A blog about things that interest me, politics, news, media, architecture, development, environment, local history, secularism, web, dublin ireland, tara

Contact me at expectationlost@gmail.com

Wednesday 24 September 2014

Number 18 Moore Street


State wants post-1916 buildings on Moore Street protected Olivia Kelly 15th April 2015 Irish Times

All but one of the houses was built after the Rising, but all have been attributed “regional significance” by the Department of Arts and Heritage on its National Inventory of Architectural Heritage.
Building of Ireland Survey

National Inventory of Architectural Inventory Data Dublin.zipped csv

8th June 2015 Dublin City Council Meetings
Received: 26/09/2014
Replaced: 19/12/2014
That the following 1916 Buildings, identified in the Frank Myles Battlefield Report, commissioned by Shaffrey Associates on behalf of Chartered Land, be added to the list of protected structures as buildings of National historical importance.
1 .O' Briens Mineral Water Building, Henry Place - Occupied by volunteers.
2 .The White House, Henry Place - Occupied and held by Michael Collins.
3. No.10 Moore Street - Point of entry - The First Council of War - Overnight stay.
4. The Bottling Stores rear. 10 Moore Street and Moore Lane - Occupied by Frank Henderson.
5. Hanlons, 20/21 Moore Street - Surrender order accepted by volunteers after consultation with Thomas Clarke, Joseph Plunkett, Michael Collins and Sean Mac Diarmada.

John Lyons my motion on ‪‎Save Moore Street

Again where is the Frank Myles Battlefield Report?

Number 18 Moore Street Original blog.

It seem the main problem is that various official reports have not been published online, but also that at those criticising the process won't publish or make clear the basis for their criticisms either, mainly because again the official reports have not been put online.

Maureen O'Sullivan TD brought Moore Street buildings ages up in the Dail, so I emailed and asked what was the basis for her questions and she said I should ask relatives but I told her they won't release the information. I don't know how she can ask parliamentary question on the basis of details she does not have.

Sandra McLellan also brought up the isssue ad gave some more information on the basis of the complaint.
The evidence exists to show that many of the structures alleged to be post 1916 do, in fact, predate the Easter Rising. Is the Minister aware that the facade of No. 18 was identified as a pre-1916 structure that was still standing in 1916 in the conservation report that accompanied the environmental impact study of 2011 by Gráinne Shaffrey? Does she realise that this key point was omitted from the Shaffrey battlefield report?

They have been many questions in the Dail on Moores Street and news reports and discussions in Dublin City Council and posts on the Save Moore Street Group, referring vaguely of reports that showed they had made a mistake in regard to the age of buildings, this is the first thing I've read it bit more clear which reports they are referring to, yet it still isn't clear, the reports need to be published.

This National Grave Association has extracts from a Shraffrey Report used in Bord Plennala Oral hearing in 2009 but it doesn't mention number 18 Moore Street. I think Dublin City Council commissioned a report from Shraffrey re Moore Street and then Chartered Land hired Shraffey to write some reports for it. The Save Moore Group have also referred to some other report they commissioned, I think. It be nice if the people who claim to have been campaigning this for so long and are looking for support would make this all clearer.

Yes all the reports should be published but if people want Moore Street conserved they should publish what they have in order to explain to people why they think that.

The Environmental Impact Statement for 14-17 Moore Street was not published online. Enviromental Impact Statement for Proposed Works to the National Monument at Nos. 14-17 Moore Street, Dublin 1
The EIS is available for inspection during office hours at the Department’s offices in the Custom House, Dublin 1, and at Dublin City Council’s Civic Offices, Wood Quay, Dublin 8.

Technical Group Submission on Moore St. – January 2013 refers to "Bureau of Military History Archives witness statements (as included in Shaffrey Report, prepared for D.C.C. November 2005)".

In February 2013 Maureen O'Sullivan TD asked,

To ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht if he will forward the Frank Myles Battlefield Report and the National Museum Report and Recommendations on Moore Street to the Save Moore Street group of relatives of the 1916 leaders and insurgents as promised at a 2012 meeting with the group

In general terms, it would be the norm that the release, if requested, of documents associated with such a consent application would take place following completion of the relevant deliberative processes. It should be noted that, as provided for by statute, the environmental impact statement in relation to the application is open for inspection at my Department's offices and those of Dublin City Council.

Sinn Féin Dublin City Councillor Mícheál Mac Donncha, a member of the Council's Moore Street Advisory Committee said 6 October, 2014.

“The recommendation that a battlefield site assessment be carried out has not been met either, although even the assessment carried out by Frank Myles on behalf of Chartered Land identified historic features that will be destroyed under this plan.

