Vol. 83 No. 4
On the adjournment, Senator Mary Robinson gave notice of raising the following matter:
The decision by the Minister for Local Government to permit the demolition of Bord na Móna former headquarters at 28-32 Pembroke Street, Dublin, thereby overruling the refusal by Dublin Corporation to grant such permission.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter in the Seanad and to afford the Minister an opportunity of justifying his decision on the record of this House. I have also had a request from two of my colleagues, Senator Alexis FitzGerald and Senator Eoin Ryan, to contribute briefly, so I shall be confining my remarks to well within the allotted time.
The decision of the Minister last March to overrule the refusal by Dublin Corporation to allow demolition of the Georgian former headquarters of Bord na Móna at 28-32 Pembroke Street was one of the worst planning decisions ever made in relation to the city of Dublin. I say this for three basic reasons. Firstly, this is the first legally authorised demolition of a List B building, the list of buildings identified for preservation in the Dublin development plan of 1971. Secondly, the Minister refused a request by one of the objectors for an oral hearing, so that there was no public inquiry prior to his reversal of the refusal by Dublin Corporation to grant permission for the demolition. Thirdly, the decision totally contravenes the city plan in allowing a massive office development on such an unsuitable site. What is the wisdom of permitting an office development of such density, comprising six storeys in front and seven storeys behind, opening on to the smallest square in the city centre, with very poor approaches to it?
I propose to develop these three points briefly. Taking the first point, that this decision relates to a List B building, it is necessary to go briefly into the relevant chronological background. In 1971 the Dublin development plan was published in which there was a List A of buildings to be safeguarded if possible, and a List B, of buildings to be fully protected, to be the hard core of the centre of the city of Dublin which would be protected at all costs. This list refers to specific buildings like Marsh's Library, St. Patrick's Cathedral, Tailor's Hall, and it also refers on page 32 of the report to houses in particular streets. In Upper Pembroke Street the particular houses listed are Nos. 28 to 32, which are the subject of this planning decision.
On 26th July, 1972, Bord na Móna applied to the planning department of Dublin Corporation for planning permission for the erection of a three-storey office extension and sanitary block at the rere of Nos. 28 to 32 Upper Pembroke Street. The corporation in an order dated 22nd September, 1972, decided to refuse permission for this development. One of the reasons given was that the proposed development contravened the plot ratio provisions of the Dublin development plan. An appeal was made against this decision to the Minister for Local Government, and the Minister by order dated 14th March, 1973, granted the permission. That was the first occasion on which the Minister overruled the decision of the planning authority. However, Bord na Móna did not proceed with this particular plan. Instead, they made a further application for planning permission on 31st May, 1974, this time for the erection of new Bord na Móna headquarters with six storeys at the front and seven at the rere, and a facade identical with the existing facade at Nos. 28 to 32 Upper Pembroke Street. The corporation again, by order dated 26th July, 1974, decided to refuse permission. I should like to quote from the reasons given by the corporation for refusing permission:
(1) The buildings concerned in this proposal are listed in List B of buildings, the preservation of which is an objective of the Dublin Development Plan, 1971. These buildings are understood to be in good condition and well-maintained. Accordingly, it is considered contrary to the proper planning and development of the area and to the stated preservation policy of the Dublin Development Plan, 1971, to demolish and rebuild these buildings even if partly in facsimile; the integrity and originality of the buildings would be destroyed with consequent injury to the value and amenity of the Georgian streetscape in this location; the rear elevational treatment would, likewise, be out of character and scale.
(2) The proposal is at variance with the permission granted on appeal by the Minister for Local Government, which allows an equivalent office provision to be made while at the same time not involving the demolition of buildings scheduled for preservation in the interests of the proper planning and development of the area.
This decision was appealed by Bord na Móna to the Minister for Local Government and the Minister, by order dated 19th March, 1975, granted the permission. So for the second time— and it is this second decision which is the subject of the motion today— the Minister overruled the decision of Dublin Corporation.
That is the first point—the historical background relating to the first legal authorisation of the demolition of List B houses.
