Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT, CULTURE AND THE GAELTACHT díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 Mar 2012

Preservation of Moore Street Historical Properties: Discussion with Save Moore Street Group

We have just received notification of the PowerPoint presentation and it will take 20 minutes to organise it. As I do not wish to delay this meeting by 20 minutes I will ask the delegation to make the presentation available to members and we will commence the meeting on that basis.

I am pleased to welcome Mr. James Connolly Heron, great-grandson of James Connolly, Mr. Patrick Cooney, co-author of HQ16 - A Citizen's Plan for Dublin and Mr. Éamonn Ceannt, grand-nephew of Éamonn Ceannt who will speak on the preservation of the historic buildings at 14 to 17 Moore Street. I also acknowledge the presence of other relatives of signatories of the 1916 Proclamation of Independence. This is a very historic area of Dublin and its future is all the more relevant in light of the forthcoming centenary in 2016.

I advise witnesses that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in regard to a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Delegates are further directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. The opening statements the witnesses have submitted to the committee will be published on our website after this meeting. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

We all acknowledge that the Moore Street-O'Connell Street area is a site of great importance which reflects a poignant time in Irish history and for Irish people. One might say it is where the modern Irish nation was born. The location incorporates not only the events of the 1916 Rising but also has a connection with the Dublin workers' lockout of 1913. As members of the various political parties which make up the membership of this committee, we can all connect to the issue not only as a matter of political history but also in terms of our own personal connections. It is therefore important that our discussion should focus on the broader issues to which the witnesses will refer. Having said that, it is also important that the goals of their project are explicitly stated, so that we are sure of their immediate, medium and long-term plans.

As Chairman of the committee, I look forward to considering proposals as to how we might incorporate the protection of the overall development of the area in question. I hope that will happen in the context of a consideration of how we ourselves can contribute to commemorating the years from 1913 to 1916, which saw the people of Dublin and Ireland taking their stand through the lockout, the foundation of the National and Irish Volunteers and the reading of the 1916 Proclamation by Pádraig Pearse outside the General Post Office. As we approach the commemoration period, I envisage that this will be one of several meetings the committee will hold. The main objective of this morning's deliberations is to examine the immediate concerns with regard to the site. I now invite Mr. James Connolly Heron to make his opening statement.

Mr. James Connolly Heron

I thank the Chairman. I understand members have received copies of our submission, entitled The GPO-Moore Street - Battlefield 1916, The Lanes of History. The reference in the title to the "lanes of history" is taken from a comment made by the Taoiseach when he walked the battlefield site with us. It aptly sums up our case. Moore Street and the laneways between it and O'Connell Street form the most important battlefield site in modern Irish history. It is on this street and in these laneways that the course of Irish history was changed in Easter week 1916. It is here that the only 20th century Irish event of worldwide significance took place. Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street, which are at the centre of the terrace on the east side of Moore Street, comprise a national monument. Yet the developers in question are seeking to build a suburban-style shopping centre on top of this historic site, obliterating all of the laneways and most of Moore Street and encroaching on more than 60% of the national monument itself. This report contains the reasons they should not be allowed to do so.

Our submission begins with the statement of the relatives of the seven signatories of the 1916 Proclamation, as follows:

The present condition of the 1916 National Monument at 14 to 17 Moore Street is a national disgrace, and insults the memory of those it purports to honour. The application to seek Ministerial consent privately in order to alter, infringe on and appropriate 60% of its area solely in the commercial interest of a property developer represents an unprecedented threat to the integrity and standing of a National Monument. It is our understanding that this development will now be funded by NAMA. The whole situation should be a cause for great concern.

The proposal to excavate beneath the National Monument, and site kitchens and toilets in the basement areas of all four buildings shows a blatant disregard for its status and standing that is beyond belief. The conditional planning approval granted, to demolish the surrounding area in its entirety, contrary to the adopted policy of Dublin City Council and the internationally-accepted principles contained within the Venice Charter, cannot pass unchallenged.

The National Museum of Ireland has requested a battlefield assessment of the Moore Street site. We have provided the Museum with relevant information that directly links buildings, streets and laneways within this area to the 1916 Rising. It is now incumbent on the State to act on the Museum's request, and have the site assessed by an independent body of experts as a prerequisite to any development.

We have been seeking State intervention for many years to guarantee the security and conservation of the National Monument as designated in its entirety in line with Preservation Order No. 1 of 2007 – an order adopted by both Houses of the Oireachtas. This is a modest request, but regrettably to date it has not been answered. Successive administrations have failed to act, and the National Monument and its surrounding area lie neglected and under threat. The continuing uncertainty regarding its future security and preservation, and the lack of any appropriate response by Government, state agencies and personnel to its deterioration and planned destruction, must now end.

The document goes on to list statements from prominent persons who have toured the site. The President, Mr. Michael D. Higgins, said of it:

This belongs to no individual, group or political party. It belongs to the people.

Unfortunately, of course, that is not the case. Rather, it belongs to a NAMA developer. The Taoiseach has said of the location:

[This] is a confined area, but it contains the lanes of history from the time those men and women emerged from the side of the GPO and went in through the side of the buildings to get to No. 16 ... The area from the GPO to the Rotunda is very compact. There is an opportunity, if handled properly, to make available a multilingual explanation to people from all over the world in order that they can see the circumstances and locations where one of the first independent states was recognised in the early part of the 20th century.

The Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, described the area as "dripping in history". After touring the site he observed:

Our commemoration of 1916 should not just be a token flag-waving commemoration, but it should be real, and I think there is an obligation on the State to respond positively to the relatives of the 1916 leaders to go with this project.

The document then sets out a time line showing that Moore Street predates the Custom House, Kilmainham Gaol, the opening of the GPO and the Great Famine. Yet it is about to be destroyed. On that ground alone, the area should be entirely preserved. It is the only terrace of houses on O'Connell Street - known at the time of the Rising as Sackville Street - left intact.

I will not go though the main body of our submission. Instead I refer to two folding maps contained within it, the first of which sets out the evacuation route taken by the volunteers from the GPO, which is located on the left of the map. From there the volunteers entered Henry Place, opposite the side door of the GPO. This block of buildings, which is under threat under a separate planning application, was occupied during the course of Easter week as an outpost to defend the General Post Office. The volunteers, led by Michael Collins, entered Henry Place, took the dog-leg to the left and occupied the buildings marked in red which form the street. All of the buildings to which I refer were taken over during the course of the evacuation.

The laneway marked under buildings occupied in 1916 is Moore Lane. The proposed national monument would stretch from Moore Street all the way back to Moore Lane. As already stated, the developer plans to appropriate up to 60% of that area for his own private commercial use. Every building marked in red was occupied by the volunteers in 1916 and each is directly linked to the evacuation. The first building on the terrace at the end of Henry Place is No. 10, Cogan's provision store. This was the first building to be occupied and it was where the first council of war took place. Ironically, there are 16 houses in the terrace and every one of them was occupied. The volunteers broke into No. 10 to seek protection from artillery and machine-gun fire. It was in that house that the Pearse brothers slept on the first night. Barricades were erected outside the building. Paddy Shortiss, who had taken part in the O'Rahilly charge, was shot dead outside No. 10.

The leadership took refuge in No. 16 because it was at the centre of the terrace and, consequently, the safest place to be. However, the other houses are of equal importance. No. 15 Moore Street is the house from which Nurse O'Farrell walked with the white flag of surrender. She also accompanied Pádraig Pearse from this address when he went to treat with the British commander in Parnell Street. James Connolly was carried down the stairs of No. 17 and placed outside the next building marked in red, which runs all the way from Moore Street to Moore Lane, which is 20-21, Hanlon's fishmongers. This is a very important building. Even though the decision to surrender was taken in No. 16, acceptance of said decision was made in the yards and buildings of 20-21 Moore Street.

The final building on the terrace, No. 25 - which is shown in the picture on the right - is where the O'Rahilly and two of his comrades, Francis Macken and Charles Carrigan, were shot dead. Included with the presentation are two lists, one of the volunteers who died on Moore Street and the surrounding laneways and the other of the civilians who were killed. Some 20 volunteers were wounded crossing the Henry Place-Moore Lane intersection. Approximately 300 volunteers occupied the entire terrace. The decision to surrender was taken in No. 16, Plunkett's poultry shop, while the surrender order was accepted and agreed by volunteer ranks in the rear year of No. 20-21, Hanlon's fishmongers. The entire terrace became the final headquarters of the Provisional Government in 1916.

