NGA - National Graves Association Contact Home History News Graves Donate Shop Contact

16 Moore St. Appeal


An Bord Pleanála
64 Marlborough Street
Dublin 1

14th January 2010

Re: Dublin Central Development
Dublin City Council Application No. 2479/08
Your Ref No.: PL 29N. 232347
Location Former Carlton Cinema Site, the site consists of the majority of a city block bounded by Parnell Street, Moore Lane, O'Rahilly Parade, Moore Street, Henry Street, Henry Place and O’ Connell Street Upper.
Our Ref: Matt Doyle

Dear Sir / Madam

We have been asked to prepare comments and submissions for the above named development on behalf of National Graves Association Ireland in response to your letter dated the 14th December 2009 . The National Graves Association Ireland Office is registered at 74 Dame Street, Dublin 2. This objection should be read in conjunction with previous submissions from National Graves Association Ireland, from Plan Design Associates on their behalf and the evidence of the oral hearing of April 2009.

The following is the objection of National Graves Association Ireland to the new submission before An Bord Pleanála dated the 9th and 16th November 2009

1.0 Dramatic changes proposed to no’s 14, 15, 16 and 17 Moore Street and construction of a substantial development on a National Monument

The revised proposals submitted to An Bord Pleanála shows the excavation for the basement levels as close as 2.0m to the rear of the existing buildings ( in the format in which they are being retained) that front onto Moore Street on the National Monument. 14 to 17 Moore Street are protected structures, added to the record of Protected Structures of DUBLIN CITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2005-2011, added by Resolution of City Council 4th September 2006. No. 14 to 17 Moore Street are also National Monuments as in January 2007 the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dick Roche, placed a preservation order under The National Monuments Acts 1943 to 2004 on these buildings, following an announcement by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern on 10th December 2006. While proposed restoration of the Protected Structures and National Monuments, numbers 14 – 17 Moore Street is very desirable the architects and agents for Chartered Land Limited have failed to address the concerns and issues raised in the previous submissions.

The proposals of this application with regard to 14 to 17 Moore Street still includes the following:
Partial demolition( extensions to rear of houses and internal demolition works within the houses)
Whole demolition ( buildings to rear)
Alteration of buildings
Interference with buildings
Excavation within rear yards, as close as 2.0m to the rear of the existing buildings, not only within close proximity but actually on the monument to a depth of four storeys below street level.

Once again we welcome the proposal to use No. 16 as a museum/commemorative centre but are extremely disappointed that the footprint of the national monument and the historical streets are not being retained. The developer has taken total advantage of the request by An Bord Pleanála to maximise the development area of the site despite the reduction of the car parking spaces at basement level. In the submission to Dublin City Council prepared by Shaffrey and Associates for Dublin City Council it states on Page 43 para 7.1.5 ‘In terms of defining a suitable building line for new development to the rear of No. 16, the east boundary identified on the 1852 lease – which equates to the rear (inner) wall of the recently demolished former industrial building onto Moore Lane suggests itself as an appropriate line to ensure the setting of No. 16 is protected’ and ‘The 1892 lease provides a schedule of area for No. 16 which is 20 feet by 92 feet in length. The distance from the front façade of Moore Street to the rear (inner) wall of the building onto Moore Lane is approximately 92 feet and this would indicate that this wall formed the boundary line of the 2 leases’ It is interesting to note that the location of the new four storey basement four stories below ground level is not addressed and the possible interference with the buildings and the possible demolition of these buildings by the large scale excavation within 2m of the rear of the building. The proposed basement constructed within such close proximity to the rear of the existing building does not concur with Stephen Little’s description of ‘space for the buildings to breath’.

Stephen Little and Associates report states ‘These proposals for the National Monument have been developed having regard to the relevant legislation and best conservation practice’, we strongly dispute this statement in that basic planning principles have not been followed in that floor plans and elevations do not even correspond and the amount of mistakes on the drawings lead to such confusion as to the final amount of works proposed on the National Monument that in fact ‘relevant legislation and best conservation practice’ have been completely overlooked.

1.2 Drawings prepared By Shaffrey Associates Architects
Once again there are a large number of discrepancies between the proposed demolition plans and floor plan proposals that are grossly inaccurate considering they are detailing proposed works to a National Monument and the proposed works to same. It is not possible to ascertain the exact extent of works proposed to the National Monument as a result and therefore the drawings are not to the standard that is expected for a protected structure, let alone a National Monument.

1.2.1. Drawing 0707-00-101(Survey and Demolition Plan) and Drawing 0707-01-101 – (Basement Plan proposals)
No. 14 - There is a large chimney stack shown to be retained at the rear of No. 14 on Drg 0707-01-101 that is not shown on Drg No. 0707-00-101.
There is an ope shown to be retained on Drg No. 0707-01-101 that is shown as open on Drg No. 0707-00-101.
Drg No. 0707-01-101 shows a note stating ‘Investigate for former cellars, reopen cellar where present’, no consideration has been given to the support of the front wall of the premises that is in fact directly over this ‘possible’ future cellar area, the front wall of no. 14 is not in line with the basement wall as shown, either (a) the survey plan is incorrect or (b) the proposed cellar area is the foundation of the front wall. Any opening up works in this area could lead to the total collapse of this front wall. No consideration has been given to this when preparing the plans and indeed excavation in this area could lead to demolition of the front wall of No. 14.
The basement plans do not show the level of excavation or the location of the excavation to the rear of the existing buildings on Moore Street. The omission of the adjoining buildings is obviously to mislead the reader of the plans to assume that the basement is the extent of the works on the National Monument. Reference to Drg No. 5539-OA-L-1-004 Rev B shows the excavation level for the basement levels to the rear of 14 to 17 Moore Street directly behind the proposed basements, this excavation is intended for 4 levels below ground level. No details for the proposed construction of these walls are enclosed with this submission, therefore we assume the walls will be constructed in accordance with the original submission construction methodology submitted in October 2008, refer to hereunder for concerns re demolition works.

