A photograph taken yesterday at the Dublin Housing Inquiry, Jn the City Hall. Mr. H. G. Simms, Corporation Housing Architect (extreme.left) is seen showing his plans to members of the Inquiry. Included are: D. J. Hickie (Chief Engineering Inspector), I. J. Rice (City Law Agent), H. H. Bonass (Assistant City Law Agent), T. Breslin, T.C_., P.C., Dr. M. Russell (Medical Officer of Health), Mr. T. L. Byrne. II.P. Photo (L.)

CRUMLIN HOUSING SCHEME OPPOSED
Land Purchase Orders Opposed.

More Ready Money From Playfields: Factory’s Position
CORPORATION CRITICISED

OBJECTIONS to the acquisition of lands in the Crumlin area on the grounds that they were being used as sports fields or were required for existing business enterprises, which would be seriously disturbed if the Corporation’s orders became effective, were made when the housing inquiry, conducted by Mr. Denis J. Hickie, Local Government Inspector, was resumed in the Dublin City Hall, yesterday.

“So great is the scarcity of playing fields that we could get more ready money by letting the land for that purpose than if it were used for house building,” said Mr. E. J. Kelly, K.C., who represented the Meade Estate.

He added that they were, like the other citizens of Dublin, most anxious to see the slums abolished and the working classes properly housed, but he maintained that the land which the Corporation sought to acquire could be a great deal more usefully employed than by devoting it to the relief of the slum problem.

Mr. D. J. O’Sullivan, solicitor, who appeared for the Drimnagh Lawn Tennis Club, whose grounds are on the estate, said that “the Corporation seemed to feel that its back was against the wall and that it had to defend itself.”

Mr. Rice, the Corporation’s law agent, said that the housing of the working classes had become a strain on the public mind, especially in recent weeks. “The public must come before private interest,” he added.

The inquiry is being held into compulsory purchase orders made by the Corporation to acquire certain areas for the housing of the working classes in Crumlin North, Thomas Street, Ringsend, Newmarket, Marrowbone Lane, and James’s Street.

The first case taken was that relating to the holding of the Dublin Brick Co., Ltd., Dolphin’s Barn.

Mr. M. Walker (instructed by Messrs. Murray and Good), for the company, said he objected to the scheme adumbrated by Mr. Simms (Corporation Housing Architect) and the map produced in support of that scheme because it was not the scheme the Inspector was reporting on.

His agents had obtained from the Corporation a map of the proposed area to be taken in, while Mr. Simms had produced a map showing, of course, that particular area but, in addition, some 40 acres of his clients’ land, which ultimately, as he understood it, was proposed to be included in the scheme.

The total cost of Mr. Simms’s scheme was £895,000. It included land which was not being taken in the scheme before them.

“The point I wish to make,” said Mr. Walker, “is that it is unfair to the citizens and ratepayers who are being asked and appealed to, particularly by the Lord Mayor, not to stand in the way of housing—it is unfair that they should not have laid before them exactly what the scheme is the Corporation wishes to carry out.”

Would Put Us Out of Business

The net result of the action of the Corporation was, said Mr. Walker, that there was a scheme before the Inspector which, in truth and in fact, was not the Corporation scheme at all. The Corporation scheme was a much larger and, possibly, a very much better scheme, but, from his clients’ point of view, it was merely the thin edge of the wedge.

In the present scheme, the Corporation was taking 40 acres of land, but if the entire scheme went through it was “proposed to exterminate the company altogether.”

If the true scheme were laid before them, his clients would have an opportunity of considering whether they would not oppose and facilitate it, but they were placed in the position that they did not know when the Corporation intended to take the full amount of the land.

He submitted that it was unfair for the Corporation to take up that position because it made it impossible for the public to know where it stood.

The Company did not want to stand in the way of this or any scheme of the Corporation for building houses. Indeed, it would be a curious thing for a brick company to oppose building; “but, at the same time, it was a very vital matter for his clients because, if, as he had said, the whole scheme went through it would mean the extermination of the Company. If this land were taken away, it would not be easy for them to find another place where they could carry on the business in the same way as before.