To single out one building as being more important than another is to ignore that historical fact. This area is a battlefield site and in 1916 it was a war zone. It is to be obliterated, almost in its entirety, to make way for a suburban-type shopping mall. On the next page, members can see what the developer has in mind. The next drawing depicts what will be left when the wrecking balls have been used on the site. Members can see the national monument buildings and the other buildings, marked in blue, that will be retained. Everything else will be demolished. If we take what was being proposed for the centre of Dublin on one side of the General Post Office, GPO - known as the "Arnotts plan" - and this plan, then that whole side of O'Connell Street would have been practically obliterated for three major shopping centres. What is extraordinary, in the context of the history of this site, is that it appears that no State agency or publicly-paid official informed the developer that it would not be possible to build on a national monument. Were I to propose to build a housing development on the grounds of St. Enda's in Rathfarnham - another national monument linked to 1916 - I presume I would be informed by publicly-paid State officials that I could not do so.

As a relative of James Connolly, who spent his final hours prior to his execution in the houses to which I refer, it is deeply insulting to me that no State agency or publicly-paid official has stood by this national monument designated in honour of him and the other men and women of 1916 and said "Thus far shalt thou go and no further". This national monument has been designated for a specific purpose and it cannot be taken back again. That is our case in a nutshell. Given that the preservation order and the designation of the national monument were adopted by both Houses of the Oireachtas, the current state of said national monument is the committee's concern. The guarantee of its future security and preservation are also the committee's concern. It is up to the committee to act. Our very modest request is that we want the Oireachtas to honour its undertaking under the preservation order to protect and preserve this national monument in its entirety, both as designated and in compliance with the principles contained in the Venice Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites. The latter states that a national monument should not just be preserved but rather that it must be preserved in context. In other words, the entire Moore Street terrace and the surrounding laneways associated with the national monument must be preserved.

Our second request is that we want an independent battlefield site assessment of the GPO-Moore Street area to be commissioned by the State. We echo the call made by the now retired former director of the National Museum in this regard. Our third request is that we want the 1916 Moore Street terrace and the buildings, streets and laneways linked to the 1916 Rising to be protected and preserved in order that they might comprise a 1916 cultural and historic quarter. We want the Oireachtas to gift to the people of Ireland a historic and cultural quarter which properly honours the great sacrifice made by the men and women of 1916. I thank the Chairman and members.

Mr. Patrick Cooney

As Mr. Connolly Heron stated, we were going to make a PowerPoint presentation. However, we will now be obliged to read through the hard copies instead. To that end, I am circulating to members a rough copy of our plan for Moore Street. It is very easy to criticise what is on the table but it is much more effective if one brings forward an alternative.

Members now have in front of them copies of a document entitled "HQ 16 - A Citizens' Plan for Dublin". This plan was drawn up by myself and other interested parties. It was then presented to the relatives, who have endorsed it. In effect, therefore, members are looking at what is, as much as anything else, the relatives' plan for the area. I am the public relations officer, PRO, for the Save 16 Moore Street Committee and for the 1916 relatives group. Members have before them relatives of James Connolly, Éamonn Ceannt, Thomas MacDonagh and Joseph Mary Plunkett. Supporting us and the plan are relatives of each of the executed leaders of the 1916 rising. That is a fairly formidable imprimatur for "HQ 16 - A Citizens' Plan for Dublin".

Members who have not visited Moore Street should perhaps take a trip down there. The street is in a very sorry state and is very much a cross between a shanty town and a Third World slum. In the middle of it is our so-called national monument, which we tend to refer to as a "national disgrace". I was in Moore Street which a chap who worked there as a butcher for 40 years. He informed me that the rot set in when the Ilac Centre was built. That was when the street began to disintegrate. He pointed the finger at Dublin City Council - formerly Dublin Corporation - for allowing the area to become run down. If members visit the area today, tomorrow or next week - they are all welcome to join one of our tours - they will see how run down it has become. The idea that we are in some way holding up progress is nonsense. We want to see both progress and development on the site. However, we want such development to be appropriate in the context of the historical, cultural and social connections.

Without further ado, I will proceed to discuss the plan. It is not laid out as it will be when fully printed because as already stated, this is a rough version. We have used images to convey the character of the street. For example, there is a page which is full of the very familiar faces of stall-holders on Moore Street. I also spoke to the latter last week and discovered that some of them can trace their ancestry on the street back over a century. These people do not want to leave. This is because they love their jobs and their heritage. However, under Chartered Land's plan, their stalls and, consequently, the only street market on Dublin's north side will disappear. It is interesting that when the Queen of England visited Ireland recently, she was brought to the English Market in Cork. She was not taken to Tesco or Dunnes Stores. As a Corkonian exile, I know how wonderful that space is. I do not understand why we do not have one in Dublin but if HQ 16 is adopted and implemented we might be able to invite people down there.

I will not go through the copy of the presentation as I will email it to the members. We do not want this area to be a fossilised historical quarter; we want it to convey an area that has a social, cultural and retail history. I have a letter from Retail Excellence Ireland - which I can also email to the members - with which we have linked up because it recognises the importance of our plan. Our plan does not concentrate only on the national monuments and the spirit of 1916, it also recognises the fact that many of the small shops in Dublin that we may have liked to visit have disappeared during the past 30 years due to the obscene upward only rents. If one walks around the streets of Dublin, apart from the "To Let" signs, one will find shops that one can find on any High Street in Britain. We view the terrace and the laneways around it as an opportunity to put the clock back a little, have rent control and encourage the development of a retail area with a difference on that street and in the area around it, a retail area that we would recognise from 30, 40, 50 and 60 years ago. As things come full circle, it is clear that is the way the retail sector is going. The day of the large dinosaur developments is over. Those are zombie developments. Unfortunately, there are a number of people in public life and in the development sector who still think these developments are valid and that they will happen but they will not.

Members will note on page 4 a slide of two images of architects' drawings. These are some of our proposals. We have a proposal for the entire terrace. The upper illustration is of the national monument, Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17. We see that as a commemorative hub. We envisage those buildings being restored to an appearance that is far more appropriate. They would be a commemorative centre and the buildings on either side of No. 16, No. 15 and No. 17, would be a buffer zone. We would have an interpretative centre - a shop of some kind. Beyond that, the other buildings between the national monument should be small retail spaces. They should be let out to retailers who would have the types of shops that would attract tourists and natives back into the city. Members will note that we want to keep the stalls on the street because we believe they are important and, with the growth of the organic sector, we believe the market should be expanded. It should not be removed. How many television programmes are broadcast showing Irish cooks going to France whingeing about how they cannot find such produce at home? They can; it is just not available in Dublin, apart from perhaps in Fallon and Byrne's. We need to bring that into the north side.

On the next set of images, members will note the top image shows the Proclamation of the Irish Republic set out in front of No. 16. We believe the most suitable way to stop people in their tracks is to put a very large bronze representation of the Proclamation across the width of the street. The street can operate around it but that is the commemorative zone, and it can work; it has been done in other cities. The illustration below that image shows Moore Lane, which will once again, as James Connolly Heron said, be obliterated if Chartered Land get its way. We show in the illustration that there are ancillary-auxillary buildings that could be re-used. The tricolour signifies the rear entrance to No. 16. There is a perfect opportunity to open up an artistic hub, a craft hub, there. Despite the dereliction, old slaughter houses and old store rooms are still standing and they could be reused. The vision we have is of development not, as I have always said, with a sledge-hammer but with a scalpel - a far more sophisticated and subtle development of the area.

Moving on to the next set of images, the one at the top right is interesting. It is the barricade that O'Rahilly and the rest of them faced charging up Moore Street. It is a very unusual image. Members can see what they faced. Beside that image is another one in crayon of the pencilled notes of the decision to surrender, which was scribbled in the backroom on the first floor of No. 16 Moore Street. Below that image is the iconic one of Pearse surrendering at the top of Moore Street. Beside the image is the very small one of the commemorative plaque on No. 16.

If one walks around this area, one will note that the commemorative plaques have either been removed or they are insignificant. When we contacted Dublin City Council and asked if they had a record of the plaques it refused. We asked if the council would like one and again it declined. We asked why and it said it thought there was a better way of commemorating the Rising. I would like to know what that is.

The next set of images are architectural ones. If members go down the street, they will see the shell damage and the bullet holes on the facades of the terrace displayed in the images. They also show that the buildings are not as shoddy and as unremarkable as one may think. Some thought was put into this. It is an 18th century street that was remodelled over the years and one will note it has all sorts of interesting architectural details.

The next set of images show some old scenes of Moore Street. I talked to a butcher and he told me that in the 1960s he counted 36 butcher shops on Moore Street but now there are two. Below the top image of the street is an image of the original granite sets which have been tarmaced over. That is the street the garrison ran down. If the tarmac was to be removed it would be still there. Moore Street is all still there; it is just under layers of grime and dereliction. The bottom right image is interesting. It shows how lively the street was; it was a bustling street and it still is. Even though the terrace is boarded up is and used for short-term lets for not particularly appropriate retail outlets, it is still a bustling street.