Were these reports ever published? The Save Moore Street must have extracts of them they can publish atleast?

She also asked about "Fáilte Ireland report in relation to the Moore Street battlefield site and independence trail, Dublin", was that ever published?
Freedom Trail will put 1916 Rising sites on tourist map Mark Regan 30/12/2013 Independent. Failte Ireland's Dubline Trail doesn't seem to have a Dublin 1916 section.

Dublin City Council
Dublin City Council is going to vote on Moore Street on the 6th of October 2014, discussing a land swap with the developer in order to have the building of a large shopping centre leading from O'Connell street to Moore street started and 14-17 restored and turned into a Museum to be ready for 2016.

Read the proposal as published by Councillor Ciaran Cuffe

Although Moore street Advisory Committee member councillor John Lyons PBP called it 'a very bad proposal'. Moore St land swap proposal is 

Developers Chartered Land would provide €9m for restoration works, and the council would take ownership of the centre in exchange for numbers 24 and 25, which the developers require as part of plans for a new shopping centre.

The decision was deferred on the 22nd of September 1916 Moore Street monument decision deferred Herald.ie By Joyce Fegan – 02 September 2014.

This Moore Street land swap seems like a big deal wrapped up in a small deal and councillors and public will have to be careful to look at the whole shopping centre developement and not just rush to accept buying the national monument.

Moore Street Advisory Committee
Gannon Gary Independent
Ring Nial Independent
Carr Brendan Labour Party
Cuffe Ciarán Green Party
Perry Cieran Independent
Lyons John People Before Profit
McGrattan Séamas Sinn Féin
MacDonncha Mícheál Sinn Féin
Haughey Seán Fianna Fáil

Membership of the Moore Street Advisory Committee 23/06/2014.

I'm trying to figure out what the deal is with 18 Moore street which is due to be demolished soon, people have been saying the Government got the wrong date, see local news story front page story Hope for 1916 buildings as Taoiseach agrees dept was wrong and Our story may save battlefield site and Local News full PDF.

Terry Allen, a senior official in the Monuments Division, told Local News last May that the dissenting historians were right and his office was wrong.
Like James Connolly Heron, grandson of 1916 and labour hero James Connolly, he agrees that number 18, and much of the rest of the terrace, falls into the same historic provenance, build-date and category as numbers 14–17.

And for the first time, newly-appointed Arts Minister Heather Humphries has acknowledged details of the
error that led to the flawed, and very limited, Moore Street preservation order signed and endorsed by her predecessors

I can't entirely trust the Local News reporting on this until I see the background documents but see the Dail question on it asked by Maureen O'Sullivan on the 17th of April, the minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht Jimmy Deeenihan seems very insistent in regard to number 18.
So far as I am aware there was an assessment of the buildings. I refer to the report which Deputy O'Sullivan sent me which shows that No. 18 has been substantially altered and rebuilt in the years since 1916. I am aware of documentary evidence in valuation records from 1911 to 1915 and 1915 to 1925 in Thom's Directory which show that this building was in ruins prior to the 1916 Rising. The opening up of plaster work has revealed concrete block party walls confirming the post-1916 date. The report commissioned by the relatives notes that none of the windows or the shop-front are original, as is none of the brickwork over the first floor windows or the chimney. The report indicates that the building was reduced from three to two storeys between 1930 and 1950, meaning that the roof is also new. The report also notes that none of the original features in the interior survive, such as stairs, cornices, doors or partition walls. The report highlights that some fabric of the lower part of the front facade may predate 1916 but the clear evidence is that the structure, shape, layout, fittings, finishes, that now exist in No. 18, were not there in 1916. The report to which I refer is the report submitted by Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan.

What is found in No. 18 is in stark contrast to Nos. 14 to 17, where all four houses retain significant 18th century elements, including staircases, internal walls, doors, partitions, floors, fittings and plaster work. More important, the 18th century building, form and profiles, also survive. I reiterate that this is the report on No. 18 which the Deputy submitted to me.

Is this all true, yes, did they put the wrong date on number 18, there must be some truth in that for them to battle back so hard.

As I have previously noted Dublin City Council have a habit of publishing paltry or unreadable documents, in this case have a look at Moore Street Advisory committee Appendix PDF age profile pg 31. have a look for yourself and see if you can read it.

All Speeches by Minister Heather Humphreys that mention Moore Street.

Save Moore Street group say they have report which questions the more modern date put on the whole of number 18 but won't release it to me or the public :/ I don't know why, it might be an incomplete report, they banned me for insisting it be published but there is another group who also say number 18 had the wrong date put to it by the government www.facebook.com/savemoorestreetdublin.

