ACAs in Dublin City
- This topic has 4 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 5 months ago by Anonymous.
October 24, 2008 at 1:25 pm #710217-Donnacha-Participant
For some reason Dublin CIty Council only seem to have about 5 ACAs as opposed to Fingals 28. It seems that Dublin City choose to have a lot of Protected Strcutures when it appears to me that it would be more practical to have more ACAs and decide if buildings within these are worthy of retention on a case by case basis. Im not suggesting that they should not have Protected Strcutures but the balance seems odd. And that Chruch on Jones Road, if it wasnt inside an ACA or a Protected Structure surely the owner was only breaking planning regulations by demolishing it so I cannot see how politicians are calling for him to jailed, as he has not commited a criminal offence. If the building was a PS then that would have been different of course
October 24, 2008 at 1:36 pm #804345AnonymousInactive
Spot on re ACAs/PSs.
This problem mainly arises due to the fact that all List 1 and List 2 buildings automatically became PSs under the PDA2000, regardless of quality- and there was a good reason for some of them to be given a lesser designation originally, rationales which were lost in the wholesale transfer onto the RPS.
ACAs should be the more appropriate method of management of lesser, but still worthy, buildings – and areas of, say, streetscape value – but sadly the ACA designation hasn’t proved all that sturdy in practice.
I believe DCC tried to ‘de-list’ several PSs a while back, but had to stall it. Not sure why.
Re the church- I’d argue it should have been a PS, but it wasn’t, and wasn’t in an ACA, so your comments on the demolition are accurate. Even the regulation cited as the reason to jail him is questionable- since when was a leather furniture showroom an industrial building? I suspect he was made the whipping boy for the Terenure convent, the Clarence, and other dodgy PS decisions that have emerged recently.
October 24, 2008 at 4:23 pm #804346AnonymousInactive
The ‘developer’ was breaking the law in not obtaining permission to demolish the building. Even demolition requires planning permission. Also I understand that this builidng was a proposed protected structure as the DCC was moving to have it included on the RPS. The law applying to PS alsp applied to proposed protected structures.
October 28, 2008 at 12:06 pm #804347AnonymousInactive
Even demolition requires planning permission. Also I understand that this builidng was a proposed protected structure as the DCC was moving to have it included on the RPS.
Pity the OPW doesn’t abide by those rules: witness the former vet college and Leeson Lane
October 28, 2008 at 2:06 pm #804348AnonymousInactive
Stephen- that was my original understanding, but apparently it’s not as clear-cut as that, according to some people more knowledgeable than I who I spoke to on the matter of demolition. The advice I got was simply to check the most up-to-date version of the Regs for guidance.
Also, I’m not sure if this was an actual Proposed Protected Structure, or whether it was a proposed Proposed Protected Structure, i.e. had proceedings commenced to evaluate its merits with a view to adding it to the RPS, or had it just been mooted? This needs to be clarified. If the latter, then the (P)PS law wouldn’t apply.
jdivision- agreed. Who can blame a developer for a (possible, or possibly deliberate) misunderstanding of the rules when State bodies lead by such poor example? If I remember correctly, in both cases it was stated pretty plainly that the sites were ‘tidied up’ in order to maximise their value, i.e. having buildings on site that were potential Protected Structures (though not in either case – if memory serves – actual Proposed PSs) was seen to be an obstacle to maximising the sale price.
And the Hailing Station in the Docklands – though its demolition was apparently included in the relevant planning scheme (were people really made aware of this at the time? I’m not convinced; and the rationale of Economy over Heritage re PSs in the DDDA turf never convinced me- too lazy, too easy) – would be another example of the scant regard that is had for Protected Structures in general in this country.
I’d argue that PP should be required for all demolition, and therefore episodes such as this one wouldn’t arise so often. In addition, a better resourced grants structure would be a great help. The boom years seemed to sideline much rational debate in this regard in the rush to develop; sadly, I fear the quiet years will lead to a “Sure it’s development, it’s jobs ferchrissakes!” attitude instead of a chance to reflect on the role of these ‘barriers to development’ in the urban landscape.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.