The second point relates to the method of decision, and I think that this is a further aggravating factor. When an appeal was lodged in 1974 by Bord na Móna against the refusal of the planning department of Dublin Corporation a formal request for an oral hearing was made by the Dublin Civic Group to the Minister. I should like to quote briefly from the letter dated 25th September, 1974, written to the Minister for Local Government, stating that the Dublin Civic Group wished to have an oral hearing and that their objections were as follows:
This proposal would involve the demolition of those houses and their replacement by a facsimile facade. We view with concern the growing tendency of seeking planning permission for facades as one of the gravest challenges to the integrity and character of the remaining 18th century streets and squares of the city.
This formal request was acknowledged in a letter from the Department dated 8th October, 1974. It is a standard form letter, which says that "the matter is receiving attention". In fact, no public inquiry was held; no further communication was received, and the Minister announced his decision last March reversing the refusal of Dublin Corporation.
Given the extreme importance from the planning point of view of this decision, it is extraordinary that the rules of natural justice were not complied with, and that a formal objector was not given an opportunity of stating the objections; that there was not a public inquiry to allow public airing of views. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that in my view there may be certain legal implications in this. This is not the place to state whether this decision would be open to challenge on the grounds that it contravenes the rules of natural justice.
It is very hard to understand the reasons which the Minister gives in support of his decision—that the houses were in such bad repair and that there would be too high a cost in maintaining them. How do we know this? In 1974 the Dublin Corporation said that the houses were well-maintained and well preserved. In 1972, when the original application was made, Bord na Móna made no reference to the houses being in bad repair and they applied for planning permission to build an extension. There was no evidence, no inquiry, and therefore no proof that the houses were in such bad repair that exception would have to be made to their status as List B buildings and that they could be demolished. I think the Minister has a very real burden to justify himself.
The third major objection to the decision is less concerned with aesthetic qualities and conservation issues than it is with land use planning. Permission to erect such a large office block on that very constricted site goes quite against the site plot ratio provisions of the city plan. This was clear from the first refusal by Dublin Corporation in 1972. It is contrary to the character of the area and it will create severe traffic and congestion problems. It is sad that this sort of activity is to be carried on under the aegis of a State-sponsored body, and this is a very relevant factor in criticising the circumstances and implications of this decision.
I am glad to say that the Minister has come in for a storm of criticism in relation to this decision. His action has been condemned by a special meeting of the Dublin City Council held on 22nd September, 1975. I should like to quote from the motion carried in the Dublin City Council. It says:
This council deplores the decision of the Minister for Local Government in overruling the Corporation and allowing Bord na Móna to demolish 28 to 32 Upper Pembroke Street.
It has been condemned by the whole body of conservation opinion, by An Taisce, the Dublin Civic Group, the Living City Group and the Architectural Association of Ireland; by the Planning Committee and Cultural Committee of Dublin Council and by the European Architectural Heritage Committee of the Council. I should like to quote briefly from the press release of the conservation bodies where they point out:
The attitude of the corporation to this application has been quite clear. It was refused. The refusal was supported not just by the Planning Department but by the Planning Committee, by the Council and by the Corporation's EAHY Advisory Committee. This is a major issue. The combined weight of all the city's institutions is found to be inadequate to save the 1 per cent of the city's buildings identified by An Taisce in 1967 and adopted by the corporation as its preservation objective.
Most significantly of all, the official body of the architects of Ireland, the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland, have come out publicly against this decision. The Minister himself will acknowledge that this is a rare occurrence. In a press statement dated 3rd December, 1975, the institute stated as follows:
The council considers the corporation's decision to have been a logical and proper implementation of the intentions of the development plan in respect of conservation and would wish to see a solution which would ensure that the buildings and the streetscape be retained as a matter of civic, national and European importance. The Declaration of Amsterdam, to which the Minister for Local Government subscribed, places the Government in the capacity of guardian of our architectural heritage for the whole of Europe and not just Ireland.
It may be said that this decision exposes the hypocrisy of all the glowing statements which have emanated from the European Architectural Heritage Committee and from the Minister as our representative in Amsterdam when signing the public declaration of conservation values in Amsterdam. Therefore it is incumbent on the Minister to put on the record of this House whatever reasons he may have had for this decision which has evoked such public criticism.