The next set of images are more architectural in nature and images of connections with 1916. The following set of images of the leaders of the Rising are iconic. The brochure and HQ 16 are dedicated to and supported by at least one member of each of those families. That is a fairly impressive imprimatur to work with.

I will move on to the last two images, which members, when I e-mail them the presentation, will be able to expand on their computers. The top image is Moore Street, the terrace, as it stands and the bottom one is the street as we propose it should be. What is proposed is a scalpel development. We want an archaeological assessment, a more modest development and the re-use of the buildings there. Having been in the restoration industry in the past, I know a little about these buildings and I would say that putting them back in order is not as big a task as demolishing them, excavating and building a new development.

If members turn over the page, they will see the second stretch of the terrace and, to the left of that stretch, they will see the Plunket sign, which signifies the national monument All these buildings are of historic interest and, as James Connolly Heron said, they are also architecturally interesting because the terrace dates from 1760 and it is one of the few terraces left on the north side. A companion street would be South Frederick Street. If members walked down that street, they would get an idea of what Moore Street could look like. They will get a chance to view HQ 16 when we launch it fairly shortly. They will be invited to attend the launch and I hope they will do so.

I envisage this area as being a hub for the north side. Down the road from Moore Street and the area around it are the city markets off Capel Street, which are very much underused, and Henry Street. From there one can link into a route to Parnell Square, which has the Hugh Lane Gallery and the Garden of Remembrance, and from there to the north Georgian core of Dublin, the James Joyce cultural trail, the Royal Canal, Croke Park, the Botanic Gardens and Glasnevin Cemetery. There is a ready-made tourism and cultural trail there, if one chooses a ready-made foot trail. That plan would probably cost a few million euro to get commissioned. We are giving it to the committee, the citizens of the Dublin and citizens of Ireland freely. It is a great gift to have from the descendants of the 1916 leaders.

I always feel a great debt to the people who sit beside me and to what their ancestors did in 1916. While what they fought for may have been discarded in recent years, including, in many respects, our sovereignty, which may have been put to one side, it does not detract from what happened. We owe it to them, at the very least, to give them Moore Street and this area. I believe it was Tom Clarke, in response to people who said he would be shot and that nobody would care, who said words along the lines that "No, the future generations will understand and they will honour us". It is a very modest request to honour the men and women of 1916 and the descendants who are here today by supporting, implementing and making this plan happen. It will benefit everybody.

I call Mr. Ceannt.

Mr. Éamonn Ceannt

We have received significant cross-party political support and thank all of the politicians at every level in all parties who have come on the tour with us and listened to our presentations. We again thank the joint committee for listening to this presentation. The common response is positive engagement from those who want to find a solution in achieving the development potential of Moore Street and considering how we should commemorate events in this area of the city. Whatever their views are of that period of history, most of those to whom we have spoken from the political environment have supported this call. However, with every step we are presented with problems in how the project might be advanced. Dublin city councillors have been advised that they are under legal threat if they try to prevent development of the site because commitments have been made to the developer to hand over public streets - Moore Lane, Henry Place and O'Rahilly Parade, including two buildings that continue in the ownership of the council.

We are told that the Department of the Taoiseach is very supportive. The Taoiseach has taken the tour, but we are told he cannot do anything until the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, comments on approval for the developer to move onto the national monuments site which is his responsibility under the planning process. We have been told the Taoiseach will be able to act in his capacity to support our views but only after the Minister has made his decision. We must await his decision, but by that stage it may be too late to act. We have been seeking a meeting with the Taoiseach for almost one year, but we are still awaiting a decision.

We are told the State cannot buy the site because the troika will not allow it, as it would only add to the indebtedness of the State. We must treat that for what it is worth. Last week we met the Tánaiste who has real concerns about being seen to interfere politically with the workings of NAMA. We fully appreciate this. We met the chairman and the chief executive of NAMA and they are very supportive of our general view on how the site should be developed, but they are bound by the requirement on NAMA to get the best financial return on the assets within its control. Again, that is fully understandable. Dublin City Council management seems to believe the best financial return on this site can be got through the development of another retail opportunity, notwithstanding the current oversupply of retail developments, of which we are all aware. A case in point reported in the newspapers recently is Drogheda with its beautiful main street, on which there is no footfall as a result of the development of three suburban retail centres.

I wish to deal with these points in turn because they are presented to us as problems by various elements of the Executive and others who are looking at the issue from their own perspective, which is completely understandable, but it is our case that we must look at it in a broader way. We call on committee members, as legislators, to do this for us. Those with roles in the Executive are inhibited from being able to do it. A holistic response is required quickly.

As we understand it - we can only say what we know; we do not know it as a fact - the developer is being financially supported by NAMA. If NAMA wants Moore Street to be developed in the best interests of citizens, it is very hard to believe it would fund the developer to sue Dublin City councillors, the legal threat of which they were apprised. They were informed that they would personally be held liable for not supporting the development they had promised a number of years ago. Dublin City Council is overwhelmingly supportive of our proposal, but it has been told it cannot reverse its decision. I find it hard to believe NAMA would continue to finance a developer who would take that position, but at this stage nothing would surprise us. Everyone knows it is nonsense, but it is still tabled as a potential problem.

When we met the chairman, the chief executive and one or two other board members of NAMA, we outlined to them that as a public body in developing a site it had to take cognisance of the risks associated with the site. It is legally obliged to do this and it would be negligent if it did not. There are significant risks. There is the political risk that the Government, perhaps on the advice of the joint committee, would inform Dublin City Council that in the current environment it should not hand over public streets and two public buildings to a developer. I refer to Moore Lane, Henry Place and O'Rahilly Parade.

There is a legal risk, that public outrage at these public streets being handed over in the current climate to a developer might lead to a legal challenge by public groupings. There are many groupings which are watching developments on the site. There is a second legal risk that this issue could be referred to the European Union under the Venice charter on the basis the site was not being appropriately developed as a national monument in its contextual relationship with surrounding streets. There is a third legal risk based on the fact that the procurement of the site is shrouded in mystery and there may be groups which might mount a legal challenge based on how it was assembled originally.

There is a regulatory risk. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, is required to consult the director of the National Museum of Ireland before making a decision on whether the national monument can be developed by the developer. He may take a decision which is not one the developer would like him to take. In recent weeks the director of the National Museum of Ireland wrote to him calling for an independent assessment of the site, the surrounding streets and the national monument as a battlefield site. That is our assessment of what the area stands for from an historical perspective, but the director of the National Museum of Ireland has called for an independent assessment.

There is a commercial risk, that the development of the site might extend beyond 2016 because there is no appetite to finance such a development. In the current climate we believe there is no appetite for a anchor tenant to commit to such a development and have apprised NAMA management of this risk.

There is a political risk, that if conservation work does not begin this year, the site will become derelict behind hoarding or be demolished by 2016. That would be an embarrassment for the Government and present an opportunity for political groupings which might want to take advantage of the situation.

We have asked a well known valuer on an informal basis to value the site because we do not have the financial resources to do what a developer can do. We can only put the documentation together from our own resources. The matter is not straightforward and I have just outlined the risks. It is proposed to develop the site at a time when the economic climate is adverse. There could be funding difficulties in financing a development. If a retail development would not work on the site as proposed - we do not believe it would to best advantage - an office development would also not work; an hotel and leisure development might work, but it would not provide the financial returns sought. What would work is a tourism development. There was once a proposal to knock down Kilmainham Gaol and we all know what an important tourism destination it now is. In our presentation we outline other sites that have been developed as successful tourism venues. We refer to Anne Frank House, the Alamo site and Kilmainham Gaol.

Surprisingly, the value put on the site was €50 million to €60 million at a maximum. In the current financial climate if one takes the price per acre for a site with significant risks attached in an area in which there is significant doubt about whether a retail development of the size proposed would work, the value of the site is more likely to be €35 million.

At this stage we are tiring of making presentations. We have been doing this for 18 months and need support from a political group which can act to produce a solution. We ask the committee to call on some element of the State, presumably the Office of Public Works, to enter into negotiations with NAMA in the knowledge of everything we have tabled today, as other public sector entities have been asked to do. The Tánaiste told us there could not be political interference with NAMA, and we fully accept that, but many public sector bodies are currently in negotiation with NAMA about sites throughout the country that might be more usefully used by the public on behalf of the State. Obviously, they will have to negotiate a commercial rate but we do not believe the commercial rate on this site is quite as large as the amount of money that has been invested, much of which may never be recovered, in assembling the site.

We propose and request that an independent historical assessment of this site be carried out, as requested in writing to the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, by the director of the National Museum of Ireland in recent weeks. I suggest an independent valuation of the site be got because it might inform our second request, which is that the OPW be asked to negotiate with NAMA with the objective of securing the site for the benefit of the citizens of this State.

