asked the Minister for Finance whether representations have been made to his Department against the proposed demolition of Nos. 2 and 3 Kildare Place, Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Demolition of Dublin Buildings.
asked the Minister for Finance if the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland have obtained an estimate of the cost of preserving Nos. 2 and 3 Kildare Place, Dublin, from demolition, and, if so, if he will state the amount of such estimate.
asked the Minister for Finance if the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland will refrain from demolishing Nos. 2 and 3 Kildare Place, Dublin, and make a preservation Order under the provisions of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1954.
asked the Minister for Finance if the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland will refrain from demolishing Nos. 2 and 3 Kildare Place, Dublin, pending a report from the Advisory Council established under the National Monuments Act, 1930, or, alternatively, from the Arts Council, as to the desirability and practicability of declaring that the said premises are national monuments.
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 8 to 11 together.
As a result of detailed architectural observation and examination over the last few years it has been established that these houses have reached the end of their useful life and are in an unsound condition and a source of danger to life and property.
A very careful examination has been made of the possibility of preservation and it has been estimated that it would cost upwards of £20,000 to carry out the minimum works required without any replanning or improvement of the existing accommodation which is poor and rambling and quite unsuited to modern requirements. The top floor is a fire trap and has not been used for many years.
The various representations received, including those from the National Monuments Advisory Council and the Arts Council, have been fully considered. It is not accepted that the preservation of the houses is a matter of national importance for the purposes of the National Monuments Acts.
I am satisfied that, in all the circumstances, the decision to demolish the houses is the correct one and that there is no practical alternative. A contract has been entered into and the work is in hands.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the Arts Council and the Advisory Council under the National Monuments Act have advised that the buildings should be retained in their present condition?
It is one thing for the Arts Council and others to advise but the architects of the Commissioners for Public Works advise that it would be a danger to the public and also to property to retain these buildings. I would point out to the Deputy that sanction for their demolition was given in December of 1956.
I understood from the Parliamentary Secretary's reply that he received a report from the Arts Council and from the Advisory Council under the National Monuments Act. Could the Parliamentary Secretary say whether those two reports suggested that these two buildings should be preserved?
That suggestion was made all right.
By both of those bodies?
Yes.
In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has now said and in view of the opinion given by a number of prominent architects who are of the opinion that these two buildings can be maintained, would the Parliamentary Secretary request the commissioners to review their decision?
The commissioners have gone very fully into this over a long period and have decided that they could not do other than act on the advice of their own architects.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what work was covered by the figure of £20,000 which was mentioned, and can he say what is the proposed expenditure in relation to the demolition of these premises?
The £20,000 was for repair work, but the architects of the Board of Works are satisfied that it would not be at all sufficient to do the work, that, in any case, even if it were undertaken, the premises would still be dangerous, and the only alternative was demolition.
Arising further out of the answers given by the Parliamentary Secretary——
We shall never get to the end of questions at this rate.
There is one question which arises out of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the National Monuments Advisory Council suggested that a preservation order should be made?
Yes, that suggestion was made.