1.2.2. Drawing 0707-00-101 and Drawing 0707-01-101 – Basement Floor Plans
No. 14 – Basement survey plan does not show the retention of the chimney stack but the basement plan proposal shows the chimney stack to be retained at the rear of no. 14. For example if a demolition plan is served on a builder this chimney could be demolished if carried out in accordance with these plans. The accuracy of these plans is critical and yet again this has not been addressed in the plans prepared by Shaffrey and Associates.

1.2.3. Drawing 0707-00-102 and Drawing 0707-01-102 – Ground Floor Plans
No. 17 - The return of the gable wall to number 17 is shown to be retained for the 800mm of the gable and the proposal plan shows this portion of wall demolished to the width of the front wall, approx 400mm x 400mm pier which could seriously undermine the front wall of the monument. It is also noted that the computer generated image of Moore Street depicts a substantial gable return to be retained. On viewing the computer generated image in ‘Dublin Central Montages’ dated the 12th November 2009 shows a totally different scenario and once again the co-ordination between the plans and the images, for example the window shown on the ground floor plan 0707-01-102 shows a window that is almost the full width of they extension to the side of no. 17 and yet the image shows a smaller sized corner window, the gable windows in no way correspond with that shown on the floor plans, The elevation shown on Drg No. 0707-02-201 does not correspond with the floor plan 0707-01-102.

There is a section of wall shown on plan 0707-01-102 behind the staircase with an external dimension of 2440mm, this wall is entirely omitted from the survey drawing and yet is being retained on the proposal drawing.

There is an existing return to the right of the door affording access to the stairwell on the proposed plan shown as a wall to be retained and yet the survey plans show no such wall exist.

No. 16 – On examination of No. 16 we are appalled at the level of demolition that is proposed throughout the ground floor of this building, in this matter we refer you to the Architectural and Historical Assessment for No. 16 Moore Street, Dublin 1 prepared for Dublin City Council in November 2005 ‘The fact that the building (no. 16) one visits today is essentially that which was occupied by the rebel leaders, means that No. 16 itself is of intrinsic importance to any interpretation and presentation of the historic events of Easter 1916. Because of this, the nature of a museum / commemorative centre does not necessarily need to follow traditional lines, with the building acting as repository for various artefacts and interpretative panels. No. 16 could successfully accommodate uses which allow public access and which do not involve material alteration to the building while still providing a potent reminder of the historic events which took place within it’

No. 15 - At the rear of No. 15 the demolition plan shows a square protrusion from the wall on the rear elevation beside the rear door, this is shown as to be retained on Plan 0707-00-102 but has disappeared on the proposed plan 0707-01-102.

No. 14 – The rear wall of No. 14 on the survey plan and the proposed plan do not correspond as the wall varies in thickness from survey to proposal.

A comparison of Drg No. 0707-01-102 and 5539-LA-L0-001 shows that once again there are details to the rear of the building that do not correspond on Dublin Central Architects Plans and Shaffrey and Associates plans, the steps shown at the rear of No. 17 on Shaffreys plans are not shown on the level 0 plans by Dublin Central Architects. You may recall that Grainne Shaffrey stated in the oral hearing that a ramp would be constructed at the rear to allow disability access to the commemorative centre but once gain this is not shown on the plans, there is no proposal to accommodate disability access into this building or to the communal area proposed at the rear of the buildings. Once again the Architect proposes to deal with post planning, despite the fact that this is a National Monument.

1.2.4 Drawing 0707-00-103 and Drawing 0707-01-103 – First Floor Plans
No. 17 - There is a portion of a pier shown retained on the proposed plan at the side of the staircase to the rear of the building that is shown as demolished on the survey plan.

No. 16 – The wall shown to the left hand side of the stairs is shown as completely retained on the proposal plan and partially contained with a pier on the survey plan.

No. 14 – The retail unit proposed adjoining onto No. 17 shows a Café terrace to the rear of this extension with a floor level of 8.725m, however the adjoining building at the rear of this building has an adjoining floor level of 11.10m, a difference of 2.375 with no steps adjoining to access same. The elevations would lead one to assume that the café unit directly adjoining the terrace has a first floor level on the angled section that has a similar floor level of No. 14 to 17 Moore Street but inspection of the plans show that this floor area is not shown on any of Dublin Central or Shaffrey Architects floor plans, this is a vital part of a planning application to include floor plans of all parts of the building, it is not possible to assess an application without all floor plans of the proposed development.

1.2.5. Drawing 0707-00-104 and Drawing 0707-01-104 – Second Floor Plans
No. 15 – The second floor plan proposal Drawing 0707-01-104 shows a substantial dividing wall running parallel to the front wall and this wall is not even shown as an existing wall on the survey plans.

1.2.6. Drawing No. 0707-01-105 and Drawing No. 0707-00-105 – Roof Plans, Drg No. 0707-02-201 and 202 (elevations)
The survey roof plan omits the rooflights that are existing in the southern plane of the roof of No. 14, refer to photograph below. The rooflights are worthy of retention but the ‘detailed survey plans’ by Shaffrey and Associates completely omits the rooflight.


There is a substantial chimney stack on the party walls between No. 17 and 16 Moore Street and a single stack chimney on the party wall between No. 15 and No. 14. The proposed roof plan shows 4 circles to the rear of the large 8 stack chimney but does not clarify what they are. The comparison of the roof plan and the proposed South West Elevation show that there are no chimneys proposed on the development, the North East Elevation shows a large chimney between No. 14 and 15 which is in direct contrast to the roof plan proposal. The chimney between 16 and 17 is not shown on the North east elevation, once again there is a total lack of consistency between the plans and therefore the changes to the existing development cannot be properly assessed. Rear Yard Level
Despite the proposed changes to the rear yards of No. 14 to 17 Moore Street the architect has not shown any changes to door head heights or addressed if changes to the door heads are necessary. Roof levels
The survey drawing of the rear elevation (Drg No. 0707-00-201) shows that the ridge level of No. 16 is clearly lower than the adjoining buildings, the survey roof plan shows all levels of the ridge lines to be identical and the proposed roof plan shows all ridge levels matching also, there is a mistake somewhere between the survey plans and the survey elevations.

