Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Dec 1993

Vol. 437 No. 3

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Church Adaptation.

Frances Fitzgerald

Ceist:

4 Ms F. Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht his views on the development of St. Michael's and St. John's Church in Dublin and on the proposed development plan; if it is in line with his conservation policy; if his attention has been drawn to the concerns of An Taisce about the destruction of this historic church; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Liz McManus

Ceist:

11 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht if his attention has been drawn to the imminent destruction of St. Michael's and St. John's Church at Temple Bar, Dublin 2, by Temple Bar Properties; his views on whether, in the interests of protecting our heritage, this imminent destruction should be averted; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Liz McManus

Ceist:

97 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht if his attention has been drawn to the imminent destruction of St. Michael's and St. John's Church at Temple Bar, Dublin 2 which is about to be demolished by Temple Bar Properties; his views on whether, in the interests of protecting our heritage, this imminent destruction should be averted; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I proposed to take Questions Nos. 4, 11 and 97 together.

Temple Bar Properties Limited which comes under the aegis of the Minister for the Environment, is involved in the development of Dublin's cultural quarter in Temple Bar, including the adaptation of the former Church of St. Michael and St. John for use as a Viking museum. I understand that planning permission for the development has been granted by Dublin Corporation and upheld on appeal by An Board Pleanála.

I am aware of this development and of the concerns of An Taisce in relation to it. An Taisce claim that much of the interior of the former Church of St. Michael and St. John, deconsecrated in 1989, is to be destroyed and require that this building be re-opened as a multidenominational church to serve the community in the area. However, I am not aware of any organisation which is seeking to purchase and to reinstate the church for ecclesiastical purposes. At any rate I am informed that the developments for the interior of this building do not involve its destruction but are so designed as to be totally reversible at a later date if required.

While I am in the early stages of developing my architectural policy, I am impressed by the approach of the developers in this instance, in particular their concept of a museum inserted within the restored fabric of the existing buildings. It may well be that in many cases the future preservation of such old buildings. will best be served by adopting them to new uses, but in a manner which leaves the process reversible if required in the future.

Is the Minister aware that An Taisce said that irreversible alterations will be made to this historic building? I agree with the Minister that Temple Bar Properties is the flagship when it comes to sensitive developments but is the Minister concerned about this development in terms of conservation? I understand that a number of features of this old church, one of the first Catholic churches in Dublin where pennies were collected and bells were rung for the first time in 300 years in the 1800s, will be damaged? For example, the ceiling is to be removed. Does the Minister agree that this poses very serious questions about the balance between development and conservation? Will the Minister meet with An Taisce to examine the matter once more? While this development may be legal is it the right way to proceed? What is the reason we should replace a genuine historical article with a phoney?

I share the Deputy's concern in relation to the balance between conservation and development. Recently I discussed these matters with the Royal Institute of Architects, including the appropriate strategies for the future. I am well aware also of An Taisce's observations. The Deputy mentioned that the original building will be destroyed but in many senses under the proposals the original will be revealed because the ceiling to which she referred is being taken down in sections and stored so that it may be used if, for example, potential users in the future want to use the building for a purpose other than that proposed by the planners. The taking down of the ceiling reveals the oak beams of the previous building on the site, namely, those of the Smock Alley Theatre. I agree this is a sensitives matter, is one that I intend to monitor in so far as I have a role to play. As I said in my reply, the strategy in this case of removing the ceiling and putting it into storage to allow the present proposals to be reversed in the future is a sensible one.

The decision to remove the ceiling to expose the beams is questionable. In view of the amount of money that will be available to protect our heritage and conserve our old buildings — I am aware that the Minister has a personal interest in this — will he meet Temple Bar Properties and An Taisce to see what lessons can be learned and if guidelines should be drawn up to cover future developments to ensure that the genuine article is preserved? This is a very old Catholic church in Dublin with unique features. While I respect Temple Bar Properties I am genuinely worried that we are losing the genuine article for the sake of developing a Viking centre.

I am anxious for brevity at this time for obvious reasons; if we delay on any one question this would be to the detriment of the remaining priority questions.

I can assure the Deputy that I have had no difficulty about meeting any organisation involved in the general arts, cultural and heritage area and would be perfectly willing to meet either of the two bodies to which she referred. This is the wise course. The approach of my Department has been to respect the autonomy of bodies that are separated from us but I am open to the possibility of consultations in the future, as I have been since I assumed office.

Barr
Roinn