure that harmonious development which a planning scheme is intended to secure. It is an essential power whether the area to be developed is reserved for industrial, commercial or residential buildings, and I would recommend that the amendment be agreed to.

I move amendment 73:—

In Part II, paragraph 1 (a), page 31, line 22, to delete the word "density."

The nature of the control over the density of buildings is not sufficiently explicit, and it is proposed to submit a further amendment which will make the position clearer. The term "density" in the sub-paragraph can be omitted.

I take it the word "density" will be brought back in another form?

Yes.

I move amendments 74 and 75:—

In Part II, paragraph 1 (b), page 31, line 24, to delete the words "design, colour, and materials of buildings and other", and substitute the words "objects which may be affixed to."

In Part II, page 31, before paragraph 2 to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

Regulating and controlling or enabling the responsible authority to regulate and control the design, colour, and materials of buildings and other structures.

Amendments 74 and 75 might be taken together. The words proposed to be deleted in the first amendment are made the subject of a new paragraph, which the second amendment proposes to insert. The words proposed to be added by the first amendment are in accordance with the amendment to Section 33, already agreed upon.

I move amendment 76:—

In Part II, page 31, before paragraph 3, to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

Limiting the number of structures or the number of structures of a specified class which may be constructed, erected, or made on, in, or under any area.

This amendment will enable provisions to be inserted in a planning scheme dealing with the number of structures that may be erected in any area included in the scheme. It is a power that is essential to proper planning.

I move amendment 77:—

In Part III, page 31, to delete paragraphs 1 to 5 and substitute five new paragraphs as follows:—

1. Providing for the reservation of particular lands for use as public parks, recreation grounds, open spaces, allotments, or other particular purposes, whether public or private.

2. Providing for the preservation of lakes, rivers, seashores, beaches, caves, views, prospects, and other places and features of natural beauty and interest.

3. Providing for the preservation of structures and objects of artistic, architectural, archæological, or historical interest.

4. Providing for the preservation or protection of forests, woods, trees, shrubs, plants, and flowers.

5. Prohibiting, restricting, or controlling, either generally or in particular places the exhibition, whether on the ground, on any structure, on any ship, boat, raft, or other like object, or in the air, of all or any particular forms of visible or audible advertisements.

This amendment is a recast of paragraphs 2 to 5 of Part III of the Schedule, with some elaborations. The power to reserve land for allotments is additional. Paragraph 1 of Part III of the Schedule is covered by the amendment to Section 37. I recommend that the five new paragraphs be added to the Bill.

Does paragraph 4 of the amendment simply reiterate the powers conferred under the Forestry Acts on the Department of Agriculture; and, if so, is it the intention of the Minister to administer these powers somewhat more rigorously than the Department of Agriculture is administering the forestry provisions?

On behalf of Deputy Doyle, I move amendment 78:—

In Part III, paragraph 5, line 55, to add after the word "advertisements" the words "or public announcements, or the use without the consent of the local authority of loud speakers, gramophones or such like apparatus audible in public parks, highways or places.

I do not think there is any necessity to explain this and the following amendment. They simply propose to add an addition to one of the sub-sections to this Part III of the Schedule. Similar action, I think, was taken on the other side by one of the county councils. The Middlesex County Council passed a by-law which was approved by the Home Secretary restricting the nuisance that is created by a number of loud speakers competing against each other. Anybody who goes about the streets in practically most countries will understand the nuisance that this is becoming. I am willing to admit that even Ministerial control will hardly solve the matter, because occasionally some of the worst offenders are the Government themselves in the noise they make in broadcasting some announcements. I think there should be some effort to limit the nuisance so created. It is not suggested that there should be a prohibition of the use of loud speakers, but that there should be some control. I doubt if the actual provision in Part III actually covers what is required because it seems to me that it is limited to advertisements. Very often there may be no actual formal advertisement, but certain wares may be advertised from the mere noise they are making and may so compete against each other. I hope the Minister will not say that this is already met in the section, because I think the section is too limiting. It is restricted as far as I can see to advertisement, whereas a great deal of the nuisance complained of is not necessarily caused by what can be legally brought within the term "advertisement." I hope the Minister will see his way to give it favourable consideration.

I do not think this question of loudspeakers comes properly within this section or, in fact, within the Bill. Advertisements are in a different position. We have dealt with advertising matters. As to loudspeakers, I do not think you can deal with them here. I think that is a matter for the ordinary law. I do not see how we can bring it in or how it could properly come within a townplanning Bill.

I suggest that if the Minister can deal with the nuisance caused by advertising he can deal with the nuisance of the particular type I refer to. Why is one particular nuisance within the Bill and another kind of nuisance outside the Bill? Why does he take control, for instance, of advertisements on roads and not deal with other announcements that are equally unsightly on our roads? How does one set of announcements on a road come within the Bill and the other not come within the Bill?

One reason is that I am so familiar with these ugly advertisements, but I am not familiar with the other type. I have not come across it yet—that is a loudspeaker obstruction.