1.2.7 General comparison of Shaffrey and Associates Plans and Dublin Central Plans
As in the original submission to An Bord Pleanála there is a large number of discrepancies and inaccuracies in the plans between the various consultants, there seems to be a total lack of co-ordination between them or else they are providing different plans in order that they can change the design to whichever plan suits them if they are granted permission, indeed in a lot of cases there appears to be total lack of co-ordination between drawings prepared by the one practice. The lack of consistency between the plans is nothing short of a disgrace and if these plans were presented with this volume of mistakes for a simple one off housing application we have absolutely no doubt that the application would be invalidated on the day it was lodged with any county council or city council in Ireland. It is incredible that the level of mistakes and discrepancies on these drawings are presented to be considered for planning permission at this level and that the applicant seriously suggests they be considered by An Bord Pleanála.

The National Monument is depicted in colour on the key plan on the bottom right hand corner of each drawing produced by Shaffrey and Associates and of course the National Monument is depicted as 14 to 17 Moore Street, including the proposed extension to 17 Moore Street, this is indicative of the applicant’s opinion to the extent of the National Monument. Variations in Drawings
Shaffrey and Associates drawing, Drawing No. 0707-02-203 shows a corner window returning from Moore Street but Dublin Central drawing, Drawing No. 5539-E-011 shows no corner window, this is an extension onto part of the National Monument and you would at least think this could be consistent., Drawing No. 5539-E-005 does not show a corner window either but the proposed montage does.
Drawing No. 5539-E-011 shows the road level outside the building as 5.3m but Drawing No. 0707-02-203 shows the ground floor level of 5.65m, we assume the developer will not leave a 350mm difference between the road level and the ground floor level.
The café terrace on Drawing No. 5539-E-011 is shown as being open onto the proposed East/West Street or possibly being finished with glass (no details provided) but Drawing No. 0707-02-203 shows a honeycomb brick screen to this area.
Eave level of café at rear of extension to No. 17 Moore Street, shown as 34.8m on Drawing No. 5539-E-011 and 13.575m on Drawing No. 0707-02-203, a difference in levels of 21.225m! This would hardly be the level of accuracy required as referred to in the Architectural Protection Guidelines.
Eave level of retail unit 2/20 on Drawing No. 5539-E-011 is shown as 24.6m but Drawing No. 0707-02-203 shows eaves level for the same building of 24.3m
Drawing No. 5539-E-011 shows a level above the communal area to the rear of 14 to 17 Moore Street at 36.825m, on a similar line to finished floor level for level +2 of 15.6m, this is a difference of 21.225m again!
The Eaves level of the extension to No. 17 Moore Street is shown on Drawing No. 5539-E-011 as 13.575m but it is shown as 13.325m on Drawing No. 0707-02-202 and same eaves level is given as 13.875m on Drawing No. 0707-02-202, three drawings, three different levels and all prepared by one firm.
Drawing No. 0707-02-202 shows a ground floor level of 5.3m for this extension onto 17 Moore Street but Drawing No. 0707-02-203 shows the same floor level as 5.65m.
Drawing No. 0707-02-202 shows a ridge level on No. 17 proposed at 16.53m, Drawing No. 0707-01-105 shows the proposed ridge level of No. 17 to be 16.867m, a 337mm difference is very significant in the roof of a national Monument.
The rear elevation of the extension to No. 17 Moore Street on Drawing No. 0707-02-202 shows brickwork across the rear elevation at first floor level (where the silhouette of the people are shown on the terrace) with honeycomb brick screen wall at second floor level, the plans on Drawing No. 0707-01-103 show glazing to the rear of this elevation with some level of honeycomb brick screen at the first floor level and there is no screen wall shown on the second floor plans on drawing No. 0707-01-104, once again a total contradiction between plans and elevations by the same firm.
The proposed extension to the rear of No. 14 Moore Street is not even shown on Drawing No. 5539-S007
Drawing No. 5539-S007 shows various ridge levels as follows 16.59 on No. 17 Moore Street and 16.16m on No. 16 Moore Street, these contradict the levels shown on the plans by Shaffrey and Associates, in other words this is the third set of levels we are given for these roofs and these are the detailed plans for buildings to be retained on a National Monument!
Drawing No. 5539-S-003 shows a section through 16 Moore Street relative to the proposed development, when compared to Drawing No. 0707-03-303 however the proposed development looks drastically different, in particular to the extension to the side of Moore Street is omitted on Dublin Central Architects plan and once again different parapet heights are shown on No. 16 Moore Street, 10.37m shown on Shaffrey plans and 11.29 shown on the Dublin Central Architects Plans, The drawing that is supposedly showing the proposed development to respect the scale of the existing development and yet the Architects cannot even agree on the scale of the existing, perhaps it suited better to show the building almost a metre higher to ‘marry’ it with the proposed development.
Drawing No. 5539-S-003 shows a section through 16 Moore Street and states the usage as Retail / Commercial – this is definitely not in keeping with the request of An Bord Pleanála
Drawing No. 5539-OA-LR-011 shows a roof plan of the proposed development, the roof plan does not tell you to refer to Shaffrey and Associates plans for 14 to 17 Moore Street, however comparison with Drawing No. 0707-01-105 shows that the Architects have the rear hip on No. 15 Moore Street in Lieu of No. 16 Moore Street.
Drawing No. 5539-OA-LR-011 shows a parapet level to the extension of the side of No. 17 Moore Street as 13.575m and Drawing No. 0707-02-202 shows same parapet level to be 13.875m, 300mm of a difference.
Drawing No. 0707-02-203 by Shaffrey And Associates shows No. 17 Moore Street depicted as No. 14 Moore Street and also spells Monument as ‘Monement’. The level of inaccuracies on these drawing is beyond belief.
Drawing No. 5539-S-003 and Drawing No. 5539-OA-L2-007 are compared and I am particularly looking at Retail Unit No. 2/23 at level +2, the section clearly shows the retail unit extends from over ‘Moore Lane’ to a service duct and the floor plans do not show how you can physically access this shop unit, there is a service / escape corridor to the rear of the shop behind the O’ Connell Street offices but there is no other means of access for the public, no internal stairs are shown from the level below so it is not intended that this is a two storey shop, or if it is the architect has not bothered to show a stairs / lift access to this floor level, once again the reader is left to guess. Unit No. 2/24 is 45m long approx, this is way in excess of the acceptable travel distance for a single means of escape and in the form presented to An Bord Pleanála cannot be compliant with fire regulations, no access means no escape.
Drawing No. 5539-OA-LR-006 shows an area depicted as restaurant to the small building shown directly adjoining No. 14 Moore Street (southern side), the section on its own is too small to accommodate a restaurant and therefore I assume this is an extension of No. 14 that has not been shown on any of the Shaffrey Plans and shows that the level of demolition intended in No. 14 is clearly greater that then depicted on the plans as there is no access to this area shown through the gable of No. 14 Moore Street.
Drawing No. 5539-OA-LR-006 shows the usage at second floor level of No. 17 as office space, Drawing No. 0707-100-104 shows this as retail space, this is not a typing error as the colour has also been depicted as other than retail.
Drawing No. 5539-002 titled site plan shows the overall site and when compared to Drawing No. 5539-OA-L0-005 shows a completely different layout to No. 40, 41 and 60 of O’ Connell Street, which floor plan would a planning apply to or is the choice once again to be left to the developer to make on the day.
Drawing No. 5539-002 titled site plan shows No. 14 Moore Street hatched in green which according to the legend is an existing structure / façade to be relocated.
Drawing No. 5539-S007, Drawing No. 0707-02-202 and the last image in the book of Dublin Central Montages all depict the rear elevations of 14 to 17 Moore Street as proposed in this application, there is no consistency between any of these documents. Doors and windows are clearly missing on the montage, chimneys are missing on all, the proposed extension is missing on another and the reader is forced to assume that the use of these various documents is to give the builder a free hand if a decision is reached.
