Peadar Tóibín
Ceist:20. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht if preservation orders will be issued for 1916 buildings (details supplied). [20438/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraWednesday, 9 May 2018
Ceisteanna (20)
Freagraí ó Béal (8 píosaí cainte)
According to the national monuments legislation, a national monument is a national monument regardless of whether a Minister states it to be so. Therefore, the GPO is a national monument. It has never been officially declared one but, if it came under threat, it would be the moral and legal duty of the Minister to issue a preservation order to protect it. Her Department has stated clearly and officially that the Moore Street battlefield site is a national monument, yet she has refused to date to identify a large number of buildings in that space as comprising a national monument and to issue a preservation order. Is the Minister not derelict in her duty regarding these buildings, given that they are under pressure owing to a very large planning permission application, if she does not issue a preservation order?
I thank the Deputy for his question. Under section 8 of the National Monuments Act 1930, as amended, a preservation order may be made where it appears to the Minister that a monument, which in the Minister's opinion is a national monument, "is in danger of being or is actually being destroyed, injured or removed or is falling into decay through neglect". Apart from any question of whether each and every building referred to by the Deputy would appropriately be regarded as a national monument, I am not advised that they are subject to any immediate threat. On the contrary, as the Deputy is aware from his membership of the Moore Street advisory forum, the owner is advancing plans to preserve and conserve many of these buildings, and in particular those with a direct connection to the events of Easter Week 1916. Consequently, the conditions do not exist in which the making of a preservation order would be warranted in any event.
As the Deputy knows, Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street comprise a national monument owned by the State. It forms a unique and coherent streetscape of substantially intact mid-18th-century structures. Collectively, Nos. 14 to 17 represent the most significant, original, complete, discrete and continuous section of substantially intact pre-1916 buildings on the street, most of the remainder being post-1916 buildings. Today all of these houses retain significant 18th-century elements, including staircases, partitions, plasterwork, doors, floors, fittings and fixtures.
The 18th-century building form and profiles also survive. More important, so too does the physical evidence of the presence of the insurgents in the form of the openings broken through party walls as they made their way up the street. The Deputy has been privileged to see these at first hand.
By contrast, I note that No. 25 Moore Street, in respect of which the Deputy's question is seeking to have a preservation order made on grounds that it is a 1916 building, was actually constructed entirely anew from the ground up in the mid-1990s as a dedicated facility for Dublin City Council's street-cleansing operations.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
As a member of the Moore Street advisory group, and as noted earlier, the Deputy is aware of the meeting some weeks ago where agreement was reached on the modalities of engagement between the owners of the Moore Street development site and the advisory group to secure a way forward for the revitalisation of the area in a manner that will recognise the views of all stakeholders and reflect its historical and cultural significance and its employment and economic value to the north inner city - and all in a manner consonant with the recommendations of the previous Moore Street consultative group's work "The Moore Street Report - Securing History".
The Deputy will recall that the key recommendation of this report was the establishment of the Moore Street advisory group, of which he is a member and which has the task of devising an agreed plan among the key stakeholders that will take account of the needs of the area in a way that also respects and acknowledges its importance in the context of the 1916 Rising and ultimately the foundation of the State. Fundamental to this objective is the dialogue that is now taking place with the owners of the site that extends from Moore Street to the Carlton cinema on O'Connell Street.
I was very pleased to hear from the chairperson of the advisory group of the constructive engagement between group, including the Deputy, and the owners. I believe that this is the appropriate way in which to address the issues relating to the site and its wider environs. I am pleased that a foundation and framework has now been laid for positive and fruitful co-operation, dialogue and interaction between all the key interests in Moore Street under the aegis of the Moore Street advisory group. I encourage the Deputy again to continue to engage and contribute to that process through his membership of the group, which I believe is best placed to deliver a satisfactory outcome for all stakeholders.
The O'Brien's Mineral Water Works building, Henry Place, was occupied and held by the Volunteers evacuating the GPO. The White Cottage, Henry Place, was occupied and held under fire by Michael Collins. The Bottling Stores, Moore Street, were occupied and held by Captain Frank Henderson, and were the location of the killing of Michael Mulvihill and Henry Coyle. No. 10 Moore Street was the point of entry to the terrace, the leaders' refuge, the location of the field hospital set up by Nurse Elizabeth O'Farrell and Julia Grenan, and the location of the killing of Paddy Shortis. Nos. 20 and 21 were the location of the acceptance by the Volunteers of the surrender order after consultation with Clarke, Plunkett, Collins and Mac Diarmada. No. 25 Moore Street was the location of the killing of The O'Rahilly, Charles Corrigan and Francis Macken.
Does a live planning application that details the destruction of buildings and streets not constitute a danger? It is a planning application that could be proceeded with at any time. The buildings I note here are of major heritage importance. The recent court cases have made it abundantly clear that it is not up to the Judiciary to issue protective notices. The Judiciary has actually kicked the ball back into the court of the Minister and said it is her responsibility to do so.
The Deputy is correct in that, in February 2018, the Court of Appeal overturned all aspects of a High Court judgment and restored the previous understanding of what the statutory rights, powers and entitlements of the Minister – now me - were in regard to national monuments. It clarified that it is the Minister, and not the courts, who is charged with determining what constitutes a national monument. The Minister does not require planning permission for works to a national monument provided there is consent in place under section 14 of the National Monuments Act.
I mentioned why there is no necessity for a preservation order in the cases the Deputy mentions. It would only be a distraction from the more important objective, which is to secure a viable future for the Moore Street area. A far better approach is for all concerned to engage in meaningful discussions under the aegis of Moore Street advisory group, come up with a solution for the street that everyone can support, and do so as soon as possible.
As the Deputy knows, the main property owner on Moore Street is Hammerson, whose portfolio extends as far as the former Carlton cinema on O'Connell Street. I am pleased with the new vision Hammerson has presented, which now recognises the need to reflect history, community and culture in the way this area is to be revitalised.
I welcome the meeting between Hammerson and the ministerial forum but the forum will never agree to anything that is in any way incongruent to a national monument. The ministerial forum, therefore, is in no way negatively disposed towards the idea of the Minister issuing a preservation order.
Anyone who goes to Moore Street will see it is frozen in dereliction. It is frozen because of the hiatus the Government has created in the area. I am asking the Minister to break that hiatus with a simple decision, namely, to turn Moore Street into the vibrant cultural and historic quarter it could be. The traders on the street are prisoners of the Minister's policy. The inertia of the Government is putting them into a sterile area where it is really difficult to earn a living. I will introduce in the Oireachtas next week a Bill seeking that the Oireachtas identify Moore Street as a national monument.
The responsibility is the Minister's. The planning application is live. Nothing is stopping that planning application from proceeding. I urge the Minister to do the right thing and issue a preservation order.
As I said, I believe it would be a distraction not to try to engage with the group of which the Deputy is a member. He mentioned the trade affair. I believe that the advisory group met with Dublin City Council and discussed a range of issues. A submission was made by the group on behalf of the traders to the review currently taking place with regard to the casual trading by-laws. I believe that Dublin City Council is currently examining all submissions in this regard.
It cannot need submissions.
There is a key position where Hammersons is the main landowner. Its input is most critical to the rejuvenation of this area. I set up and support Moore Street advisory group. Its role is to bring all relevant interests together so they can agree a suitable vision and plan for the area. I am delighted that this is happening and that key players are talking to each other. I will do everything I can to support and encourage that process. I have also given a grant of €10,000 to the school of architecture in Dublin Institute of Technology, DIT, to work with local stakeholders on the street.