Yesterday, a book was launched in Newman House, entitled AN IRISH CENTURY Studies 1912-2012, by Bryan Fanning, at which John Bruton spoke. I do not know to whom this quotation can be attributed but at that launch it was stated that all commemorations serve an educational purpose for the future. We are about to approach what may be the most important commemoration of this State. If a budget is needed to purchase this site and restore it in time for 2016, the Government has allocated €1.5 billion to the schools programme under the education budget and surely some of that could be used to educate future generations on the importance of this site.

To repeat what Mr. Connolly Heron said earlier, we request that the Oireachtas would honour its undertaking under preservation order No. 1 of 2007 to protect and preserve the national monument in its entirety as designated and in compliance with the principles contained in the Venice Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites. We request an independent battlefield site as asked for already of the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, by the director of the National Museum of Ireland in his consultative capacity as part of the statutory responsibilities of allowing people to work on the national monuments site. We request also that the entire terrace and buildings, in accordance with what is laid out in the Venice charter on how to preserve buildings of this importance, be preserved and form the basis for a cultural and historical quarter.

Before inviting members to ask questions I wish to make some comments. I grew up in the parish of Ballyphehane in Cork city. The name plaque of James Connolly hangs on my parents' house, 2 Connolly Road, which co-joins Pearse Road, Clarke's Road and MacDonagh Road. Every signatory of the 1916 Proclamation is commemorated in the parish of Ballyphehane and there is a significance in having the relatives of those people before the committee.

In terms of our position, three issues need to be examined. Mr. Connolly Heron explained the significance and the historical value of the location. That issue is not in dispute. We all agree to that. The second issue is the immediate threat and the immediate opportunity that exists in terms of the site. I ask the committee to focus specifically on that area. The third aspect, which was referred to in Mr. Cooney's presentation, is the opportunities that more innovative or creative thinking will bring to this area. He mentioned the English Market in his presentation. As one who resides in Dublin three days a week I am aware of the absence of what I would describe as a city centre of the Dublin region. What the witnesses are proposing is that this part of Dublin would become a rent controlled retail area that would have a unique flavour as a shopping experience that one does not get in other parts of Dublin as is the case in other European and international cities. That appears to be the long-term objective.

I would like further detail from the witnesses following which I will open up the meeting to the other members. I ask them to explain a number of issues. First, the witnesses mentioned a battlefield site assessment taking place. Why is that so important? It would appear many aspects are contingent upon that. Why does that need to happen?

Second, Mr. Ceannt made some comments about an approach to NAMA. We have heard the term "social dividend" used in respect of NAMA but we could also talk about heritage dividends. The witnesses might expand upon that.

Third, what appears to be the linchpin of this project holding or falling is the need for the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, to be in on the issue, so to speak. In a reply to a recent parliamentary question, the Minister stated that section 14 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004 is being re-examined. The witnesses might explain section 14 to the committee and the reason it is significant. Does the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, have a timeframe with the National Museum of Ireland regarding that section 14? If we could establish those points first, we could examine the broader context but I am determined that at the end of this meeting we will take on some deliberate actions and we need to be informed of those. I ask the witnesses respond to those three questions first, following which I will invite the other members to put their questions.

Mr. James Connolly Heron

Regarding the requirement for a battlefield assessment, in the area of battlefield assessments we would look upon ourselves as an amateur organisation. That would be an amateur assessment but we have discovered through the course of the campaign that we are learning a little more every time we have to report in this way. In terms of arguing for the preservation of the area, if an independent assessment is done and the result of that is that this is designated a battlefield site rather than simply an area to be developed, our position would be that everything then would change. The current planning application would fall because it would be absurd to put a shopping mall development on this site.

Is there such a designation as a battlefield site in heritage law? Does that have statutory standing or is it just an observation?

Mr. Patrick Cooney

I can speak about the position in Britain which has a battlefield site designation. The campaign to save part of the Battle of Aughrim site is still going on here. On a European level, there is such a designation. Obviously, it butts heads with development but essentially it is down to the campaign groups to make that case. It has already been accepted that this is a battlefield site by no less a person than Dr. Pat Wallace. He is the person who requested it, and there is no finer expert than him on the history.

None of us disputes that it is a battlefield site. History reflects that. My question is whether there is a statute under heritage law or some preservation order. If an environmental impact study is carried out on an area, an environmental preservation order can be put on a site because it has a unique environmental aspect. Does a battlefield site examination carry a similar outcome or is it just an observation?

Mr. Colm MacGeehan

I am legal adviser to the group. We are looking at a national monument and what we are talking about is an enlarged national monument. I remind the Chairman that one battlefield has been preserved, namely, the Battle of the Boyne site, which celebrates our defeat. This is an attempt to celebrate our victory. Why not call it a battlefield site? What we are looking at is an enlarged national monument. That is the answer to that question.

Mr. Patrick Cooney

It also should be mentioned that €20 million to €25 million was invested in the Boyne battlefield site. As Mr. MacGeehan stated, it is in many respects celebrating the defeat of the Irish nation. Surely, therefore, we could spend some millions of euro on its resurgence.

Mr. Ceannt referred to the approach to NAMA. Could he expand on that and the significance of the section 14 discussions taking place with the Minister, Deputy Deenihan?

Mr. Éamonn Ceannt

The developer has planning permission for the site. The case was brought to An Bord Pleanála and we made a presentation thereto. There were some minor modifications but, as it stands, the developer has planning permission. As Mr. Connolly pointed out in his presentation, the planning permission includes permission to dig underneath the national monument site to a depth of three floors to install car parking, toilets and other facilities. We believe the buildings will fall down. If nothing happens, perhaps that is best rather than leaving them the way they are.

There is planning permission. As part of that planning permission, the developer intends to encroach on 60% of the national monument site to put in retail facilities. An effort would be made to restore the remaining 40%, the national monument buildings, but not in the way we believe they should be restored. If we had been able to make our presentation, members would have seen that most of the walls of the buildings would be taken out and that only some, erected in the 1700s, would be retained. Underneath, three storeys of car parking and toilets would be installed.

Would that be a facade with nothing behind it?

Mr. Éamonn Ceannt

I believe so. I refer to buildings that are 250 years old. To encroach on the national monument site by sequestering 60% for retail and doing the work on the national monument buildings would require the developer to have the approval of the Minister, Deputy Deenihan. The Minister is required to consult the director of the National Museum, which he did. The director has called for an independent historical assessment of the entire area taking cognisance of the Venice charter, the European standard for considering a national monument site in its context. If the Minister approves, work can begin immediately. Alternatively, the site will be flipped, as is more likely.

Let us consider the sites of the Treasury Holdings development company. There were a number of international property agencies looking at the sites. There are international property companies looking at sites in Dublin and the rest of the country and they are quite well funded. While some of us might believe that nothing much happened on the site, it is possible that the site will be sold with the planning permission and the national monument approval granted by the Minister. Events could very quickly get out of everybody's control. I speculate that if NAMA, with the developer, flipped the site, nobody would have any control. Planning permission would be granted and approval to go onto the national monument site would be approved. We do not know yet whether the Minister will approve it.

Let me summarise because it is important for the committee to hear what I have to say. If the preservation order in the Moore Street area were diluted, the property could be sold on easier terms because the purchaser would not face the inherent difficulties associated with preservation or cultural responsibilities.

Mr. Éamonn Ceannt

Yes. I suspect it is very possible that part of the site could be sold on. Property developers in Ireland are not financially well endowed but we know international property developers are examining sites around Ireland. That is just speculation. It will make the State site available for whatever it is the developer wishes to do, supported by NAMA. Most important, if the site is sold on, NAMA will no longer be in the equation. We are waiting on the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, to make his decision. In many ways, however, that is only buying time. Even if he says one cannot move onto the national monument site or may only do so under certain conditions, this will not prevent the developer knocking down all the other buildings we have been talking about and most of the quadrant of O'Connell Street in question.

The difference between our current position and that of nine months ago is that NAMA is effectively controlling the financing of the site. The opportunity should be taken for discussions with NAMA. That is the difference between today and six or nine months ago. If the Minister gives his approval, at whatever level, that will not prevent the developer, in association with NAMA, irrespective of how that relationship is structured, from proceeding with the rest of the site. We believe this is an appropriate time to open up negotiations with NAMA.

When we spoke to NAMA representatives, we pointed out that we supposed, on foot of having gone through the risks in detail, that there are very significant risks associated with at least a portion of the site - the Moore Street terrace - that NAMA cannot control. In trying to fund the development, one must evaluate those risks; one is obliged to do so. NAMA is obliged to put together a register of risks associated with any development site, no more than any other public sector body is required to do under the Department of Finance's guidelines. There are many legal risks associated with the site. There is the potential procurement risk, bearing in mind the history of the site. The risks could become manifest if groups, but not the relatives' group, decide to take action to try to stop the development taking place.