Drawing No. 5539-E-005 shows a parapet height on the existing parapet height of Moore Street (unit G2) to be 16.9m, however Section SS on Drawing No. 5539-S007 shows a parapet height of 15.9m, despite the section shows the existing parapet level beneath this marked height. The survey plans submitted with the original application also show a height of 16.9m which means this section is completely wrong and the parapet of the original façade will indeed protrude more than 1m above the floor level of the lift lobby totally unsupported and this has not even been considered due to the inaccuracy of the architect. It is not shown how these window heights are being accommodated within the new floor levels behind as the section drawing is obviously incorrect. If you take a floor level as indicated as being 5.8m above ground floor level and measure this height on the existing façade it is just above the centre horizontal sash in the first floor window, therefore this entire floor area has to be redesigned as the levels of the windows as shown on the section are incorrect and the windows appear to clash directly with the first floor construction height.
Drawing No. 5539-S-001 Section AA shows a parapet height of 15.9m on the Moore Street façade to the front of Café unit G4, Drawing No. 55.9-E-005 shows this parapet height to be 15.9m.
I ask that you inspect and compare the photomontage of the café area to the rear of the commemorative centre and drawing No. 5539-E-016, Elevation 01. We examined this a number of times to ensure that we are supposedly looking at the same elevation but we fail to see the similarities, let alone point out the differences, the drawing does not even depict the proposed extension to the side of No. 17, so do we assume that it is now not being constructed, the ‘winter garden’ sits above a brick wall with some glazing on the montage but there is no such brick on the drawing. We appreciate that montages can be used to give the concept of an elevation and we were told repeatedly during the oral hearing ( on noting all the mistakes) that they are for illustration purpose only but they should bear some resemblance at least of what is proposed, otherwise, as in this case, they are totally misleading.
There is a very serious difference between Drawing No. 5539-OA-L0-005 and Drawing No. 0707-01-103, showing a connection from the first floor level of No. 14 Moore Street to the first floor level of the adjoining building, yet the plans issued by Shaffrey and Associates have no breach through the gable wall, this is a very serious matter in that it is very evident that the various teams of architects cannot even agree about the level of demolition to the National Monument and indeed the submissions before the Board show complete variations depending on which set of plans you compare. (this plan is shown very discreetly at the top of Drawing No. 5539-OA-L0-005 and can be very easily missed) This section of the plan is referred to as the National Monument First Floor Proposal but clearly extends beyond the width of National Monument and does not include the eastern part of the National Monument at all.
Drawing No. 5539-S011 and Drawing No. 5539-E-016 Elevation 2 both show the elevation from the proposed public square to the rear of the proposed commemorative centre facing east. Comparison of these drawings also show changes in that the finishes to the apartments are completely different, note the horizontal timber panels on Elevation 2 that do not appear on the section and the window fenestration on both drawings, on all the windows are completely different. Drawing No. 0707-02-201 shows completely different elevations again to the residential units, introducing a third set of proposals for the same elevation and last but by no means least a fourth variation of this elevation can be found on Drawing No. 5539-E-005!
Drawing No. 5539-E-016 Elevation 3 shows a residential floor level at level +5 of 27.75m, Drawing No. 5539-L5-137 shows a level for +5 of 27.3m.
Drawing No. 5539-E-008 Elevation Moore Lane east shows various maximum heights of 27.3m and 30.6m on the same level. The maximum height depicted on Section FF on Drawing No. 5539-S-006 is 30.2 of the same building.
Drawing No. 5539-E-008 (Moore Lane East elevation) shows an parapet level of 19.03m above unit G/30, Drawing No. 5539-S-004 shows the same parapet height of 20.4m, 1.4m higher.
Drawing No. 5539-E-010 shows the brickwork on gridline U protruding well below the canopy level but the photomontage shows the brickwork level with the canopy level, a difference in height of the brickwork and glazing of circa 2.5m.
Drawing No.. 5539-E-010 shows the glazing on the unit adjoining Moore Street, Gridline Z to T ‘Fully glazed shop display window glazing panel extends to top of handrail’ but the photomontage shows a different finish of what appears to be brick and other materials.
Drawing No. 5539-E-009 shows the glazing on the units on gridline 9 to 17 extend to the handrail once again but the photomontage once again shows an alternative material above the shopfronts.
Drawing No. 5539-E-016 Elevation 03 shows a large glazed elevation overlooking the proposed communal area, this is not reflected on any of the floor plans for Level 0 or Level 1. It is noted on this drawing as ‘Fully glazed café front’ but floor plans only depict a set of double doors from Café G5. To confuse the reader further the photomontage shows a single storey glazed section that does not match the elevations or the plans. Also note on the photomontage that there are 3 no. windows inserted on level +3 that do not appear in any other document or drawing. Despite its exclusion on all plans Shaffrey And Associates sections show this glazing area to a level of 14.6m
The proposed photomontage prepared by Arc Architectural Consultants Ltd showing the proposed view of O Connell Street from the junction with Cathal Brugha Street is at variance with the same montage prepared by Circle Creative, in particular I refer to the proposed set back above 43 to 45 O’ Connell Street, the proposed colour and finish of the Carlton Façade and the colour of the proposed brickwork and stonework on the proposed elevations.
Drawing No. 0707-03-307 shows a terrace level for No. 14 Moore Street but there is no mention of this terrace on any floor plan or elsewhere.
Drawing No. 5539-S007 shows parapet level of Moore Street of 15.9m with a small set back behind what I assume to be depicting the original façade to be retained, Drawing No. 5539-E-013 shows no such different parapet to the front and shows a finished parapet level of 15.31m.
Drawing No. 5539-E-009 shows the Moore Lane west elevation with the corner of the building adjoining O’ Rahilly Parade shows as having stone cladding to a height of circa 8.2m and finished flush with O Rahilly Street, the O Rahilly Street elevation on Drawing No. 5539-E-007 shows a different colour brick and another colour of cladding, the cladding levels do not match and the brick levels do not match ( neither do the colours) and yet both elevations show a flush finish, stone cladding finishes are always flush not bevelled so some type of return will be required to one of the these elevations but is not shown, it is shown correctly on the corner with Moore Street and O Rahilly Parade.
Drawing No. 5539-E-014 Henry Place west elevation shows brickwork to selected colour to the high level building between gridlines 2 to 5 approximately with a lower parapet level of 19.03m. Drawing No. 5539-S008 Section HH shows the same building to be finished with standing seam metal sheeting and a different level parapet, a completely different design for the same elevation on the same building. Comparison of these two drawings highlights completely different window styles, shapes, locations etc on the residential block at the upper levels from gridline 9 upwards, again two different elevation styles to the same elevation. The horizontal fritting to structural glazing unit on Gridline 1 is shown flush with Henry Street on Drawing No. 5539-S008 yet Drawing No. 5539-E-014 shows the unit set back from Henry Street.
Drawing No. 5539-E-010 shows the building end on the corner junction with Moore Street as having a brick corner with glazing circa 800mm from the corner and a window of circa 2.4m wide, Drawing No. 5539-S-003 shows a corner window with a width of 2.8m to the next brick pier on the same building corner, the set back to the next parapet level above varies between 2.6m and 3.2m also depending on which elevation you refer to.
Drawing No. 5539-E-004 shows Henry Street elevation and shows the façade of Building No. 40 with parapet above 4 storeys, the parapet level changes and increases however as you turn the corner and view this building from the side of the proposed extension to Moore Lane the parapet height increases and is rendered not matching the existing (Drawing No. 5539-E-009)
This list is not exhaustive but it is evident from the above items (complete with the list of discrepancies on the Shaffrey and Associates plans shown separately) that the plans, elevations, sections and montages are grossly inaccurate. In summary it is our opinion that the enormous level of discrepancies, mistakes and misleading items on these plans force the reader to assume proposed layouts, assume proposed uses, assume proposed elevations and assume proposed scales of the proposed developments. This application is totally misleading and should not be considered any further.

