Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1963 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1961 - 1962

APPENDIX XXIII.

ROINN NA GAELTACHTA: STORM DAMAGE TO GLASSHOUSES

Liam browne, Esq.,

Clerk to the committee of public accounts,

Leinster house,

Dublin 2.

A Chara,

Qn, 361-367.

With reference to your letters of 9th and 12th instant, I have consulted the Office of Public Works regarding the questions raised therein and now furnish the following replies.

(Sínithe) SEÁN Ó BRAONÁIN,

Oifigeach Cuntasaíochta,

Roinn na Gaeltachta.

19 Márta, 1963.

Letter dated 9th March, 1963.

Question (a): Was there any insurance against storm damage during the construction of the glasshouses and, if not, why not?

Reply: The glasshouses were not insured against storm damage. It is not the practice in the building trade to require a contractor to insure against the risk of storm damage and the contractors did not take out such insurance in this case.

Question (b): Was there any provision, in the contract for the construction work, as to where responsibility for rehabilitation of storm damage would rest, e.g. with the contractor or with the Department?

Reply: Under the terms of the contracts the contractors were liable, during the course of construction and for two years after completion, for making good any collapse due to wind pressure arising from wind velocities up to 90 miles per hour.

Question (c): Was there any defect in the specifications for the materials to be used in the construction work, i.e., can it be asserted that the type of construction used was regarded as fully satisfactory?

Reply: The Office of Public Works’ Architects are quite satisfied that there was no defect in the specification for the materials used and that the type of construction used was satisfactory.

In specifying that the houses were to withstand winds of up to 90 m.p.h. regard was had to the fact that the standard Code of Practice for structures in the north west of Ireland is that they should be capable of resisting wind velocities of 80 m.p.h. on sites of maximum exposure. Consequently in specifying that the glasshouses should be capable of withstanding wind velocities of 90 m.p.h. it was considered that an adequate margin of safety was being allowed for.

Question (d) : What steps, if any, following the storm damage, were taken to prevent further deterioration of the structures arising from exposure to the elements?

Reply: No steps were taken to prevent further deterioration of the structures arising from exposure to the elements because the extent of the deterioration considered possible would not justify the expense necessary to provide against it.

Question (e) : Whether, out of the payments of £39,837 in respect of 32 glasshouses, there is any prospect of realising something and, if so, how much, on salvage of materials?

Reply: It is not possible to estimate the salvage value of materials from the glasshouses pending settlement of the question of their reconstruction. In general, with the possible exception of the heating plants, it is doubtful if any substantial amounts could be realised from salvage.

If the houses are reconstructed, the boiler-houses, the heating plants and the foundations of the houses will be re-used.

Question (f): Whether, following item (c) above, the framework of the glasshouses was strong enough to bear the weight of glass?

Reply: I am advised by the Architects of the Office of Public Works that the framework of the glasshouses as finally approved by them was strong enough to bear the weight of glass.

Question (g) : Whether, in all the circumstances, it is now considered that the type of framework used in the construction of the houses was satisfactory?

Reply: The Architects of the Office of Public Works are quite satisfied that the type of framework used was in itself quite satisfactory and that the destruction of the houses was solely due to the fact that they experienced a storm force much in excess of that which they were designed to withstand.

Letter of 12th March, 1963.

Question: (a) whether, before the settlement was made with the contractors, legal advice was taken as to the question of liability for the damage?

(b) if so, what was the nature of the advice?

Reply: The Commissioners of Public Works sought the advice of Senior Counsel on the legal position and he advised that having regard to the standards to which the structures were to be built and the fact that the wind which damaged them was well over 90 miles per hour and outside the normal range of anticipation a Court would probably find in favour of the contractors, and that the wisest course would be to negotiate a settlement with the contractors.