NAMA, in conjunction with the developer, might be open to negotiation with the State. NAMA owns quite a lot of the cards in regard to financing the project. The State, however, is in a very good negotiating position because of the potential risks associated with the site. Waiting for the Minister's decision, irrespective of what that may be, is only buying time because it will not prevent most of the sites being demolished by the developer.

I thank the guests for their very detailed presentation. It has been very helpful. I have a couple of comments and questions. I believe there are three issues, which may be different from those identified by the Chairman. There is a considerable opportunity that we should not let pass. The area in question provides us with links to historical aspects associated with the emergence of the State. There is also the inherent cultural and educational aspect. In the current environment, there is considerable tourism potential associated with the entire development. I agree with the delegation on the retail situation. That Retail Excellence Ireland has contributed indicates that it does not regard the continued development of the suburban development as being viable or beneficial to the city centre. I have been absolutely amazed by the actions of Dublin City Council over the years in regard to the project. It is beyond me that it ever allowed planning permission for the development.

I am amazed and appalled that An Bord Pleanála allowed the project to proceed when one considers that it rejected plans for the national children's hospital not too far away on the basis of aesthetics, height and the effect on the skyline. In the case in question, we face the obliteration of the foundation of our State, yet An Bord Pleanála sat on its hands and allowed planning permission. It is beyond comprehension. Notwithstanding that, the developer, with a view to financial gain, has an asset that it is obviously not going to release too easily. The question the delegation is asking us concerns how the problem can be resolved and how one can proceed if the property developer, speculator, bank or NAMA holds the cards. The committee should enter into some discussion on this project to try to understand the current circumstances.

The joint committee must establish whether NAMA controls the site or is simply operating as the banker behind the developer. Thereafter, if one can get beyond this, the question will be how the site should be developed or how one puts in place the necessary resources to do this. The committee should rightfully pursue such questions and there is a significant role for it in putting together a report in this regard. While I understand the hesitancy of Ministers to engage with NAMA because the legislation is very direct and strong in respect of undue influence, it should not be beyond the Oireachtas to amend the NAMA legislation for something as important as this issue. However, that is a matter members should discuss as part of the committee's ongoing work in this regard. The delegates have set the fundamental questions for members who must now find the answers.

I propose the joint committee complete a short report on the issue and try to bring forward proposals for its resolution from members' perspective as legislators, rather than from the delegation's perspective. Members should ascertain what they can do legally by way of ending, if necessary, the NAMA legislation and then make proposals. They should consider options such as compulsory purchase orders and whether a way can be found to move beyond the current position. Moreover, if that can be done, the possibility of securing funding should be established, as one does not wish to kid anyone in this regard.

Mr. Patrick Cooney

For members' information, the compulsory purchase order on the site is still extant. Councillor Nial Ring who is with us today and a relative of GPO garrison members led the charge in the council chamber. Dublin city councillors have now asked the Minister to extend the national monument order to cover the entire terrace and laneways. That position has been reversed.

Mr. Éamonn Ceannt

Were the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, to give approval, things would move very fast. We were told three weeks ago that the decision would be made in approximately three weeks. It is pending. If it is to allow movement onto the national monument site, perhaps with conditions attached, matters could move very quickly as one would then have a site with planning permission and ministerial approval. While I do not criticise NAMA or any other groups involved because they all must fulfil the functions designated, the agency is obligated to get the best financial return. If selling the site quickly is one option being considered by it, the entire project will move beyond the joint committee's influence very quickly. Hence, a stalling mechanism must be put in place. I do not believe the Minister should make his decision until an independent assessment of the site has been carried out, as requested by the director of the National Museum of Ireland when asked by the Minister to be consulted on the development. That is the first point.

To help Mr. Ceannt and his colleagues, perhaps the joint committee might take this on as its first project. I propose that it write to the Minister to express the concerns raised by the delegation and seek a response to them. I understand the delegates' biggest concern is that the development will move-----

Mr. Éamonn Ceannt

Too fast.

----- to a point at which one will be beyond the point of no return.

Mr. Éamonn Ceannt

Second, I do not understand the reason, even without amending the existing NAMA legislation, the Office of Public Works cannot be asked to begin negotiations. As far as I am aware, the Department of Education and Skills has asked many third level bodies to negotiate with NAMA for sites that might be useful for school use. That could be done tomorrow.

Members could take note of that suggestion.

Mr. Éamonn Ceannt

Third, we were surprised at the valuation. While it was very informal, the site is being spoken about in terms of big money. That was the case in the past; it may not be as valuable now.

I thank the delegates for their presentation from which I have learned a great deal more about Moore Street. On behalf of the Sinn Féin Party, I offer our full support for this proposal. We have long argued for the creation of an historical 1916 revolutionary quarter in this part of the city, encompassing the GPO, Henry Street, Moore Street and surrounding areas. We must move on from the totally ill-conceived notion of developing a massive shopping centre which has no place in Moore Street. As noted, such centres are ten a penny. The Minister must take a position and run with it. He should come clean with relevant stakeholders, local businesses and traders, as well as the city council, the relatives of those involved in 1916 and landowners and hammer out a solution. The dereliction of this national monument is a disgrace and one wonders what state it will be in by 2016. Unless something is done, it will fall down. One could recoup one's investment ten times over through a tourism development. I agree with a great deal of Deputy Timmy Dooley's comments. Members must discuss this issue further to move it forward, with particular regard to the NAMA legislation to ascertain whether it can be amended.

Mr. Nial Ring

The joint committee should be aware that NAMA has given €250,000 to the developer to put in his application for the destruction of the national monument site. I personally wrote to both the chief executive and the chairman of NAMA. I checked the NAMA legislation and asked them where in that legislation was NAMA given the right to fund the destruction of a national monument. I have not yet received a reply.

I acknowledge the work done in Dublin City Council. In any motion I tabled in this regard Deputy Dessie Ellis, then a city councillor, was most supportive. Dublin City Council's official position is that the terrace in its entirety should be made a national monument.

I welcome the delegation, the presentation of which I found tremendously fascinating, interesting and engaging. My colleague, Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú, who, unfortunately, has been called away briefed Fianna Fáil members on this matter. We generally support what the delegation is trying to achieve and, as Deputy Timmy Dooley noted, the issue is how do we achieve that goal. Of the six fatalities that occurred on the day, two of those who died were from my own part of north County Kerry, one by the name of O'Rahilly and the other Patrick Shortis who was originally from Ballybunion. Therefore, it is not just a Dublin matter, rather it is of national importance and must be perceived as such.

There is a strong case to be made for initiating an inquiry of some form into the procedure used. While it gives me no joy to go back over it, I am absolutely shocked at how planning permission was given for such a development, part of which would be on the site of a national monument. To what extent was the issue debated at city council level? To what extent did the Department for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht have an input at the time? Did it have an input into the planning process or did it make its position known in this regard? Was the project rushed through during the Celtic tiger boom years?

I agree with Mr. Ceannt who has noted that the last thing one wants in the city of Dublin is another sterile and featureless retail development which may turn out to be useless. Another thing one does not wish for - I appreciate the delegation does not seek it either - is a sterile, dead museum in the city of Dublin where one retains buildings for the sake of having bricks and mortar. I am encouraged by Mr. Cooney's proposal that we give it a new, modern dimension to keep it alive. Certainly, the idea of pursuing a unique marketing endeavour is attractive and is the option that should be taken. There is a tradition dating back hundreds of years of having traders on Moore Street and who were present in 1916. As 2016 approaches, it will be a national disgrace unless this matter is resolved urgently.

The Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, a colleague of mine from County Kerry, should bring forward his views on this matter as a matter of urgency. While I agree that whatever he says will not be the be-all and end-all, they will be an important starting stone. It is incumbent on the joint committee henceforth to work with the group to seek closure. I appreciate the delegates' frustration because they have been involved in this issue for a long time and are to be commended, as they have a proud family heritage and are doing the State a service. From the perspective of tourism, culture and history, everything suggests the site should be retained as a vibrant part of living memory of the heroes of 1916. Whatever red tape must be got through, and obviously there is a share of it, we still have some control while NAMA is on the site.

The Deputy is covering ground that we have already covered.

I will finish now.

What I need to hear are questions and proposals.

The Chairman had a good innings himself.

I had indeed and that is why I am the Chairperson.

I wish to second the motion by my colleague, Deputy Dooley. We will have to put this matter on the agenda regularly until we get it sorted out.