THE ONLY BRICK COMPANY

It was the only brick company in the City and County of Dublin, and, as it was in the nature of a factory employing a large number of hands, it should not be readily interfered with.

The business of the company was expanding daily. It was intended to lay out more money on new plant, but there was no point in doing this unless they knew the position with regard to the land the Corporation desired to take from them.

Mr. P. Deey, Secretary of the Company, said it had carried on business in succession to the Dolphin’s Barn Brick Company since 1912. Some 140 hands were directly employed. The capacity of the plant was about nine million bricks per year. The land comprised 112 acres, of which some 28 acres had recently been acquired at £250 per acre.

Mr. Walker—If the scheme shown by Mr. Simms is carried out…

“TO AFFECT YOUR MIND.”

Mr. Rice (Corporation Law Agent)—I object to any question which deals with matters outside the plans you have before you.

Mr. Walker—If that be so, I object very strongly to Mr. Simms producing a map, as I suggest, sir, to affect your mind.

Mr. Rice—That will be answered.

Mr. Walker—It should be answered, but I don’t think it will be answered satisfactorily.

Mr. Rice asked the witness at what he estimated the life of the brick undertaking, and he replied, “40 years.”

Replying to other questions, Mr. Deey said that the company had reserves which could be used in some measure for the purpose of acquiring land elsewhere. The reserves, however, would not go very far towards that object.

Mr. P. J. Munden, architect, who had prepared maps respecting the works of the Dublin Brick Company, said that if the scheme outlined were carried out, there would be nothing left of the brickworks but the kiln and the offices. To remove the brickworks to another site would cost, roughly, £40,000.

TOWN-PLANNING

Mr. H. G. Simms, Corporation Housing Architect, was recalled, and, replying to Mr. Walker, said he was thinking of what might come into being under Town Planning in the years to come and the need there would be then for roads.

Mr. Walker said he would have no hesitation on behalf of his clients in withdrawing opposition to the scheme if they were assured that the Corporation did not intend to take the remainder of the land now in the Company’s possession, which would exterminate their business.

Mr. Simms said that the Corporation did not at all wish to put the Brick Co. out of business.

Mr. Rice said that the Corporation had no intention of acquiring the site until the Brick Co. had ceased to work it.

GRAND CANAL COMPANY’S CASE

Mr. Vaughan Wilson (instructed by Hayes and Sons), for the Grand Canal Company, which is affected, said that one could not conceive of a site better situated for the purposes of such a scheme. The manager and the directors of the company, as individuals, favoured the scheme, but they had a statutory undertaking that they were bound to carry on.

He submitted that the Minister had no jurisdiction to confirm the scheme so far as it purported to approve compulsory acquisition, for housing purposes, of any part of the Grand Canal undertaking.

Apart from questions of jurisdiction, he added, compulsory acquisition of part of the undertaking would be unnecessary for the scheme and would be detrimental to the company.

He suggested that the roadway for which the land was required should be built on the property now being acquired and that the Grand Canal property should be left alone.

“A LIVE CONCERN.”
He submitted that the mill sites on the canal should not be acquired and that a long view should be taken.
It was true that one of the mills was in absolute ruin owing to the fact that wheat had not been milled in the country to the extent they might desire. The canal was a live concern with a great deal of traffic and there was no reason to assume that it could not be much bigger in the future.
Certain details in connection with the proposed acquisition were left over for discussion between the Corporation and the Canal Company.

CARRIER’S STABLES.
Mr. W. H. Carson, K.C., with Mr. J. H. S. Russell (instructed by Messrs. W. J. Shannon and Co.), appeared for Mr. Thomas H. Richardson, carrier, of Springfield House, Crumlin, who received a demand from the Corporation for a five-acre field adjoining his house.
Mr. Carson said that Mr. Richardson kept about 45 horses in stables there. They were the only stables he had except those for the horses in Tara Street. His wages bill came to £140 and sometimes £160 a week. It was essential at certain times that the horses should be sent out to grass.
If this field were taken from him he would be deprived of the only place he had for sending his horses when they were sick, or when they needed exercising, and it would seriously interfere with his business.
Mr. Richardson, in reply to Mr. Russell, said that the business of carrier, which he followed in partnership with his son, was established in 1830. He carried on business at Tara Street, Townsend Street and at Springfield, where the premises were about to be taken. They had been carrying for Messrs. Guinness for fifty years.
Replying to Mr. Rice, he said they all had the greatest sympathy with the working classes. No money from the Corporation, however, would compensate him for the loss of the fields. The stabling, he added, covered only one acre.