The nuisance is growing. I am speaking to the two amendments together. There are other announcements besides advertisements on public roads. I have seen such announcements that were not advertisements and that were not calculated to add to the enjoyment of anybody passing. Why is it possible to deal with advertisements and not possible to deal with announcements of that kind?

I am willing to deal with any kind of announcements. That is the Deputy refers to and that is a disfigurement.

The Minister has not power. He has only power to deal with advertisements. That is really what I am anxious to press.

If we have not power we will look into it and take power.

As regards the subject matter of the two amendments?

I shall look into it. I have not come across anything of the kind that I could regard as a disfigurement. I am not aware of it.

Knowing the Minister's own readiness to couch the lance on behalf of the fallen, I will give him an instance of the kind of thing that will be covered by this amendment. There was at one time in this country a touring van, the occupants of which were concerned to persuade us all to use a particular type of baking powder. It was their practice to go under my window in the square of Ballaghaderreen and play Yip-i-addyi-ay for about ten minutes. Then a gentleman roared through the town that this particular brand of baking powder was particularly suitable for making cakes. Then they played some other music hall numbers. I had no means of preventing them doing so except by way of a common law action to abate a public nuisance, as a result of which I was the sufferer in a peculiar degree. By the time I would have the writ issued the van would be in Norwich or Sutherland. I suggest the amendment would provide the Minister with power to make regulations prohibiting such a performance in the public street and authorising the Civic Guards to deter anyone from using the public streets for such a purpose. I can assure the Minister that a quiet evening is quite as much disfigured by Yip-i-addy-i-ay on a loudspeaker as is a country road by a large advertisement for "Oxo." I take it that amendment 79, which I understand we are discussing at the same time, is directed against the painting of signs on the roads or on buildings.

I am prepared to deal with any kind of announcement or advertisement or anything else with which it is necessary to deal. I am prepared to take power to prohibit and to put a stop to announcements on public buildings or hoardings or signs anywhere on the public road and in public places. I do not know about the type of ambulatory obstruction to which Deputy Dillon refers. I am afraid if we are to deal with promenading obstructions of that kind there are some members of the House who might come in for a bad time from the police. I think the nuisance that Deputy Dillon refers to can be dealt with summarily by a policeman. If the Deputy or any member of the public regarded it as a nuisance he could get it very quickly removed by appealing to the police. Personally I have no objection to taking power, but I do not know that it comes within the scope of the Bill. If it does so, I have no objection to taking the enabling power where it is necessary. Personally, I think there is power under the ordinary law.

As regards not coming within the scope of the Bill so far as loudspeakers are concerned, what exactly would the Minister have in mind by audible advertisement? Taking modern conditions into consideration, I would say that the supreme type of audible advertisement is a loudspeaker. The suggestion now is to expand it beyond mere advertisement. Very often you have a bigger nuisance where you have not the express purpose of advertisement. Take, for instance, two neighbouring shops in Dublin competing to see which of their speakers can shout the loudest. That can become a nuisance. What precise form of advertisement has the Minister in mind? I expect that we may except public speaking; perhaps that may be a nuisance too. I would have thought that the principal form of audible advertisement is the loudspeaker.

I would like to ask Deputies O'Sullivan and Dillon if they desire to bring within the scope of the amendment the type of van that toured Dublin City and County during the last election recording Deputy Cosgrave's speeches.

Deputy Dillon has referred to a particular form of mental torture. In dealing with advertisements I presume the Minister is confining himself to trade advertisements. I would like to point out that there are such things as political advertisements, which are more disfiguring to the country than anything else. You have such declarations as "Join the I.R.A" and "Smash the Treaty" and other things of that kind whitewashed and tarred all over the countryside.

So far as I am aware, we have no remedy under the existing police regulations to abate the nuisance to which I referred. Provided the Minister maintains his peripatetic character, he is free to burst into song whenever he pleases. It is only when he comes to a halt on the kerbstone and bursts into song and solicits subscriptions that he comes within the police regulations. I doubt if he sat inside his ministerial car and burst into song that he would come within the police regulations. It is for that reason that the contraptions to which I have referred are not amenable under the police regulations. I have no doubt the Minister, on consideration, will find it is desirable to add what I am suggesting. He has given us an undertaking that if the police regulations are not adequate he will take power.

If the Minister sat in his car and burst into song it would not be considered a nuisance by the police.

But it might be by the public.

It might if he sat under a window in the square in Ballaghaderreen.

Amendments 81, 82 and 83 may be taken together. They are similar to an amendment proposed to Section 33. It is desirable that a planning scheme should make provision towards facilitating the establishment, extension or improvement of systems of transport whether by land, water or air.

The following amendments were agreed to:—

81. In Part V, page 32, line 12, to delete the word "public."

82. In Part V, paragraph 1, page 32, line 14, to delete the words "public transport" and substitute the words "transport, whether by land, water, or air."

83. In Part V, paragraph 2, page 32, line 15, to delete the word "public."

I beg to move amendment 84, which is a minor amendment:—

In Part V, paragraph 3, page 32, line. 17, before the word "with" to insert the words "at the request and."