Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

1635. To ask the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht if she will designate Emmett Hall, Inchicore, as a national monument in view of the role played by the building in the period 1913 to 1916. [15118/18]

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

1636. To ask the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht if her attention has been drawn to correspondence sent to a number of Deputies (details supplied); her plans to review same; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [15119/18]

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

1649. To ask the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht her plans to designate a building (details supplied) as a national monument; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [15904/18]

Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1635, 1636 and 1649 together.

The importance of Emmet Hall stems from its role as the home of 1916 leader Michael Mallin who was one of the major figures of the 1916 Rising. His part n the insurrection and in the republican movement at the time is undoubtedly more than worthy of remembrance and commemoration.  The immensely successful 1916 Commemorations that took place nationwide in the centenary year included the creation of permanent tributes to many of those who, like Commandant Mallin, had fought, and in his case died, during the Rising.

Over a thousand national monuments are in State care under the National Monuments 1930 - 2004, the vast majority of which are archaeological structures or features pre-dating the year 1700.  This reflects the core focus of the Acts on ancient archaeological remains rather than on buildings of a historic nature but of relatively much more recent origin. There is, of course, also the input of significant financial resources that is required to ensure the proper management and maintenance of these national monuments that are already in State care. 

The decision for the State to take action under the National Monuments Acts in relation to the buildings at Nos. 14 – 17 Moore Street, which might be seen as somewhat comparable to Emmet Hall, was strongly influenced by the fact that these buildings had played a very direct, distinct and significant role in the Rising itself.  One of the key and defining moments of the insurrection, the decision to surrender, happened in No. 16 and, at one point, the buildings also accommodated several hundred insurgents who had escaped from the GPO. Other factors in that decision were that these were also the most complete and original pre-1916 buildings on the street, that they contained physical evidence of the presence of the rebels in the form of the openings cut through the buildings as they made their way up Moore Street from their entry point at No. 10 and that a particular opportunity had emerged for the State to gain ownership on an agreed basis in time for the 1916 Centenary through the involvement of the National Asset Management Agency.

Emmet Hall is outside the normal framework that would determine that a individual building constituted a national monument that warranted a Preservation Order being placed on it under the National Monument Acts at this particular time. Such powers are intended to preserve monuments that are at grave and immediate risk of destruction and were primarily devised to protect archaeological sites or ancient ruinous remains from being irreparably  damaged.  The Moore Street buildings were significantly run down and were at risk of being demolished to facilitate wider redevelopment proposals. Neither do the other special circumstances I have outlined in relation to Moore Street apply to an equivalent extent in relation to Emmet Hall, important though it may be in its own right.  

I understand that a proposal to develop the rear of Emmet Hall, which is still in use, is currently the subject of an appeal to An Bord Pleanála and it would not therefore be appropriate for me comment on that aspect of the case. I would, however, point to the Register of Protected Structures (RPS) as provided for in the Planning and Development Acts which allows local authorities to consider the future of historic buildings, including those in current use.  Part IV of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, gives primary responsibility to planning authorities to identify and protect the architectural heritage by adding particular structures on the RPS.  Inclusion on the RPS places a duty of care on the owners and occupiers of protected structures and also gives planning authorities powers to deal with development proposals affecting them in order to safeguard their future. The addition of a structure to the Record of Protected Structures is a reserved function of the members of the relevant planning authority.