ANXIOUS BUT –
“We are opposed in the most determined manner to the acquisition of one single acre of our land,” declared Mr. E. J. Kelly, K.C. (instructed by O’Connell, Rooney and Co.), representing the Meade Estate.
“We are, of course, like the other citizens of Dublin,” he added, “most anxious to see the slums abolished and the working classes properly housed.”
Mr. Rice, he continued, would ask whether they were not willing to give their land in order to house the poor people and abolish the slums.
“The answer is,” Mr. Kelly said, “we are not, and the reason is that our land and the land adjoining it can be a great deal more usefully employed, and our land, the land adjoining it, and the other land included in this scheme should never be devoted to the relief of the slum problem.”
He asserted that Mr. Rice had not said a word in defence of the proposal to acquire the 246 acres in the scheme. It was his place to give the Inspector such evidence as would enable the Minister to confirm the compulsory purchase order.

STATEMENT IN PRESS.
Mr. Rice protested that, under the Act, the Minister allowed persons affected to make objections, and, if he thought fit, held an inquiry. Otherwise, he said, the order stood.
Mr. Kelly said that in the Press a few days ago the Corporation had told the public that a compulsory purchase order would be made in the immediate future in connection with the land. That rather anticipated the Minister’s approval, he said.
“The Corporation,” Mr. Rice retorted, “can only speak through the City Manager or under the city seal, and no statement has been made by the City Manager or under the city seal.”
Mr. Kelly declared that a letter from the Lord Mayor to the City Manager was answered, on behalf of the City Manager, in the Irish Times. In that it was stated, in connection with the Crumlin extension, that possession was expected within the next few months.
Mr. Rice said that a compulsory purchase order made by the Corporation was absolute unless set aside wholly or in part by the Minister.
Mr. Kelly said that land might be purchased compulsorily by means of an order made by a local authority and submitted to and confirmed by the Minister. The Corporation’s order had no effect until confirmed by him.
Mr. Rice’s reply was that the order was absolute until set aside or modified.

CLEAR THE SLUMS FIRST
“No efforts have been made by Mr. Rice to justify the acquisition of this 246 acres,” Mr. Kelly asserted. “He simply begged the question that the Corporation has a right—a priority—to use all the vacant land within the city boundary as it likes.
“That is far from being the case. This 246 acres is part of the last free land within the city boundary. There will be little, indeed, when it is taken.
“There are other demands on unoccupied land within the city boundary besides housing. There are other demands which are more exigent, which have a prior claim on lands like this,
“Clear the slums: the slums themselves should be cleared first. This is not a slum; it is a virgin site.”
It might have been alleged that the land at Crumlin was necessary to form a depot for the clearing of the slums, but no such case has been made.

“UNFAIR ATTITUDE”
“The attitude of the Corporation,” Mr. Kelly proceeded, “is very unfair to say that they can come in and seize the lands, amounting to 246 acres, of various owners, without giving the slightest justification for doing so and without satisfying you and the public that they have weighed up the various uses to which these lands might be put and have decided, after due consideration, that they are putting them to the best possible public utility.
“That is not the way to exercise their statutory powers.”
Mr. Rice declared that the Corporation was acting, not unfairly, but absolutely in accordance with the Act.
Mr. Kelly asserted that Mr. Rice’s attitude was one of: “Oh, trust us! We know everything. We must take this land.”
That was too much to ask the owners of the land to swallow, from the Corporation or anyone else.

OPEN SPACES AND PLAYING FIELDS
Mr. Kelly went on to say that town planning had a prior claim to the land. Where would the Corporation get their open spaces and playing fields when they wanted them?
“You will get them in a short time,” he said. “You will be forced to get them by public opinion and you will pay about ten times the price for them than you would if you reserved lands for the purpose.”