Mr. Éamonn Ceannt

I am sorry to come in again but I wish to re-emphasise that things need to move very quickly. We need to prevent approval to move onto the national monument's site, at least until the proper assessments have been done. That will protect part of the site. The committee needs to call on an organ of the State, which is the OPW, to enter into immediate negotiations with NAMA and to put a stay on any possibility of that site being sold on until such time as the State has had an opportunity to assess whether it wants to be the purchaser. Otherwise things will move beyond the committee's control very quickly.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na finnéithe as ucht an méid atá ráite acu anseo inniu. I should declare an interest in that my grandchildren are the great, great, great grandchildren of Michael Collins. My son married Michael Collins's great, great grand-niece, so I have a family interest in this subject as well as a historical one. Now that I have grandchildren who are flag-bearers of Michael Collins, I have a renewed interest in the period. I compliment the group that is working on behalf of the State to ensure that this site is preserved. As regards what we can do about it, this is where the committee can play a part. As Mr. Ceannt said, speed is of the essence because much of it has been taken out of our hands. While I know that planning is not in the hands of councillors, I presume that if it had been, the councillors would have seen the light and refused it. It was not to be, however, but things have changed for the whole retail monetary situation. If the negotiations with NAMA have to be on a commercial basis and they are going to ignore the historical side of it, that is one element to start with.

The commercial reality of the tourism value of this site has not been explored. We should ensure that it should be put to the fore, particularly with the emphasis that is now being put on tourism by the Government. It was said that NAMA is charged with one responsibility and perhaps it should have been give a historical perspective also. Planning regulations have been laid down, so what would it cost us to put a compulsory purchase order on the site at this stage? Planning permission has been granted so the costs involved in any court case that would be taken will have to be considered by us also. What we would like to do and what we can do might be two different things, but hopefully we will be able to do something. We have taken on board Mr. Ceannt's view that speed is of the essence.

Mr. Patrick Cooney

Just a couple of things to round off my contribution. As regards Senator Keane's comments, Michael Collins was in Moore Street in 1916. Let us not forget that.

Mr. Patrick Cooney

As regards Senator Ned O'Sullivan's comments, four Kerrymen were killed on Moore Street - the O'Rahilly, Paddy Shortt, Pat O'Connor from Tralee, and Michael Mulvihill from Lixnaw. Kerry has a proud tradition on that street.

I would like to link up with Mr. Ceannt's risks. I am the public relations officer for "Save 16 Moore Street". I have been made aware of the fact that if common sense does not prevail and, in some way, the plan goes ahead to demolish the national monument and everything around it, there will be a group that will seek a judicial review. It is not something we want but it will happen. That is already in place, I have been told.

Could I have some clarification before bringing in Deputy Troy? The plan before us shows all the streets and laneways in their derelict state. It then shows the developer's plan, which is a big grey block. There are a number of existing rights of way. I would imagine that regardless of what development takes place, we all know as public representatives that it is quite difficult, if not impossible, to extinguish an existing right of way. Does Mr. Connolly Heron see a difficult there with the plan?

Mr. James Connolly Heron

There are conditions attached to the planning permission, one of which is the point raised by the Chairman. It is subject to approval being given on licences to close streets, etc. It is not quite correct to say that the developer has planning permission. He has conditional planning permission to which a number of conditions are attached. One of those is, as the Chairman has outlined, the closure of streets. The other one, which is more important and more immediate, is the Minister's consent because there is a national monument within the site. The simple solution to this dilemma is for the Minister to say "No, I do not grant consent to build in, on or under the national monument". The planning application would then fall. That is the simple solution. In other words, if the Oireachtas can echo the call made by Dublin City Council that the national monument protection must be extended to the entire terrace, that implies that one cannot build on the area of the national monument. Therefore, the present planning application has to go back to the drawing board and be revised. At that stage, the planners are bound by the policy of Dublin City Council which is to protect the terrace.

I thank the group for having made its presentation. The old saying has it that if we do not know where we come from, how do we know where we are going? It is critically important that, as we approach the centenary of 1916, we restore and protect this historic location. As previous speakers said, it would be a total disgrace to arrive at 2016 and have the site still lying in a bad, or even worse, state. A proposal has been made, which has been seconded by two members of the committee.

Yes. I have received the proposals and will wrap them up at the end of the meeting. Members will need to stay until the end of the meeting so that we can deal with them.

I appreciate that members have other commitments, including meetings to attend.

I will take all proposals at the end of the meeting.

Proposals have been made that we should write to the Minister, Deputy Deenihan. It is in his hands as to where this matter goes from here. We can kick it around all we like today, but the Minister has the ultimate say as to whether this plan proceeds. It is a valid and fair proposal to kick it to touch. The Minister should take on board what the director of the National Museum has requested and engage an independent assessment of the site. That would buy everybody some time in terms of how best to move this matter forward. Hopefully we will have all-party support to write to the Minister today seeking that that should be done without delay. It would give this committee an opportunity to work with the group and move the matter forward henceforth.

Mr. Patrick Cooney

Deputy Troy mentioned working with the committee and there is an Oireachtas centenary committee which is notable for the absence of any relatives of the 1916 leaders.

That point is noted.

Mr. Éamonn Ceannt

I am sorry to keep coming back to this, Chairman, but it is one thing to contact the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, and another to prevent this site from being flipped. We must also enter into immediate negotiations with the OPW to put a stay on anything like that.

There is a lady behind Mr. Cooney who is indicating. I do not have her name, so perhaps she can introduce herself before speaking please.

Ms Honor Ó Brolcháin

My name is Honor Ó Brolcháin. I had three Plunkett grand-uncles in Moore Street, so I am involved in the area. One can now walk in their footprints but under this plan one would be unable to do so. I thought the committee might take on something I regard as very serious concerning the whole development. The way this happened was that over the course of about 20 years, one developer and then another bought up properties, left them unoccupied to become virtually derelict and then created a single plan - not a number of individual buildings. This committee should begin to address legislation to prevent such a thing from happening again. A committee such as this should be beginning to address legislation which would prevent such a thing happening again. They should not have been able to leave properties neglected for so long and they should not have been able to consider a plan, which was one uniform plan, destroying the centre of a European city which contains 250 year old buildings.

Is Ms O'Brolchain a descendant of James Plunkett?

Ms Honor Ó Brolcháin

Joseph Plunkett, and George and Jack.

I call Deputy Ellis.

Ms Lucille Redmond

Chairman-----

I will give Ms Redmond plenty of opportunity to come in, but at this stage we, as a committee, need to know what we are doing as well.

Ms Lucille Redmond

My name is Lucille Redmond, granddaughter of Thomas MacDonagh and great-niece by marriage of Joe Plunkett. I only want to say to the committee that we have a choice here: a big plastic mall like the Dundrum shopping centre which will have Debenhams, Marks and Spencer, Ann Summers, Dixons and all of those shops that are repeated so commonly around the edges of the city; or a historic area, a small 1916 museum where people can explore their heritage and roots and argue over the meaning of 1916 and its meaning for them now, plus a retail area of natural shops that will spread up O'Connell Street and return that street to its proper place as the premier street of the city and of the country.

I call Deputy O'Donovan, then Deputy Ellis. I note Deputy Stanley is indicating also.

First, I thank those who made a presentation. Lest there be any confusion, there are not two parties in support here. I think all parties present are supportive.

Has Deputy O'Donovan a proposal?

There should not be any attempt to politicise this. All of us, as constitutional nationalists, can claim heritage from 1916 and any attempt by one group over another to claim ownership of it is not helpful.

On the issue at hand, the director of services of planning for Dublin City Council should be given an opportunity to come before the committee and explain, now that the planning has concluded, how this happened. It is shambolic. I remember bringing a school tour to O'Connell Street in Dublin from Limerick where I am from. For a street of such historical significance, regardless of what happened there in the struggle for Irish independence but even in terms of its architectural importance, layout and the way it was originally planned, it has been left in a scandalous condition by Dublin City Council, formerly Dublin Corporation. It has been turned into a glorified chipper with casinos and everything that one would not expect in a street of its importance or significance, and that is without even going into its side streets. The GPO itself is a beautiful building of considerable historical significance. When one goes up Henry Street, however, the left-hand side of it is another shopping mall and the building has been left, by An Post or whoever owns it, to be turned into something of a bazaar. One certainly would not see it in any other European city.

Reference was made in the document to Boston. I walked the Freedom Trail during the big dig in 1998 when they were putting the largest motorway network in the world under the streets of Boston, which is massively entertaining as well as historically significant.

I have a couple of questions. The Chairman raised the issue of the rights of way and it is important that the group would look at that. My understanding is that there are market rights. I come from a town in west Limerick where market rights were established fadó, fadó during the time when the local landlord would have given permission to the local people to sell local produce. I wonder whether the traders in Moore Street have established market rights and whether Dublin City Council is able to extinguish them without the consent of the elected Members.