I now make way for my colleagues who wish to contribute to the debate and I await with interest the Minister's reply.
I take the position that the Minister's function is spent in regard to this particular property. I appeal in the strongest possible way to the directors of Bord na Móna to refrain from exercising the liberty they have been given before they make a thorough examination of the economics of their own decision and before they have a thorough examination again of the possibility of the preservation of this property. I do this because what has been the source of unconscious, sometimes joy to generations of people, what is the work of Irish skill much more than of the patrons who employ them, can be so easily, so irrevocably destroyed.
We are not talking here about the preservation of something alien. This is less alien than the religion professed by most of the people of this country which is semitic, what Disraeli called Christendom, the intellectual colony of Arabia. We are that. It is less alien than the common law which is applied in our courts daily which we are so glad to have and which was discovered in the journeys of the Norman judges around the parts of England where they wanted to find the customs. This is the work of Irish craftsmen which is in accordance with the European urban architecture of the 18th century. If Pembroke Street, as a result of Bord na Móna's decision, goes today, does Fitzwilliam Square follow tomorrow?
I know nothing about these houses. I know nothing about the ability to preserve them. I recognise that there are cases where this ability is gone because of past user and where we may have to be satisfied with the poor substitute of a facade which is serving merely as a link to preserve a vista. But in this case it is open to this public body to recognise the great public feeling there is about it and of the irrevocable damage they may do if they proceed with the decision which is open to them to take.
I should like to support this motion and to ask the Minister or the directors of Bord na Móna to have second thoughts about this decision. There have been many conflicting views in recent years about planning, about preservation of the city, but there has been almost universal agreement that certain areas, certain buildings, should be preserved. It has been generally agreed that if any of these buildings goes, if any of these areas is interfered with, or if any excuse or reason is accepted for beginning to interfere with these buildings or these areas, then there is no hope for the preservation of the essential atmosphere and attractions of the city.
Five or six years ago there was not a great deal of public opinion in support of the kind of preservation we are talking about, but gradually public opinion has supported preservation and this kind of planning. In these circumstances, it is extraordinary that at this stage the Government and the State bodies should be involved in this kind of situation. One would have expected that the Minister and the State body concerned would have been giving the lead in the preservation of these essential areas. It is extraordinary, as I say, that Bord na Móna should be flouting public opinion, and I would appeal to them and to the Minister to reconsider this decision, which in itself is a very serious one, but which, more important, may be a precedent for many more similar decisions for reasons that, on the face of them, may appear to be good ones but certainly in the long run will do immense damage to the city of Dublin.
The difficulty in dealing with conservation issues is that their complexity is often misunderstood and legal and financial aspects are ignored. I am not saving that that is necessarily Senator Robinson's approach, but I am simply pointing out that there is a tendency when controversy arises to seize on an emotional aspect and forget other practical and important factors. Senator Alexis FitzGerald was honest enough to say that he did not know anything about the buildings concerned, the structural condition of them, or anything else. It is a pity that others who make comments about them do not also make the same confession. I am perfectly satisfied that most of the people who talk so loudly about conservation simply read something in the evening papers and, as there is a band wagon to be climbed on, they then climb on the bandwagon. Despite what Senator Robinson has said, she does not appear to have researched this too well because she does not appear to be aware that there were two Ministers involved, and that my predecessor on a very important day, the 13th March, 1973, signed the permission for office block development for Bord na Móna which, if put into operation, would cover a larger ratio of the site than the combination of the existing building and the extension granted. Nobody at that time objected to this decision, not Dublin Corporation, not the Dublin Civic Group, not Senator Robinson, not anybody. It was done by another Minister so it must have been all right.
It did not allow demolition.