Mr. Rice—My objection is this, sir. You are dealing with an Order made under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1931. Mr. Kelly is introducing matters which will possibly come under the Town Planning Act and which are, to a great extent, an echo of the proceedings before the recent Tribunal. I suggest that this question of open spaces and that sort of thing is utterly irrelevant to this inquiry.
Mr. Kelly—I am sure everyone in the room follows what my point is with the exception of certain people. I am only saying that you, representing the Minister, should say to the Minister that this is an Order which should not be confirmed by him. It is one of the last open spaces within the free boundary which is urgently wanted for playing fields and open spaces.

****************
“We all know,” continued Mr. Kelly, “of the paucity of open spaces and the utter absence of public playing fields and that is particularly so with regard to the South City, bounded by the River Liffey. Where, in all that huge populous area, is there a park, open space or playing field maintained by the Corporation for the citizens?

Mr. Hire—Pembroke and Crumlin.
Mr. Kelly—Yes, we will be very glad to hear about them. I suppose my friend would add ‘Leinster Cricket Club and Trinity College Grounds.’
Mr. Rice—They are open spaces.
Mr. Kelly—Yes, but how are they available for the poor of this city?
Counsel commented that Mr. Rice was very, very shy of the questions of parks and open spaces.
Mr. Rice—I heard too much of it at the Tribunal.
Mr. Kelly—You will hear a little more of it here, perhaps more than you will like.
Mr. Rice—Oh! not more.

THE PHOENIX PARK. Mr. Kelly went on to say that parks, commons and open spaces were obviously necessary for the child in arms, for babies in prams, for the young people growing up, and the women of the city. Dublin was absolutely unprovided when they should be dotted all over the city. He contended that there should be five acres to every 1,000 people for parks, commons and open spaces and that seven acres per 1,000 people for playing fields was a recognised figure.

Applying that test to the City of Dublin, which he took to be 18,670 acres, some 5,400 acres were required for these purposes. The Phoenix Park was, of course, inaccessible to a great many citizens and was in a huge oval area. It would have more than three times its value if it were scattered over the City to the extent of half its acreage.

It was remarkable that of the 255 acres proposed to be taken, only 15 acres were left for open spaces, showing an utter disregard by the Corporation for that service. About a year ago, they were told that in the City of Dublin there was only some 1,500 acres available for all purposes. They were told that 590 acres would be used for private building and the remainder for the housing of the working classes. These were the Corporation figures given in Mr. Rice’s hearing.

Mr. Rice—I don’t know whether I was here or not.
Mr. Kelly—You were there most of the time.
Mr. Rice—Perhaps I was absent.
Mr. Kelly—You were not absent this time. This is when your own case was being made.

Counsel said that the Corporation was now going to take 247 acres for housing alone in utter disregard of the claims or town planning. He did not know how much had disappeared in the twelve months, but he would not be surprised if 100 acres had disappeared.

COULD GET MORE READY MONEY

It seemed a serious situation, that out of 900 acres there were, perhaps, 300 acres gone, leaving only 600 acres for all purposes, including parks, commons, open spaces and playing fields, for which they should have 5,400 acres within the City.
Mr. Rice—You would not object if we were to take it for that purpose?
Mr. Kelly—My attitude on that will be determined when a proposal on that line is put forward by the Corporation.
Mr. Rice—You put up the proposal yourself.
Mr. Kelly—I am putting forward an objection to the scheme.
Continuing, Mr. Kelly said that increasing use was being made of those lands by athletic clubs, and people were finding out how suitable the lands were for that purpose. Would the Minister sanction the policy of the Corporation to use open spaces within the city boundary for housing? If he did, there would be a far worse problem than the slum problem in a short time. If land had to be acquired for slum clearance, Mr. Rice should get it farther out, for his client’s land had a much greater value in its use for sports. If the Corporation should acquire it, it would be contrary to the principles of town planning. What better use could the Corporation make of the land than its present use? A deserving public service was being provided. If the lands were left alone, in a few years every bit of them would be in the occupation of some athletic club. They were level fields, they were near the city, and their use in that way would add greatly to the health of the people. The place was developing by itself, and, if left alone, it would develop further, for so great was the scarcity of playing fields that they could get more ready money than if it were used for building purposes.

