Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The last part of my Adjournment matter submission reads "those who perpetrated the vandalism on the Methodist church on Jones's Road, Dublin 3, are prosecuted and made to restore the church to its pristine condition".

It is unbelievable to think that in this day and age a developer could on the night 14 October use a bulldozer to begin to demolish the beautiful old Methodist church on Jones's Road in the heart of Dublin city. The local authority enforcement section served an order on the developer to desist from further demolition. Instead of desisting, he returned the following morning at 6 o'clock and proceed to continue with the demolition. The local residents were incensed and called the Garda. When the Garda arrived, the driver of the bulldozer ran away and the gardaí on the scene were unable to catch him.

It is a case of absolute vandalism and must be treated in that fashion. The local residents are up in arms that this happened. They certainly want to see this matter dealt with in a comprehensive manner. They want to ensure the church is restored to its original condition, for which there is a precedent. They also want to ensure the local authority proceeds with a civil action in this case. I understand the local authority will ensure the owner of the church is levied the cost of protecting and securing the building from any further attempt at demolition.

A prosecution of a criminal nature should take place. However, there is a problem in this regard. The maximum fine that can be imposed in these cases is only €1,904, a derisory fine. It can, however, include a prison sentence. This must be considered as well. In 2006 a similar event occurred when the Presentation Convent on Terenure Road was demolished by a developer. The local authority ordered that it be reinstated. When it was not, the matter went to court and the individual in question was fined a minuscule €1,000. The developer purchased that site for €15 million, so it was quite clear, it was worth his while to flout the law. We must ensure this is not replicated in the Jones's Road case. We must ensure this particular developer does not get away with the same act of vandalism and the same intent to make a killing on the property.

In Dublin and other parts of the country, there are many places of worship such as synagogues and churches of various denominations, which are surplus to use for their particular congregations. It is time to put a system in place to oblige local authorities to ensure every one of these places of worship is listed for protection. There should also be an audit of such churches to be recorded as protected structures. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should examine establishing trusteeships with funding to maintain these surplus buildings and ensure their appropriate use in keeping with the dignity of what they once were. This would be better than the current system where any developer can purchase the site and demolish the building, if it is not listed.

I am seeking that this particular case is prosecuted to a satisfactory outcome with proper sanctions being imposed and mechanisms put in place to prevent this happening again.

Michael Finneran (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The role of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is to ensure the regulatory framework is robust and adequate to underpin the protection and conservation of our built heritage and to encourage best practice in this area.

Part IV of the Planning and Development Act 2000 provides the primary legislative framework for the care and protection of the architectural heritage. Its main features include a clear obligation for planning authorities to create a record of protected structures and a provision for the Minister to make recommendations to a planning authority concerning the inclusion of particular structures in its record of protected structures.

The architectural heritage protection guidelines, published by the Department, provide a practical guide for planning authorities who must comply with Part IV of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Chapter 5 of these guidelines contains provisions for places of public worship, including the redundancy of a building as a place of public worship. Guidance is provided on several issues including retention of the redundant building for other uses or the loan or sale of the building to another religious denomination. My Department also funds a number of annual grant schemes through its built heritage capital programme, including the civic structures conservation grant scheme, the significant places of public worship scheme, the local authority architectural conservation grant scheme and the Heritage Council buildings at risk scheme. Grant assistance under the relevant scheme or schemes may be available to places of public worship and to those that are no longer in use as places of public worship.

The Planning and Development Act 2000 imposes a number of statutory obligations on a planning authority with regard to genuine complaints regarding unauthorised development, including investigating such unauthorised developments, issuing enforcement notices and informing complainants of its decision. The maximum fines for unauthorised development have been greatly increased under the 2000 Act. In addition, the planning regulations were changed with effect from 2 July 2008 to amend the exemptions with regard to demolition. The amendment identifies various categories of demolition and site clearance works that are to be exempted from the requirement to obtain planning permission, but the associated conditions and new lower thresholds for demolition afford greater protection to public buildings. Since 2 July last, the demolition of the building referred to by the Deputy required planning permission.

I understand from Dublin City Council that there was no planning permission for the demolition of this building and that the unauthorised demolition commenced on 14 October. Dublin City Council received a complaint on 15 October, visited the site immediately and directed the contractor carrying out the demolition to cease. The contractor complied with that direction. That evening the council served a formal enforcement notice prohibiting further demolition on the occupier and a person they believed to be one of the owners. The following morning a vehicle entered the site and struck the front gable of the building, causing a further collapse. The Garda was informed and its investigation is ongoing. The council is also investigating the matter with a view to determining who was responsible for this unauthorised demolition and initiating legal proceedings. I understand the council has acted in a timely manner in this case and is taking appropriate enforcement action under the relevant legislation.

I note with interest the Deputy's suggestion for an audit of buildings and their uses and I will convey this to the Department.