Home News Latest News Amendments to controversial city plan rejected

Amendments to controversial city plan rejected

Friday, 05 February 2010

TWENTY-FIVE TDs and senators have signed a collective submission in opposition to the major Chartered Land development earmarked for O’Connell Street, Moore Street and Henry Street. Politicians from all parties last week signed a collective rejection of the new amendments made to the controversial planning application that An Bord Pleanala rejected last summer. While some improvements have been made to the proposals, there is still significant opposition to elements of the plans relating to the last headquarters of the leaders of the 1916 Rising. Last Tuesday, January 26, relatives of the seven signatories of the proclamation made a presentation to the Oireachtas seeking the members’ support for the entire preservation of the national monument in Moore Street. In total, 17 TDs and eight senators, including Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan (Ind) and Deputy Joan Burton (Lab), signed the petition in opposition to the plan. “Personally, I was a bit disappointed with the number that signed because I think the amended plans, particularly in respect to Moore Street, are an insult to the relatives of those involved in the Rising,” Deputy O’Sullivan told Northside People. “The plans continue to greatly encroach on the houses on Moore Street and we will still lose up to 60 per cent of our national monument. “The developers want to commemorate 16 Moore Street but the adjoining buildings could be turned into a coffee shop and retail premises. “It’s completely inappropriate given the lives lost and battle fought for our independence from those buildings.” Deputy O’Sullivan explained why now, more than ever, numbers 14 to 17 Moore Street should be preserved and protected. “The centenary isn’t that far away and here we are considering plans to completely destroy the character and history of those buildings,” she stated. “Instead we’d have one miserable building to mark the last headquarters of the leaders of the Rising and the sacrifices they made. “God only knows what we will be left with by the time 2016 comes around. It might be a case that people will have to do a virtual reality tour through the battlefield site.” Jim Connolly Herron, a great-grandson of James Connolly, said he and many other relatives of the seven signatories of the proclamation opposed the plan because of the developer’s apparent failure to “honour the boundaries of the national monument”. “What they are proposing is the partial demolition of 14 to 17 Moore Street,” he told Northside People. “The developer was asked to include the 1916 Rising elements which would highlight the retreat route from the GPO back to the houses but that hasn’t been included. “It seems the only commemoration of the Rising is the planned museum in 16 Moore Street which the developer had to provide from the outset. “The developer plans to demolish all non original fabric of the buildings numbered 14 to 17 so theoretically we could be just be left with the four walls because the buildings were only put on the protection list in 2007. “We believe that the site in its entirety should only be developed by or under the direct supervision of bodies such as the National Museum, the Office of Public Works (OPW), the Heritage Council and An Taisce, and in accordance with the recommendations such as those in the Shaffrey Report commissioned by Dublin City Council and paid for by the people of Dublin.” Damien Cassidy of the National Conservation and Heritage Group said he was glad the developer scrapped his plans for the rooftop car park in its amendments but that he still had significant reservations in relation to the plans. “We don’t want to leave the Moore Street buildings in the hands of the developer,” he told Northside People. “Up to this there had been no guarantee that 16 Moore Street would be preserved and reinstated. “I’m not happy that the ambience of Moore Street will be changed in general.” A spokesman for An Bord Pleanala said all the submissions received would be examined in the coming weeks. “The reopening of the hearing will be decided by reference mainly to the content of the revised plans that were received from the developer,” he told Northside People. “The board will have to consider whether they are so significantly different from the original plans that it would be in the interest of justice to reopen the hearing to allow for a full exchange of views. “The content of the submissions from the other participants in response to the revised plans might also be a factor in that decision.”