Miss M. Meade, Portmahon Lodge, in reply to Mr. Kelly, said she was the owner of the lands. She had no objection whatever to the housing of the working classes and the poor people, but she did not want her means of living taken from her.
Replying to Mr. Rice, Miss Meade said she was rearing four orphan children, who had nothing else to their name. She fully appreciated the wishes of the Corporation, but she was one of the working class herself.
Miss Nora O’Leary, in reply to Mr. Kelly, said she was employed in Messrs. Woolworth’s establishment in Grafton Street. She was a member of the club which had the land from Miss Meade. The premises were suitable in every way and within their means. She knew of no other place where they could get a more convenient playing ground.
Mr. Simms, architect, in answer to Mr. Rice, said there were 76 acres set aside for parks in Crumlin.
Mr. Kelly—Is it long since the land was selected?
Mr. Simms—It has been tentatively earmarked for the last 18 months.
Mr. Kelly—So that in your day and mine there won’t be a single bit of green field left in the city?
Mr. Simms—To a certain extent we might say so. We are endeavouring, however, to bring nature back into the city in the slums.
Mr. Kelly—Where?
Mr. Simms—One may see that in the slums.

PUBLIC BEFORE PRIVATE INTEREST

Mr. Rice—I contend that all the things Mr. Kelly has brought forward in the nature of town planning and echoes of the Tribunal are utterly irrelevant to this inquiry.

The public, he continued, must come before private interest. The housing of the working classes had become a strain on the public mind, especially in recent weeks.

If part of a slum were in ruins and unoccupied, it could be rebuilt and the tenants of the other part moved into the new buildings. But in most cases, it had been found necessary to ensure that the tenants could be housed somewhere else before the slums could be knocked down.

One requirement of the Act, indeed, was that the Corporation must certify to the Minister that, before depopulation of an area had begun, means of housing the people living in it could be found.

It was because of that that the Corporation had to press in cases that seemed hard. There could be no housing if the Corporation and the Minister yielded to pleas of hardship in individual cases.

“BACK AGAINST THE WALL.”

Mr. D. J. O’Sullivan, solicitor, for the Drimnagh Lawn Tennis Club, said that the Corporation seemed to feel that its back was against the wall, and that it had to defend itself. That particular scheme, one felt, was rather a defence of the Corporation’s good name than something being done for the relief of the community.

A great many houses had been built around the city since about 1926, but the slums remained. The Corporation, he suggested, should acquire slum property itself by compulsion.

“If it doesn’t do that,” he said, “it is only erecting houses for a number of workers without any guarantee that it is workers from the slums who will be taken, or that as soon as one family leaves the slums another family will not go into the same building.”

If the argument that workers’ houses were more important than playing fields held good, the Corporation could acquire Phoenix Park and use it for housing.

Mr. James Ward, president of the club, said that if the land were taken, there was no prospect of the members obtaining any other land in the immediate vicinity. They were prepared to move if adequately compensated.

Mr. William Franklin, Belleview, Crumlin (who was represented by Mr. P. M. Seales, solicitor), objected to the Corporation’s acquiring his property on the ground that there was no other place for him in which to live.

DAIRYMAN’S PROTEST

Patrick Brennan, Poddle Park, Kimmage, examined by Mr. B. J. D. O’Kelly, solr., said he held a dairy premises in the area to be acquired. He would be satisfied if he got alternative accommodation in the district where he had built up his business.

“You are after chasing me all over the show,” he said when it was mentioned that premises held by him formerly at Sundrive Road had also been acquired.

Mr. Rice said it seemed “there would be difficulty in fixing compensation in the case of a weekly or monthly tenant. The Corporation, however, would endeavour to find him some alternative site. “It is hard lines,” he said. “We have chased him out before and have not been able to compensate him.”

Mr. Brennan—Compensation would not give me a livelihood.

The inquiry adjourned until this morning at 11 o’clock.

 

 

COUNTY BOROUGH OF DUBLIN