Although my colleague, Senator Ned O'Sullivan has gone, the local authority members in Kerry County Council invoked a part of the Local Government Act on many occasions for a much different purpose, which was section 4 of the old Local Government Act and now section 140 of the Local Government Act 2001, which forced the manager to do something. I would ask why the councillors in Dublin City Council allowed planning permission to be granted without invoking section 140 of the Local Government Act 2001 before the manager signed off on the planning permission? This is not a Dublin issue. This is an Irish issue. I take great umbrage that something of such significance to me, my political roots and my heritage in this country is about to be destroyed, not to mention how the families must feel.

First, the delaying tactic is a good idea. However, the Dublin city manager and the Dublin city director of services for planning should be asked to come before the committee to explain why this planning permission was granted in the first place. We can blame An Bord Pleanála, and Deputy Dooley has enunciated it. An Bord Pleanála takes an á la carte approach to the building of a piece of national infrastructure such as the children’s hospital, and has delayed it for we do not know how long, yet it has allowed planning permission to wreck probably the most significant historical site in the country bar none. As somebody who does not have a family connection to it but whose political connection is steeped in it, I take grave offence at that. Everything we are and represent here in the Oireachtas through the flag was derived out of there. I want to know who allowed this to happen and ask whether they come before the committee to account for their actions.

Mr. Éamonn Ceannt

Earlier, Deputy O'Donovan mentioned that there may be groups which would make objections to what might develop. I emphasise that the families will not be one of those groups. We believe we stand here representing a certain tradition. On Deputy O'Donovan's other comments, we would not want to be seen to criticise either Dublin City Council members or Dublin city management. At the time this was conceived, major retail developments were certainly regarded as an opportunity. It was conceived in a different time.

Dublin city councillors are supportive of our view. I would not like to criticise them on the stance they took a number of years ago because I do not think they fully appreciated the extent of what was proposed but, more importantly, I do not think they fully appreciated the importance of the site, much of which we ourselves did not fully appreciate until we went through this journey as a group. Going back over what has happened, we need to take action to stop it going further.

I am not criticising the councillors. I am questioning why they did not make a decision that was available to them. Down the country and, indeed, in any other local authority, if one attempted to build a one-off house within even an ass's roar of a graveyard, wall or part of an old castle or something like that, one would meet archeologists, heritage groups, bird groups, An Taisce and a clatter of people all funded out of the public purse who would give a multitude of reasons one cannot do this, yet here we have the most historic site in the centre of Dublin about to be obliterated.

Mr. James Connolly Heron

On that point, and I appreciate what Mr. Ceannt said about us not wanting to rake over old coals because it is more important to see where we are today, it must be placed on the record that perhaps a reason councillors did not act as Deputy O'Donovan suggests they should have acted is that the city management had drawn up a contract with the developer unknown to the councillors at the time and the councillors then found themselves bound by the terms of that contact. Our information is that the councillors were then pressurised into succumbing to the application that was being made on the basis that if they did not, they could be made personally liable.

The manager should-----

Can I make one helpful intervention? With regard to whatever pursuance the committee decides on this issue, I would be reluctant to revisit the past unless something can be taken out of that and rescued. In this regard, there is a series of events that have taken place that have not been positive and I would not be of a mind to bring a group in to find out this was done. We need to look at this in the present and in terms of what actions can arrive out of it. I would be reluctant to bring any group in if the effect of that does not have an outcome that is in the present or in the future.

The custodian of these streets is Dublin City Council. We need to understand the mindset of those who granted this in the first place.

In the context of what Dublin City Council will do in the future, Deputy O'Donovan has an argument. In the context of going back over the past couple of years, however, there is no dividend in spending a great deal of time on something that has already sailed.

Mr. Colm MacGeehin

It might be helpful to know that while councillors might have sleep walked through much of the affair, they started to come to view the site two years ago and were all converted once the scales fell off their eyes. Everybody who walks on the street agrees it should be preserved. If any member of the committee has not yet been there, we invite him or her to take a tour. The biggest conversion happened when people began to read the history of the area. That is what we try to do in these presentations and the more who see it, the better.

I thank the relatives for their presentation. I have done the walk and spoken to several of them at various meetings, as well as Councillor Nial Ring. I come from a republican background - both of my grandfathers fought in 1916 in Boland's Mill and the College of Surgeons in Ireland. This area could be redeveloped as a cultural quarter. Moore Street has been ravaged during the years, but I am young enough to remember socialising in parts of it. O'Connell Street has also been ravaged by the loss of the Metropole, bad planning and bad decisions about the preservation of our heritage. I will not dwell on these decisions, but I am angry about many of them. Even in my own area of Finglas we lost Gofton Hall and other places.

What is the position of Tourism Ireland on the issue? Reference was made to the Department of Education and Skills, but the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport could also play a role in providing funding. We should also consider other Departments. The tourist trail is a fantastic idea in terms of what it could produce.

As I do not believe the redevelopment will proceed in the current economic climate, despite being given planning permission, we have an opportunity to make progress. We must concentrate on the Minister because his approach will be vital to the outcome of the matter. We must also determine NAMA's plans for the area. Councillor Ring made a comment about NAMA putting up money to benefit the developer. That practice has to be questioned and we must find out whether it is planning to break up and sell sections of the site if it is not viable as a whole. Time is running out to get to the bottom of that question. I would love to see a museum in place before 2016, as well as the preservation of the remaining parts of Moore Street and the market that was operating there when I was growing up. The late Tony Gregory and Christy Burke fought hard to keep it open, which was a battle in itself.

My party takes on board the wishes of the relatives and supports the campaign to save Moore Street. However, the key to the matter is determining the Minister's views and tackling NAMA.

Mr. Colm MacGeehin

In regard to tourism, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, has been invited to visit the area. His secretary has advised me in a telephone conversation that he has a keen interest in its tourism potential. Mr. Ceannt spoke about Kilmainham Gaol which faced demolition but is now Dublin's biggest tourist attraction, with an annual footfall of 400,000. If we had our battlefield site preserved as an historic quarter in the real centre of the city, it would become a massive tourist attraction.

The 1916 Rising had a significant international dimension. It happened in the middle of the Great War, a murderous quarrel between colonial powers. As the only anti-colonial war to be fought during that period, the rising had an enormous influence in former colonies throughout the world. Its anniversary in 2016 will be internationally significant. What would happen if visitors from former colonies came to see how run down and wrecked the place had become? When a group from Cuba visited the site last year, they thought it resembled the worst parts of Havana. The only reason these parts of Havana are in such a condition is Cuba cannot afford to reconstruct them. The visitors could not understand why the site was being allowed to fall into wrack and ruin. We hope the Minister will visit us shortly.

I agree with the Chairman that it is important to begin a discussion on the events of the 1913-16 period. It is great to hear commitments being expressed by all political parties. We have a unique opportunity to commemorate the significant role played in the area by the men and women of the Volunteers, the Citizens Army and the Hibernian Rifles. I met the relatives previously when I toured the site when I was appalled to see the state of the lanes and back streets, parts of which looked like a Third World slum. However, if there was a simple solution, we would not need this meeting to discuss the issue.

As a Member of the Oireachtas from the midlands, I am aware of the concerns expressed in my area about the matter. Deputy O'Donovan has noted that people throughout the country are concerned. I know of people in Belfast, Derry, Antrim and Armagh who are similarly concerned. Irish people throughout the 32 counties and overseas have expressed concerns. We need to focus on what we can do at this stage and this discussion has been useful in teasing out the options. The independent battlefield assessment is important and should be made a priority. The entire site needs to be covered by a preservation order because I understand only the middle of the terrace has been designated, despite the importance of the buildings towards the end of it.

I support the campaign to get the Oireachtas behind the project. We should also put pressure on the OPW to start negotiations on the value of the site. I oppose the proposed redevelopment of the area, even if it did not play host to the events of 1916. From an engineering and planning point of view, it is lunacy to tunnel down three floors below buildings in the middle of the capital city. We must, therefore, explore every available option to put a stay on the sale of the properties involved.

Planning permission is always accompanied by conditions. I was a member of Laois County Council until last year. The gentleman beside me, the former councillor, Deputy Ellis, would know more about the ins and outs of it with Dublin City Council. One requirement for rights of way is that all rights of way must be registered. While this might not apply to urban rights of way, as I understand it all rights of way must be registered by November of this year or they can become extinct. Legally there may be an issue there and we need to try to ensure that those rights of way are protected. The Chairman is correct that this does not belong to any party. We should get a proposal from the committee.

We had a proposal coming into the meeting. We will develop that at the end of the meeting.

In trying to develop that, is there merit in a delegation from this committee, relatives of the signatories of the 1916 Proclamation and representatives of the Save Moore Street Group seeking a meeting with the Minister for the Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Deenihan, and perhaps someone from Dublin City Council? Deputy O'Donovan said that for the time being this matter comes within Dublin City Council's functional area. I do not want to rake over old coals, but I want to find a way to put the brakes on any more destruction and move this forward. What is happening regarding a derelict sites notice for the area? It is in an appalling state. I used to walk through Moore Street regularly going to our meetings in Parnell Square. I deliberately used to go through Moore Street to buy fruit and also to have a look around. I am absolutely appalled at the state of it. If it was in a street in County Laois, I would be on to the county manager to have it declared a derelict site and have a levy applied to the developer and owners of the site because it is in an awful state.

