Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue, but I had hoped that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government would have been here.

The 19th century chapel on the grounds of Saint James's Hospital was recommended by Dublin City Council for addition to the record of protected structures. The following recommendation was presented to the area committee on 20 April 2008 by a conservation officer and planner for Dublin City Council.

The chapel at Saint James's Hospital is considered to be of a certain level of architectural significance and consequently of local importance. It is also considered to be of sufficient social and historical value within the meaning of Part 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to merit inclusion in the Record of Protected Structures.

This was an unequivocal recommendation that it should be placed on the record, and it was passed by the south central area committee at the meeting of May 2008. Procedure requires that a public notice is placed in the newspapers giving notice of the intention to add the building to the list of protected structures. This was done on 3 July 2008. One submission was received requesting that the structure should not be added to the record of protected structures

A report was then prepared for the city council and signed off on by the assistant city manager on 21 August 2008. This report included a recommendation from the area committee to add the building to the list of protected structures. On 25 August 2008, a letter from a Dublin City Council conservation officer was forwarded to an executive manager of Dublin City Council, stating that a "recommendation to add this building to the record of protected structures on grounds of historical association is insufficient to warrant inclusion". A decision was taken by a city council official or officials not to proceed with the process. From correspondence received under the Freedom of Information Act, a letter dated 10 September 2008 was sent to the CEO of Saint James's Hospital by a senior planner in Dublin City Council, stating that "it has been decided not to proceed with the proposed addition to the record of protected structures in relation to the above, as it would be premature pending the formulation of an agreed Master Plan for Saint James's Hospital".

What is the basis on which Dublin City Council officials decided, without reference to the elected representatives, to take this decision? The addition or deletion of a building on the record of protected structures is a reserved function of democratically elected city councillors. This means that only they can make a decision. In this case, the non-elected city council officials unilaterally made a decision not to include this item on the agenda of the full city council meeting. Why did they do this? On whose authority did they do this? The city council officials refuse to answer these questions, so now I am requesting the Minister to get this information and put it in the public domain.

Saint James's Hospital has stated that the chapel impedes development of the site, which contains the largest hospital in the State. However, the proposal for development of the site is not to extend the availability of services for the public, but rather to build a private hospital on the grounds of the public hospital. Meanwhile, the developer has been given planning permission by Dublin City Council to go ahead with the building of the private hospital, subject to a number of conditions. This decision has been appealed to An Bord Pleanála. This is a hospital that will not be available to all the citizens from Dolphins Barn down to Kildare. The recommendation of Dublin City Council planners is that the chapel is to be demolished to allow the building of a private hospital, available to those who can pay for the privilege.

The city council has given a series of answers to Councillor John Gallagher, none of which addresses the questions posed. This attitude, combined with the decision to grant planning permission, is simply not acceptable. The Minister needs to undertake an inquiry or, alternatively, commission the Comptroller and Auditor General to undertake an urgent investigation.

I have listed a number of days, dates, records and so on. In summary, the conservationist from the council made an initial recommendation and then reversed it, following a submission from the hospital. The assistant city manager failed to bring a recommendation of the area committee to the full council. A developer now has planning permission to demolish the chapel, and the building can go ahead without reference to the elected representatives. This procedure flies in the face of democracy and needs to be investigated.

See this speech in context