1.3. Conservation Documents
It is noted that there is no conservation report submitted with the new application. The application proposes major demolition, construction and indeed total change to a National Monument and yet the full extent of the National Monument is not even depicted on the Conservation Architects Plans. There is no written description anywhere within this new submission that describes the level of works on the National Monument and to protected structures nor gives a Conservation Architects opinion on the potential impacts of the proposed development on same structures and suites. I feel it is blatantly obvious that the developer does not want us to know the impacts.

Conservation Principles - Published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government list the Main Conservation principles as follows:
Research prior to planning work
Minimum intervention – repair rather than replace
Respect the setting
Maintenance of visual setting
These principles are not evident in the submission to An Bord Pleanála by the applicant.

Once again this proposal has missed the opportunity to develop this area in a manner that would be acceptable to the objecting parties and the people that recognise the importance of our history. The plan could easily have accommodate the retention of the Henry Place Moore Lane Moore Street block and this would have led to the retention of the National Monument.

2.0 Concerns re demolition works
No Consent should be allowed for an ‘rotating auger’ method of excavation on a National Monument, this is a site of extreme importance and this developer is proposing to put a piling rig with a rotating auger working 2m from the rear of the part of the building to be retained, the rig will have to be closer than 2m to the building to physically operate the machine and yet the developer, his architectural team and his conservation architect have not addressed this fact and how the buildings will be prevented from demolition!

On reading the condition of the property it is clear that the building structures have been undermined by water ingress and vegetative growth, this buildings on closer inspection may not be able to sustain the maximum settlement figures quoted of 25mm of horizontal movement of 20mm, or indeed both. We are seriously concerned that all of these works combined with the settlement and movement that they will incur through dewatering, propping removal etc. will in fact lead to the collapse of the existing structures on the national Monument and we are all aware that if this does happen that the re-instatement of the buildings and their historical significance is physically impossible, therefore it is the responsibility of our Planning System to ensure that this does not happen by not allowing the excavation on the National Monument. It is clear that the Conservation Architect in Drawing No. 0707-03-303 has not considered the impact of the 4 storey basement on the structures either as the section 16-16A does not even show the basement, merely the communal space that is proposed on top of the basement structure, I enclose herewith Drg no. 01 showing the basement superimposed to scale on the plan prepared by Shaffrey and Associates to show the extent of the basement relative to the back of the property.