I did not interrupt Senator Robinson. I would be grateful if she did not interrupt me. I suppose one can regard this as welcome evidence of genuine public interest in the preservation of our architectural heritage which I hope has been developed as a result of our activities during European Architectural Heritage Year. The rather cheap sneer which Senator Robinson directed towards me in regard to my function during Architectural Heritage Year because I did not do very much during European Architectural Heritage Year was not warranted. I did what I could. I was chairman of the national committee. I had excellent people working with me on the national committee. I assisted in every way I could. It appears that the people who have been talking now about preserving the architecture never did a damn thing in their lives, if Senator Robinson would excuse me, to preserve anything like this. But it is nice to be on the side of the angels. It is nice to be able to condemn when everybody else or a certain group of people are condemning, when the newspapers are full of letters usually written by the same people. I do not know why the newspapers publish them but they do. This seems to be the perfect answer to everything; do not do anything yourself but tell others how to do it and then you are a great conservationist.
It is not possible for me in the time available to go into these issues as fully as I would like to but perhaps it is pertinent to ask what degree of conservation do we want for Georgian Dublin. Do those who talk about the integrity and character of 18th century streets and squares ever feel that it is a bit inconsistent not to recognise the inevitability of change? The horse and carriage have disappeared from those streets, so too have the social conditions which produced such a house for occupancy by a single wealthy family in a state made possible by the efforts of hosts of lowly-paid workers and servants. I take it that nobody wants to return to that kind of conditions. I certainly do not. Some people have even suggested that it might be possible for somebody, not themselves, but somebody, some unnamed person, to buy those buildings and restore them as dwellings. This would be lovely. We go back 200 years and get servants for £1 a year who will do the usual work which they had to do, and this will be grand. But I am afraid that when we ask that somebody should pay some of the money which they themselves have to do this type of work, conserving these things, then it is just not "on". They do not want to be involved in that kind of thing.
It follows that if the function of the buildings has changed, they must be adopted to new uses unless we want to preserve them as museum pieces. Dublin Corporation have power under the 1963 Planning Act to acquire a building in order to preserve it as such a museum piece, but they have shown little desire to do that. I think it only fair to point out that there are many other demands on their resources, and I doubt if there would be general public support for any large-scale diversion of funds for such purposes when there is such pressing need to rehouse as many people as possible and to provide the services and facilities which are essential for a growing population. Other uses for those buildings are possible but they all involve change of some kind. This, I think, is very important: if we examine the Dublin development plan we find that while it is an objective to secure the preservation of buildings listed on List B paragraph 3 (11), accepts that:
The extent of conservation which is likely to be practicable must be limited by the degree of public and private support for such a programme and must not absorb such a proportion of the resources of the planning authority as would be likely to prejudice other essential objectives.
Paragraph 3 (13) recognises:
Works which affect the interior of the building or which do not materially affect its external appearance so as to render such appearance inconsistent with the character-of the structure or of neighbouring structures may be undertaken with planning permission.
Obviously those who have spoken, many people indeed who have taken up radio time and newspaper space, are not aware of this. They read the pieces they want to out of the Dublin report, but they do not want to read or they do not want to repeat those which do not appear to side with what they want to do. Again it is relevant that, while certain changes are envisaged in the Planning Bill, as the law stands at present permission is not required for internal alterations within an existing building. It is impossible therefore under existing law to require the preservation of "the integrity of buildings", as some groups understand it.
The Bord na Móna premises are used as offices and have for 30 years been occupied for that purpose. On what basis can it be suggested with any realism that they should now revert to the original residential use? As they are, they are not really suitable to meet modern requirements for either use and have now reached the stage where structural and other defects necessitate costly and extensive repairs. May I say that the Bord na Móna offices were examined by competent structural experts and were found to be entirely unsuitable for repair of any kind. Indeed, I would like here—because it is the only opportunity I shall get—to refute a statement made on the radio that the facade of the building is being demolished completely. Nothing could be further from the truth. In addition to the planning conditions Bord na Móna have undertaken to retain the facade up to first-floor level. In addition to that, the arrangements being made, which I will repeat in a minute, with your permission, Sir, show that an effort will be made to try to have the remainder of the facade restored as far as possible to what it looked like originally.
Some credit must be given to Bord na Móna for the fact that they were anxious to preserve the existing buildings and that their original proposal was for an extension at the rear. This would not have eliminated defects in the existing building and when further investigations disclosed the seriousness of their present condition, the board decided to apply for permission to construct a new building with a facade identical to that existing and reusing the present doors, fanlights, balconies, stone cornices, steps and so on.