Chartered Land
Chartered Land the project developers official website for the Moore street Project is here 14-17moorestprojectplan,and it had many drawings of the proposed developement but it seems they have been removed.(Been told site is not out www.14-17moorestcompliance.com), Myself and some media have been mixing up the various groups, there is at least 4 or 5 campaigning on this issue with 2 people using the name James Connolly. Some media have mixed up the 'Save Moore Street' group with this well funded group who also say they are descendents of the rebels of 1916 1916rebellionmuseum who are backing golden circle developer Joe O'Reilly.

this link is the only link to the issuu files that I still have and works.

Green Party Councillor Ciaran Cuffe had another possibly more recent image.

Whats this bit about the national museum people and room size at the end of this Taoiseach will meet relatives to defuse Rising row
The Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht said it did not envisage the establishment of a formal museum, due to the size of the rooms.


Sean Griffiths said...

Steve, you yourself have doubts about the quality of the reporting from Local News (which is appalling) but when the Minister tries to set out the Department's case for why No 18 is post 1916 to try and stamp out the nonsense, you accuse them of protesting too much. They can't win. The two facebook pages run by relatives are the same group (I'm banned from both), though they always add the number of likes on both pages together to represent their online support (of course it is inconceivable that some people might like both pages :)). They have a nasty habit of posting really rank disinformation on the sites - for example, one of the latest posts suggest that the Council will pay Chartered Land as part of the land swap when in fact The Council stand to benefit financially from the swap). However you get banned if you point out any inaccuracies. But to sum up, why don't you approach the Department in relation to Moore Street, ask questions and then assess who's right? Sean Griffiths

dublinstreams said...

thanks for your comment, well ultimately its for the Save Moore Street group to publish their counter report on Number 18, I like to see documents for myself and unfortunatly the Dublin City Council/Chartered land presentation is unreadable so cannot see the age they put on the building. Not sure where the original report covering that is but I did read it at one point. I emailed some councillors about it but they didn't get back to me (Micheal Macdonncha). I'll formulate some questions on it for Department and the Council (although the council 'customercare' are not good at responding intelligently either.

dublinstreams said...

its still a sort of payment in kind for the 'restored' national monument, even if they come out on top, being paid 9m, and then when you think the developers are in NAMA who's money is it that's being paid.

dublinstreams said...

I emailed mmacdonncha a number of times on this never got reply, I emailed new member john Lyons recently no reply, and as you can see I've added some information on the land deal helpfully published by Councillor Cuffe. It still hard to find this info, you go look for it after meetings, it not there yet, you forget and you come by it by chanced months later.

Sean Griffiths said...

Steve, the Department apparently has documentary evidence that No 18 was in ruins at the time of the Rising. The reason the relatives will not issue their report is because their "experts" will not let them, as their reputations will be savaged. In any event, there is now evidence that the final council of war did not take place in No 16, but rather in the entirely modern buildings between 20-25.

Sean Griffiths said...

I don't think that MacDonncha nor Lyons will be interested in debating or discussing this with you. Sinn Fein have no interest in a historical battleground per se, they're just playing politics. They are assisted by the fact that no journalist is interested in drilling down into this issue at all. The arguments made by the relatives are parroted without question. There is the makings of a really good article for someone who cares to take the time here.

dublinstreams said...

Ok you say they have documentary evidence re number 18 where is it so I can read it for myself? Where is the evidance about Number 16 vs number 25? I looked for again last night and I can't find it. The history of the deliberate dereliction of O'Connell Street goes beyoned one are two councillors power, designed to hook people who see the state and wrongly say we'll accept any replacement offered. This shopping centre development has already many articles and documentaries done on it

Sean Griffiths said...

E-mail the Department to ask for the report on the battleground and its conclusions on 18. The 20-25 thing was in the Sunday Indo last week and was carried in the Journal this week. Someone wrote a book quoting Oscar Traynor and another gentleman regarding 20-25. Their testimonies should be in the bureau of military history website.

dublinstreams said...

Maureen O'Sullivan brought this issue up in the Dail again https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2014-10-22a.23&s=moore#g29 so I emailed and ask what was the basis for her questions and she said I should ask relatives but I told her they won't release information

Sean Griffiths said...

Did the Department reply to you Steve? Nobody in this process has covered themselves in glory, but I find the entitled attitude of the relatives, their secrecy and their total intolerance for questions or opposing points of view to be deeply troubling.

Maureen O'Sullivan is a mediocrity. Both my girlfriend and I are banned from her Facebook page for questioning her stance on Moore Street. My g/f emailed her about the ban and got shockingly inconsistent replies.