3.0 Moore Street Façade
3.1 No.s 1 to 9 Moore Street
An Bord Pleanála requested that the developer substantially retain the existing buildings onto Moore Street from Henry Street up to Henry Place Junction with Moore Street, unfortunately the proposal that we have now been presented shows an attempt to fool the reader into believing that these facades are being retained and incorporated successfully into the development, however closer inspection shows the facades and their scale are soon to be overshadowed by a two tier parapet approx 2.5m each set back, reaching an overall height of 7.7m above the existing scale, that is an increase in height of the buildings along this section of Moore Street of 45.5%, hardly in keeping with an existing scale.
Examination of Section SS on Drawing No. 5539-S007 shows the proposed basement wall directly below the façade that it is proposed to retain along Moore Street, if only the façade is being retained we fail to see how it is physically possible to construct a basement wall directly underneath this façade. Stephen Little’s reply to Item 8 states ‘A number of the montages prepared by Circle Creative also help with understanding the modified proposals that arise from the Bord’s requirements in this case’ The issue of montages that we received contained one very poor image of Moore Street as it is depicting from the corner of the proposed extension to No. 17 showing an oblique view of the street, hardly very helpful, in fact the montages are not even labelled as to their location.

Once again we refer to the Shaffrey and Associates report to Dublin City Council dated Nov 2005 and to Para 7.1.1. of that document as follows: ‘The historical analysis in Chapter 3 of this report describes the extent to which the rebels infiltrated and occupied the houses on Moore Street, in particular those within the central terrace on the east side of the street, namely No.s 10 to 25 which were all occupied during the final stages of the Rising. However a small number of buildings / sites can be identified as being of particular significance due to the specific events which took place within them. In addition to No. 16, No. 10 – on the corner of Moore Street and Henry Place, Nos 20 21 the former Hanlons fish shop, and the corner site at the junction between Moore Lane and O Rahilly Parade .. are also sites of considerable importance’ These buildings are all part of the demolition plan shown on Drawing No. 5539-004 and the ‘considerable importance’ that Shaffreys and Associates designated to these buildings in the report of November 2005 has been forgotten and deliberately overlooked.

3.2 No. s 10 to 14 Moore Street
No. 10 is the undisputed entry point used by the Provisional Members to the terrace (10 to 25) and indeed it is confirmed that this is the house in which many members spent the last night of the Rising, yet this proposal will see it demolished to the ground, complete with all the party walls that these men spent the night and the day breaking through.

An Bord Pleanála requested that the developer retain the overall scale of the existing buildings from No. 10 Northwards. The parapet heights of the existing structures are as follows: No. 10 17.71m
No. 11 and 12 15.45m
No. 13 14.67m
The proposed parapet heights shown as a ‘positive response to the Bords requirements’ show a proposed parapet height of 16.02m and approx 3m of a set back to a parapet level of 20.9m, a 35% increase in height on No. 11 and 12 and a 42% increase in the height of No. 13, clearly not retaining the overall scale of the existing structures, while demolishing the significant No. 10 Moore Street, Hanlon’s Fish Shop as mentioned above. We refer to Dublin City Development Plan 2005-2011 Extract Page 23 – Buildings - Built Heritage ‘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’

Partial Section GG on Drawing No. 5539-S007 shows the overall scale of 14 to 17 Moore Street relative to the adjoining proposed buildings as does Section CC on Drawing No. 5539-S-003, the scale is certainly not in keeping with the existing surroundings of Moore Street.
I also note the photomontages again exclude all but one traders stall.
4.0 Integration of the buildings at 14 to 17 Moore Street
Stephen Little and Associates report states ‘externally the row of buildings is integrated into the adjoining Moore Street’ The proposed development does not integrate 14 to 17 Moore Street successfully into the development, examination of Drawing No. 5539-S-007 and Drawing No. 5539-S-003 show the scale of the proposed development relative to 14 to 17 Moore Street and shows that the proposed development completely overshadows the existing buildings to the three sides. The photomontage created by ARC are taken so close to the existing buildings that the set backs despite being very short cannot be viewed to any extent, it is our opinion that the photomontage should have been taken from the GPO such as the photo shown on Page 5 of this document and then the true extent of the set back could be assessed and then the applicant would truly show the scale of the proposed building relative to existing scale. I also not in the photomontage that the highest portion of the building over 10 – 14 Moore Street is shown in white to minimise its impact also.

The Photomontage shown Fig 3.11 in the Stephen Little and Associates report shows the building on the north elevation of the East West Street shows only the parapet height of 24.6m, the higher parapets level of 31.10m are not shown, you must revert back to Drawing No. 5539-E-010 for the scale of this elevation.

5.0 Fire Safety
Careful examination of these drawings with regard to Fire Safety is frightening. Drawing No. 5539-OA-L2-007 clearly shows in colour (orange) that there is a single stairs residential access to residential units over, the reader should bear in mind that this is already 2 storeys above ground level. The next floor level (drawing No. 5539-OA-L3-008) shows the residents on the west crossing a ‘glazed link’ to access the next level and residents on the east now enter the elaborately depicted ‘residential core’. Drawing No. 5539-OA-L4-009 shows the residents would enter the apartments at this level via an access deck. The only means of escape from these access levels appear to be the residential single staircase for the eastern block and a single stairs that then transfers via a glazed link to another single stairs for the western block. This is not a viable escape and in the event of a fire if one stairs is blocked with smoke or flames the entire residential community cannot be accessed at a height of circa 20m above street level. This proposal has not been examined with any degree of care.

It is also worth noting that the access level to the apartments on eastern block is beside a large louvered vent from the plant room below, these apartments are in fact proposed to be built on top of the plant rooms. The photomontage of Moore Lane (West elevation) shows the location of the residential units above the canopy and shows how vulnerable to fire these apartments will be in the event of a fire in the shops, plant rooms, stairwells etc.

6.0 Proposed works outside the extent of the site boundary
Once again the proposed development includes works proposed to the streets of O’ Connell Street, Henry Street and Moore Street. The developer does not won these streets and I see no inclusion with this application for permission to carry out this work from the owner of these areas.