In refusing permission, the planning authority did so primarily because the buildings were on List B and were "understood to be in good condition". I am sure that if the planning authority had investigated this matter as fully as their development plan envisaged they would have had to modify their understanding. The plan stated the intention of the planning authority to provide guidance for reconstruction, restoration and preservation on the basis of detailed studies. In particular these studies were to include (a) consideration of the quality and state of repair of buildings and (b) estimates of the cost of repair and alteration likely to give a reasonably economic return. So far as I know the planning authority have not carried out such studies, either generally or in relation to this particular case. They have problems of pressure of work, but it meant that it was left to me on appeal to have this fully investigated, and this was done.
Why did the Minister not hold a public inquiry?
The question of a public inquiry has been raised by Senator Robinson. Indeed, it is rather peculiar that the inquiry was asked for by one of the bodies, the only body that objected. A number of others have become very vocal since and, in fact, have written to me condemning my decision, but they did not think it worth their while to give any evidence or write in any evidence and, as a matter of fact, they could not care less until they found the bandwagon outside their door and then they climbed on to it.
The other main reason for refusal cited by the corporation was that the integrity and originality of the buildings would be destroyed. I think I have dealt with this point sufficiently to indicate the inconsistency of the corporation's stated reason with the legal position and the development plan. Indeed, the corporation could have reversed my decision if they so wished, but they did not do so.
Of the many bodies and individuals who are now raising criticism of my decision only one group made representations during the appeal, and I considered their views very carefully and in particular the claim that permission in this case will establish a precedent. I appreciate that other developments may claim that a precedent has been created for demolition of houses on List B, but this is a misunderstanding of the position. Each case must continue to be dealt with on its own merits. This is entirely consistent with the terms of the development plan.
When Bord na Móna made their appeal they expressed their concern to maintain the integrity of the streetscape and to minimise the new elements in the facade. Much of the existing brickwork had already deteriorated and been refaced. They were prepared to use the type of brick best suited for replacement of the existing brickwork and to erect sample test panels before reconstruction commenced. They were even prepared to reproduce as far as possible the method of mortar jointing employed by 18th century bricklayers. Subsequently they undertook to retain the existing facade up to first floor level. Accordingly, I consider that the board have demonstrated real concern to find the best solution possible.
In my statement of the 18th November, I gave additional information regarding the reasons for my detion regarding the reasons for my decision. I do not propose to go into the matter further at this stage. I freely admit that there can be a genuine difference of opinion as to how reconstruction with a replica of the existing facade may turn out, but I believe that the Bord na Móna proposal is likely to give the best result in the long run. To refuse permission might have created a change for a few years but could only result in further deterioration, especially if the buildings became vacant for any length of time. Minor repairs would only put off the decision and the final result might be a much less acceptable solution. If we want to see what happens with buildings that are left unoccupied, we have only got to go to Mountjoy Square which I pass every day and which is a disgrace to any capital city and indeed no noise or no protest of any kind appears to have been made by the people who are shouting so much about this one.
One of the dangers in speaking on a particular case, and in a necessarily limited way, is that one can be quoted out of context. I want to make it clear that my decision in this particular case, taken on the facts of that case, is in no way inconsistent with my policy —and in respect of which I have given practical indication of my intent in favour of revitalising the central urban area. I am shocked at the fact that the only Minister for Local Government in many, many years who had made any effort to make the centre of Dublin a living city again is the one that received the attack from people who as far as I can see do not appear to be prepared to do very much themselves or do anything about it. Rundown areas in our cities must be improved, housing improvements being accompanied as far as possible by environmental improvements. But the solution in any particular case depends on the circumstances of that case. Therefore I think that, having fully considered and having got expert advice on this particular case, the decision which I gave was the only reasonable decision which any reasonable man or woman could give and I am surprised that so much is being made of it by people who I thought would have a better understanding of a matter of this kind.
The Seanad adjourned at 10.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday 11th December, 1975.