To move this forward we should try to get the key people together. I thank the witnesses for their work - they have been the engine behind this. This committee, the witnesses present and a very small group of interested parties could get together to stop any more damage, rescue the situation and move it along dealing with those four or five key steps.

Mr. Éamonn Ceannt

If the Minister for the Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Deenihan, refuses we go back to square one, but if he agrees in any sort of conditional way, we must prevent this being flipped because once NAMA is out of the equation we will lose all leverage.

Mr. Patrick Cooney

I personally think such a meeting would be very useful. The Dublin City Council management and planning department are still very supportive of Chartered Land's development. It would do no harm if nothing else than to inform them of the power of our lobby and the fact that we have many groups including this committee supporting our view.

I have one more question. It goes back to the downzoning and dezoning and an amendment of the development plan. Is there any way in legislation that that could be brought in because the rules were changed a few years ago on downzoning and the compensation element?

Before the committee considers what we should do on the motion, we need to be cognisant of the competencies of the committee. I am very conscious that we should not engage in processes that will take up much time without any dividend. In my discussions with the witnesses before us this morning I was very conscious that we needed to decide on a deliberate course of action arising from that. Those actions have been indicated by Deputies Dooley, McLennan and others. We can add to this proposal.

I propose that the committee writes to the Ministers for the Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, and the Environment, Community and Local Government, and to the Office of Public Works supporting the three requests made by the relatives of the seven signatories of the 1916 Proclamation. The letter will state that those relatives request the preservation of the properties in the area of Moore Street, Dublin, which are of historical relevance to the 1916 Rising and that it is their understanding that this site, referred to as the Dublin Central Carlton-Moore Street site, is under the control of NAMA. They want the Oireachtas to honour its undertaking under preservation order No. 1 of 2007 to protect and preserve this national monument at 14 to 17 Moore Street in its entirety as designated and in compliance with the principles contained in the Venice Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites. They want an independent battlefield site assessment of the GPO-Moore Street area to be commissioned by the State. They want the 1916 Moore Street terrace and the buildings, streets and laneways linked to the 1916 Rising protected and preserved to comprise a 1916 cultural and historical quarter. That is the request the committee will send.

In addition, Deputy Stanley has added that members of this committee along with the witnesses should seek a meeting to discuss the correspondence with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Deenihan. We should also pursue that line.

I also propose that these requests should be forwarded to the relevant Ministers. On the conclusion of this meeting I propose the committee would issue a statement supporting the objectives of the Moore Street campaigners and highlighting the importance of saving such monuments, particularly as the centenary of the 1916 Rising is fast approaching.

I wish to clarify what I said previously. At the time only two other people had spoken in favour of it. I am not trying to make it political at all. Can we include a request that the Minister should refrain from making any decision on the approval of going on to the site pending an independent battlefield site assessment. The critical part is to ask him to refrain from making a decision pending-----

The critical part here is section 14. It is not even NAMA. We must tie down the status of section 14 at the moment.

Mr. James Connolly Heron

I have some information on that point. The Minister has to consult with the director. It is our understanding from our meetings with the last director that he would not be in a position to consult without an independent battlefield assessment. The previous director has now retired and has been replaced by an acting director which may also cause a difficulty because under the legislation it is the director who consults and not an acting director. Be that as it may, either the acting director or the director will be consulted. From our last meeting with the director of the National Museum, it is our understanding that he was not in a position and would not be in a position to consult with the Minister unless he had before him an independent assessment.

Further to Deputy Stanley's request, might it be an idea to invite the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Deenihan, to appear before the committee? Rather than seeking a meeting we could ask him to appear before the committee and discuss the issue with us.

I have one concern. While we could have him appear before the committee and it might be the right thing to do, it is very formal. I would prefer to have a meeting where we knock heads together. It is nearly a year since we went to the site with the witnesses. I am concerned that as time slips by we might miss an opportunity. Ireland's difficulty might also be Ireland's opportunity. As property prices are so low and because we have too much retail space at the moment, there is an opportunity. We are also approaching the centenary of the 1913 to 1916 period. Many good things are coming together.

I want to deal with the proposals now.

If we can thrash out the way forward in this room, I would be all for it. However, I feel that a meeting with the Minister and senior representatives of Dublin City Council first might be a better suggestion on how to proceed. Along with the three measures we should also include alternative proposals. It would mean agreeing to a more sensible, sane and rational way forward. This needs to be pegged in somewhere as a demand.

Mr. Éamonn Ceannt

If committee members were in NAMA's shoes what would they do to try to sell the site as fast as possible? International property companies would take a much longer view than domestic companies with regard to buying the site. Once it is sold the leverage is lost. NAMA would walk away from the problem and move on. At present it is involved and this must be used.

I wish to ask the witnesses one question as a group. What is the single most important action they want taken? Is it on the section 14 decision?

Mr. James Connolly Heron

Yes. It is with regard to refusal to consent to the present application to demolish the monument.

If we request a meeting with the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, it will be on the single point issue agenda of section 14. We can open up from this but I need to be clear as to why we would request the meeting.

Mr. James Connolly Heron

The original designation of the preservation order mandates the Minister to preserve the monument. This order was adopted by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Members of the Oireachtas are perfectly entitled to ask the Minister what is happening with regard to the undertaking he gave under the 2007 order to preserve the national monument.

I need a context and agenda for the meeting. The priority issue for the witnesses is to ensure the issue with regard to section 14 is held. Our mission in meeting the Minister is to discuss this issue with him and express strongly to him the views of the committee following this meeting. We also have the other issues. The clerk must write this in simple English which is an entirely different job. I want to summarise where we are at because I will bring the meeting to a conclusion shortly.

I want to discuss the national monument element of this. In Limerick and Kildare cases arose where councillors sought to downsize and the reason they lost those cases was because they could not provide reasons for the initial decision they made. We must consider the decisions made by the members of Dublin City Council in the development plan when the site was being rezoned.

Please Senator, no.

But it is open to the-----

Senator-----

I am putting it back in the field of Dublin City Council. It is open to councillors now to table-----

Senator please.

-----amendments.

Please Senator.

You do not want a way out.

I will not visit ground that will not yield fruit.

I propose a new methodology whereby the new members of Dublin City Council could table an amendment to the development plan-----

They have done so.

Mr. James Connolly Heron

Senator Keane is in the right territory.

Mr. James Connolly Heron

Dublin City Council still retains ownership of two buildings on the terrace.

It does, exactly.

Mr. James Connolly Heron

All it needs to do is state they will not be sold to any developer who plans to demolish the terrace.

Mr. James Connolly Heron

Senator Keane is dead right.

Put a proposal-----

Mr. James Connolly Heron

The council still has a crucial role to play.

The committee should table a proposal to Dublin City Council.

I need the clerk to move with us. Much is being said and I need the clerk to be able to move at the same speed as us. The committee will write to Dublin City Council to ask it to-----

Mr. James Connolly Heron

To refuse to dispose of any property to a developer who plans to demolish the terrace.

According to the competency of this committee we can only request this.

Mr. James Connolly Heron

Yes, I understand.

We are speaking about bringing the Minister before the committee and writing to him about this. The Minister states he is independent of NAMA. Would there be any harm in us writing to NAMA outlining our concerns? We could at least put our position on the record with NAMA. It would be very good as it might pull back the horns a bit with regard to moving forward if we were to send a very strong message.

I am trying to sequence and prioritise our actions.

I am speaking about the immediate threats.

The immediate issue is the one on the desk of the Minister, Deputy Deenihan. Whatever opinion we express to NAMA is of secondary importance. If the Minister makes a call it will become a real NAMA issue. From what I understand, how the Minister falls on this issue sets the context for NAMA to move or not.

It is that space I am worried about.

I am very conscious we will meet three times this week and I will not be crisis driven or bounced into prioritising one thing over another where I have to make it up as I go in the door. The meeting with the Minister will be very important. It must be a single issue meeting and the issue must be section 14. I propose a representative group of this committee and representatives of the group before us seek a meeting with the Minister to discuss one item, namely, section 14. Other matters may arise but we will discuss section 14. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We will also work on the motion I read earlier with regard to the three points of action. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Éamonn Ceannt

Can it be proposed that negotiations begin between the OPW and NAMA because things could move very fast?

We will inform the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, and the Office of Public Works. The first thing we need to do to get a specific action from the meeting is to organise the meeting with the Minister, Deputy Deenihan. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.10 p.m. until 2.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 27 March 2012.
Barr
Roinn