7.0 Proposed street network
We refer to Para. 7.1.7. of Shaffrey and Associates report to Dublin City Council Nov 2005; ‘The events of the Easter Rising which took place on other sites within the Moore Street area, which have been extensively altered since 1916, should be acknowledged within any new development in a coordinated and planned manner. Shane Cullen’s touching wall plaque erected on O’ Rahilly Parade, which sets out the dying words to his wife which The O’ Rahilly struggled to write, is one of the more affecting monuments in the city. It shows how the individual stories, which make up any historic event, can be commemorated in imaginative and effective ways’.
The demolition of the streets and the removal of the historical street pattern was extensively debated during the oral hearing and An Bord Pleanála subsequently requested the following: ‘Re-order the proposed new streets to retain the major part of the original street pattern of Moore Lane, Henry Place, Moore Street and Henry Street’ In response to Item 1 We were amazed to see Stephen Little state that ‘Moore Lane is being retained in full’ Perhaps Mr. Little had not seen the plans for the four storey basement being constructed beneath Moore Lane, nor has he seen the Landscape plan that appallingly shows the street being replaced with granite paving with fibre optic lighting and plastic roof covering over.

Moore Lane was the route used by the Provisional Army Leaders in gaining access to No. 16 Moore Street and therefore has a strong historical significance and its removal should be refused. Moore Lane has to be one of the ‘critical locations’ referred to by An Bord Pleanála in Item 16. The report prepared by EVENT dated November 2009 refers to (Page 6) ‘commemorate the historic significance of the area in relation to the 1916 Rising, including critical locations along the evacuation route from the GPO’ The Historical Significance of the area is being destroyed by this proposed development. Event goes on to state ‘The journey along the lanes from the GPO to Parnell Street forms an important chapter in the narrative of the Easter Rising’ and yet the proposed development is the demolition of these streets and their reconstruction in what can only be described as a tacky manner that will be overlooked from all sides due to the proposed layout.

Once again I refer to the Shaffrey and Associates report to Dublin City Council dated Nov 2005 and to Para 7.1.1. ‘The activities relating to the 1916 Rising which took place in Moore Street, happened throughout the entire street, the adjacent lanes and within many of the buildings themselves.’ Shaffrey goes on in the report to describe ‘surviving granite kerbs and limestone setts along Moore Lane’ These lanes cannot and must not be destroyed, these are the setts and the exact route taken by the men and women that are a critical part of Ireland history, the streets and the routes must be preserved if we do not want to be part of a shameful generation of the compete destruction of our heritage and our history.

The plotting of the routes from the GPO by EVENT are entirely useless if the route cannot be shown and used as part of the commemorative walk and I do mean walking through walking through retail unit G8 and café unit G9 as part of this route.
Once again we refer to the Submission Ref DAU-2008-DU-DC 08-2479 by Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government dated 30th May 2008 and the reference to the loss of Moore Lane as follows: ‘The loss of the historic street pattern within the ACA, including the complete loss of Moore Lane, which dates from 1760, would seriously diminish the character of the ACA and is contrary to the Planning Authority’s development control policy for the area’ we respectfully request that An Bord Pleanála concur with this request.

The EVENT report on Page 24 refers to ‘walking tours’, We hope An Bord Pleanála ensures the 1916 route is suitable for a guide to walk a group from the GPO along the limestone setts and to Moore Street to trace the footsteps of the men and women of 1916. The EVENT report also states (page 13) ‘Perhaps the most telling reference we can point to is the Anne Frank House’, we strongly disagree with this as Anne Franks story is concentrated on her being locked in the attic of a house, the 1916 Rising took place on the streets of Dublin and in many buildings, we all acknowledge the importance of no. 16 Moore Street, but we must not forget the battle took place on O’ Connell Street, Moore Street, Moore Lane, O Rahilly Parade and other streets within the area, this is why the streets are so important historically, among many other reasons, and we cannot allow this application to destroy the very essence of the heart of not only Dublin but of the Irish Republic. We commend An Bord Pleanálas strong description of this area in their request under Item 16 as ‘critical locations along the evacuation route from the GPO’ and the description of the Historic Street Pattern as follows: ‘The streets and lanes in this part of the city date from the first half of the 18th century and substantially retain their original overall form, thereby giving them a historical significance. Moore Street, Henry Street and the adjoining lanes have considerable importance in relation to the 1916 Rising’

8.0 Drawing Scale
All floor plans, other than those for No.s 14 to 17 Moore Street and the residential units, have been submitted at scale of 1:500. It is extremely difficult to read these drawings accurately and it is very inaccurate to scale off these drawings for small details. Dublin City Council themselves request that all floor plans submitted with a planning application be not less than 1:200 and most County Councils will request them not less than 1;100. I again feel that the reason for the smaller scale plans is that the accuracy of such plans is harder to dispute.

9.0 Residential Amenity
The amenity area proposed with the proposed apartments cannot be accepted as a suitable standard for living conditions. The apartments to the west have an extremely small walled in (I assume but cannot verify from plans) garden area with a children’s play area that consists of concrete setts (approx 75m.sq.) surrounded with shrubs and a strip of grass approx 2m wide at best, this is also the area to access the lift, the stairs, the front doors of the apartments and in fact is an access area not a play area.

The apartments on the east have a ‘landscaped area’ that is a disguise to the large louvers to the plant room below. The landscaping plan shows us an extensive landscaping legend but you will note very few of the items actually proposed on the plan. The applicant proposes 5 no. deciduous trees (leaves will fall on the canopy) in stainless steel circular planters, at a height of 20m approx above street level, and in the planting schedule refers to Scots Pine, a coniferous tree. The children’s play area in this section measures 4m square.

