It is now almost six years since the Office of Public Works was directed to dig up the lawn at Leinster House and construct a car park during a major refurbishment programme. Since then, the temporary car park has been retained, in contravention of planning regulations.
Plans by the OPW to reinstate the lawn were put on hold earlier this summer, pending a decision by the Oireachtas Commission on the construction of a two-storey underground car park at the site.
Elected representatives should lead by example, most particularly in relation to planning matters. It is unfortunate, therefore, that the Oireachtas Commission, which regulates the business of the Dáil and Seanad, should appear to give precedence to the parking requirements of members and staff over the enforcement of planning regulations. It must be acknowledged here that this editor, an ex-member, theoretically enjoys a car parking space for life.
The commission sought to justify its decision to retain the 69 temporary parking spaces on the grounds that it would be a poor use of public funds to reinstate the grass, only to have it dug up again in two years' time. However, there is no certainty the underground car park will ever be built, because of cost. The restoration of Leinster Lawn, along with the provision of enhanced lighting, was estimated by the OPW to cost €500,000.
Some years ago, Charlie McCreevy, when minister for finance, raised the possibility of charging civil servants for the use of secure parking facilities in central Dublin. The idea died a quick death. There is no hint that the Oireachtas Commission will introduce charges. Instead, it has raised the possibility that high costs may be justified by making the facility available for commercial use when the Dáil is not in session. It recognised, however, that security considerations would ultimately decide the matter.
An underground facility for 500 vehicles would eliminate the need for overground parking at Government Buildings and at Leinster House. Such a project would take two years to plan and a further two years to build, according to the OPW, and could be extremely expensive.
Security considerations would almost certainly prevent the facility being made available to commercial users. All of this raises questions of cost, of necessity and of value for public money. It would be aesthetically pleasing if views of Leinster House were not obstructed in any way by motor vehicles. But that is unlikely to happen.