Re: Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!

Home Forums Ireland Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin! Re: Re: Thomas Street & James Street, Dublin!


@Paul Clerkin wrote:

Just looking at the roof – wonder if slates were removed to hasten its demise

I would agree that it looks that way. If it was good old-fashioned lead stripping, why are there so many slates missing?

On the other hand, it’s a pretty small site and the structure is a P.S. so it’s hard to see how an unscrupulous property owner could realistically anticipate an enhanced re-development opportunity by propelling the structure into accelerated decay.

@StephenC wrote:

re: Protected Structure . . . . . What does that mean?

I was hoping Graham would come in there with the definitions. . . . . . phew;)

As I understand it, under the Planning and Development regulations [hereafter called the Law] local authorities are obliged to maintain a schedule of the structures in their authority area which, by virtue of their ”special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest” are worthy of protection against decay, destruction and injurious alteration, or words to that effect.

It is also the stated policy of Dublin City Council [p23 of the current DCC Development Plan]:

”To maintain and enhance the potential of protected structures and other buildings of architectural/historical merit to contribute to the cultural character and identity of the place, including identifying appropriate viable contemporary uses”.

You’ll notice that in both of these passages the word ‘maintain’ is used prominently, but unfortunately not in sense that the authorities believe that they have any obligation to ‘maintain’ the actual building.

This would be like the Health Service being obliged to ‘maintain’ a list of all the sick people without any corresponding obligation to actually treat anyone.

Under ‘the law’ the local authority may not be specifically obliged to take meaningful action in cases like this, but neither is there anything in the legislation to stop them from sending in two blokes with a roll of torch-on felt while we’re waiting on the legal heads to sort out something more permanent.

As Graham has pointed out:

@GrahamH wrote:

Part IV, Planning and Development Act, 2000

Section 58

(2) After serving notice under subsection (1) on a person, a planning authority may—

(b) provide such assistance in any form it considers appropriate, including advice, financial aid, materials, equipment and the services of the authority’s staff.

. . . Dublin City Council could choose to interpret the Law to get in there and actively protect this building by carrying out any remedial works ”it considers appropriate”.

. . . . unless stopping the rain pissing in is somehow not ‘considered appropriate’.

Latest News