Stephen Little and Associates report refers to 62.3m.sq. of private and semi private open space being provided per bedspace, the total number of bedrooms within the residential area as summarised by Stephen Little and Associates report is 18 no. 2 bed duplex units and 4 no. 3-bed duplex units, a total of 48 no. bedrooms.
48 bedrooms x 62.3m.sq. = 2990.4m.sq.
It is confirmed in Stephen Little and Associates report that the total communal open space is 1160m.sq., leaving a balance of 87.16m.sq. per apartment of private open space to each apartment, this is clearly not provided anywhere and once again the Stephen Little and Associates report is totally incorrect.

10.0 Item No. 5 reply in Response to An Bord Pleanálas request by Stephen Little and Associates re integrating the northern end of Moore Lane into the proposed development as part of the retail street, removing vehicular access, traffic and proposed electricity substations from the lane.
In response to this item Stephen Little and Associates have submitted drawings with ground floor access to the anchor Department Store along part of the lane. 10.6m is still being used for provision of a service yard/ delivery yard, the service areas are usually accommodated for a service area in a specially designated service street incorporated into the development. The finish to the service dock is irrelevant during retail hours as the service dock will be open. The service dock location in this area will undoubtedly hold up traffic on Moore Lane ( it is acknowledged in Stephen Little and Associates report that there is existing traffic using this route) as the trucks and delivery vans will have to reverse into the service area as shown on Drawing by TJ O Connor & Associates in the rear of the Stephen Little and Associates report. TJ O Connor & Associates drawings also show 500 wide rubbing strip to the side of Conways and road widening of the junction of Moore Lane with Parnell Street, that are not even within the confines of the site nor has consent been submitted for the widening of this junction from the landowners, the note on the drawing reads as follows: ‘Lands in Local Authority ownership required in conjunction with CPO to facilitate widening of Moore Lane’. We refer to the letter dated the 15th October 2009 from An Bord Pleanála and in particular to the comment ‘the treatment of Moore Lane at its northern end, is unacceptable in terms of ensuring a lively and safe environment’, a service dock for the anchor tenant is hardly in keeping with the requirements of An Bord Pleanála in this letter.

Moving the substations to O Rahilly Parade instead of Moore Lane is hardly a solution, merely moving of the problem from one street to the other, the elevation of O Rahilly Parade on Drawing No. 5539-E-007 shows hardwood timber cladding to the substation doors, trying to disguise the doors rather than move them to a service street within the development. On Henry Place the applicant has not even shown
Hardwood on the substation doors, refer to Drawing No 5539-E-014

I refer you to the report of John Spain and Associates on behalf of Treasury Holdings in this regard and note that the applicant has not considered the contents of same in the revised submission.

11.0 Item no. 6 reply in Response to An Bord Pleanálas request by Stephen Little and Associates re routing all vehicular access via the northern end of Moore Street connecting to O’ Rahilly parade. The access / egress point is to be re-designed to facilitate vehicles turning from Moore Street into O’Rahilly Parade.
The response from the applicant shows that the entrance to the basement is now proposed on the junction with Moore Street and O’Rahilly Parade, the vehicular access to the basement is via the upper end of Moore Street, across the end of O’ Rahilly Parade and the exit from the basement onto Moore Street and onto Parnell Street, it is shown that there shall be 3 lanes of traffic on Moore Street. There is no doubt that this shall lead to nothing but severe traffic congestion in a small area in which it is intended to be the stalls area of a market Street, this lane should be alive with pedestrians not vehicles. There are no provisions for pedestrian crossings anywhere within this area and the applicant has not addressed this in any way. Pedestrians are vital to any market area, without pedestrians the market will die and perhaps this is what the applicant intends. The impact of this traffic on the market has not been considered.

12.0 Item No. 7 reply in Response to An Bord Pleanálas request by Stephen Little and Associates to retain the existing buildings on Henry Street.
The response offered by Stephen Little and Associates is that the drawings now enclosed for the Bord show a positive response and yet the report goes on to say that ‘a new replacement building is proposed at No. 38’ We would not consider a new replacement building as being a positive response to being requested to retain the existing buildings, no reason is given for the demolition of No. 38.

13.0 Item No. 16 reply in Response to An Bord Pleanálas request by Stephen Little and Associates
The response offered by Stephen Little and Associates is to refer to the EVENT submission. They have stated that ‘There is no predisposition at this time over the form any commemorative feature(s) might take’ so Stephen Little and Associates then invite a condition to make firm proposals to Dublin City Council for such a feature, but they were asked specifically to do this as part of the response to An Bord Pleanála. Is it possible that they do not wish to address what was indeed referred to by An Bord Pleanála as the ‘critical locations along the evacuation route from the GPO’.

14.0 Finishes
On a development of this scale the type of finishes including the material, colour etc is critical to the overall elevations. It is obvious throughout these drawings that these decisions have not yet been made and instead are covered by notes such as:
Brickwork to selected colour
Selected render
Selected stone cladding
Aluminium glazing system to selected colour
Polished concrete panels to selected colour
Standing seam metal sheeting (no colour)
Polyester powder coated aluminium framed glazing system ( no colour)
Selected pale stone cladding
Selected glazing
We can only assume that these details are outstanding as with so many important details of the plans.

Finishes vary from sections to elevations and from one plan to another, the finishes shown on the photomontages often differ also. This is not acceptable as a proposed development of this scale and the visual impact of same is heavily reliant on the finishes schedule, in other words the visual impact assessed by Stephen Little and Associates report ( Page 24) must be discounted.

This submission to An Bord Pleanála is very poorly thought out, very poorly presented with an exceptional number of inaccuracies, omissions and mistakes. An Bord Pleanála were more than accommodating to the applicant to allow sufficient time for the drawings to be accurately prepared and even allowed the applicant to replace some of the inaccurate documents that were lodged.

We hope that we have successfully demonstrated to the Bord that the proposed development provides the potential irreversible impact on the National Monument, on the architecture of Moore Street and O Connell Street and will result in the complete removal of part of Dublin’s historical Streetscape with the loss of a very important part of our Irish history, we trust that you will consider these items when making your decision in this case and the application will be refused.

If any clarification is required to the contents of this report please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Yours Sincerely,


Michael Conmy, MBEng, MRIAI, RIBA, Chartered Architect


Orlagh Cawley, MIEI, MIBCI, AMinstCES