Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
IN EARLY JULY, a lifeguard shelter on Bull Island in Dublin was demolished.
The demolition of the shelter – which Dublin City Council said was due to anti-social behaviour at the isolated spot – came in for criticism as the design for the shelter dates from the time Herbert Simms was lead architect in Dublin Corporation’s housing department.
Under Simms’ tenure, Dublin’s housing in the city and suburbs underwent huge change, as the corporation tried to solve an ongoing housing crisis. His work was both socially and architecturally notable, and he is now celebrated for having an important impact on the built heritage of Dublin city.
Similar conversations occurred in Cork city early this year when the Sextant pub was demolished. This bright blue pub on the corner of Albert St was a striking sight in part of the city that is undergoing redevelopment.
The pub was built in 1877 and was believed by many to add character to the cityscape. It was knocked as part of site works after permission was granted for a 25-storey residential build-to-rent scheme. However, it subsequently emerged in a report in The Examiner that the apartment plans had to be scrapped as they turned out to be “not financially viable”. The site will now become a 16-storey office block under new plans.
There are many other recent examples of buildings being knocked that generated some sadness, questions or even disquiet. In 2018, it was announced the Tivoli Theatre on Francis St in Dublin was to be knocked down so that an aparthotel could be built on the site. Another Dublin city centre cultural venue, Andrews Lane Theatre, was also knocked, to be replaced with an eight-storey hotel.
The demolition of a Dublin distillers structure in May 2019 was slammed by An Taisce, which called it “unjustifiable”. The eastern wall of the building in Smithfield was supposed to be retained, but this was knocked. The developer was instructed to rebuild the eastern wall.
In September 2019, The O’Rahilly’s (the 1916 leader) house near Herbert Park was demolished, leading to huge criticism and a court case. Permission had been granted for the demolition on 8 September, but on 14 September Dublin City councillors voted to add the building to the Record of Protected Structures. This was validated the following day but on 29 September the house was demolished. Dublin city councillors have sought the reconstruction of the house.
Over in Limerick, this summer the demolition of Curragower House came in for criticism. A campaign had been set up to save the redbrick building on the banks of the Shannon after its demolition was announced in 2018. The building was not a protected structure, but An Taisce and other groups believed it should have been.
Record of protected structures
In Ireland, buildings can be placed – after going through a certain procedure – on the Record of Protected Structures (RPS). The buildings on the list are considered “structures of architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, social, scientific or technical importance”. Each planning authority in the country is obliged to keep an RPS as part of its development plan. (Read our interview with the Chief Architect at the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) about their work on conserving buildings on the RPS here.)
The point of putting structures on the RPS is to protect them from harm but also to control all future changes to them. It means the owner or occupier must carry out the works necessary to protect the structure from things like neglect, harm or decay. In addition, planning permission is needed for work that “would materially affect” the building’s character.
The latest figures given to Dublin City councillors show that there’s a large number of nominated additions to the RPS – around 220 proposals requested by elected representatives and members of the public since 2006, and more than 1,250 recommendations made by Minister since 2014. That’s a slight drop on the waiting list from 1,700 in March 2019, but shows that there are hundreds of buildings at risk of demolition even though they’re being considered for protection. As they’re not on the list yet, just nominated for consideration, they are at risk of demolition.
Anyone can write to a planning authority to recommend a structure be placed on that area’s RPS, but the final decision on it is made by the elected members of the planning authority.
But is this system of being on or off the RPS fit for purpose – and what do the controversial demolitions listed above say about Ireland’s relationship to its built heritage?
To list or not to list
Green Party TD and former Dublin city councillor Patrick Costello believes that Ireland should move more towards the British system of classifying protected structures.
“The area is not properly resourced and the area most at risk is 20th century architecture,” said Deputy Costello. “Dublin’s industrial heritage is grotesquely neglected at the best of times.”
“Our approach to this very black and white. It’s you are on the list or you’re not on it.”
By comparison, Britain uses a graded system for listed buildings, with three grades:
“There is a need for denser cities,” said Costello. “It’s not as simple as the RPS gets in the way but a more subtle thing: the UK has a grading system and [certain buildings on it] need to be preserved exactly as they were. A lot of our 20th century buildings don’t need to be preserved to that extent. Perhaps they could undergo modernisation, allow changes internally while keeping the outside. That would be an appropriate approach for some structures but not others.”
The black and white doesn’t help things. It creates a perception that the RPS gets in the way, even though it doesn’t always.
But he said that the RPS “can make preservation much more expensive – it needs to be done in a more specialised way”. He suggested that the legislation underpinning the RPS could be changed to allow some more leeway along the lines of the British system. But at the same time, he wants stronger powers for restoration.
This ties in with the area of planning enforcement, and Costello, a former councillor, said that councils don’t generally have the resources to go to court over every case. Instead, they often take enforcement cases they can definitely win, due to the potential costs. He said that tied in with this is “a weakness of enforcement”.
However Graham Hickey, conservation officer at the Dublin Civic Trust, said that introducing the British listing system in Ireland wouldn’t be ideal. He said that the British system is “completely different”, as they have a different built heritage, including buildings like palaces.
“Ireland’s buildings are much more homogenous. If we bring in a grading system it needs a huge amount of more resources in the local authorities to manage it. But also we know the main intention of it would be to strike thousands of buildings off our protected structure list.”
He said that “very often it’s perceived that the RPS means you can’t put a nail in a wall – it couldn’t be farther from the truth”.
“Our system is more flexible than the British system,” said Hickey. “In Dublin Civic Trust we are hugely concerned at proposals to deregulate our protected structure system under the guise of producing more housing.”
Conservation work
Hickey said that conservation and good building practice has “improved enormously” and that the standards of works have improved.
But he added: “In terms of the under the radar [work] that goes on, that’s as prevalent as ever. In a strange way it’s almost a parallel system if you decide not to go in for planning permission. We know in areas like Dublin’s historic core and Dublin 1 there is rampant unauthorised works on protected structures and Georgian houses. That kind of work has always gone on and continues to go on.”
He said that the issue of enforcing such behaviour comes down to whether it is reported or not. “If the public doesn’t submit to the council, nothing happens. It’s not proactive, it’s reactive,” he said.
He said that conservation is better resourced in Britain, with more conservation officers in local authorities – although that said, there has still been a large decline in the numbers of these officers in the last few decades.
Hickey also believes that the issue in Dublin is that the planning enforcement system is based within the planning section, so a planning officer is appointed to deal with planning enforcement cases, not a conservation officer.
Hickey said that there is “the perfect storm of our housing crisis conflating with a lot of vacancy in buildings”, and that the Civic Trust is seeing a lot of conversion of Georgian buildings in the city centre without planning permission.
He believes some structures in parts of the city like Merrion Square would be dealt with differently to buildings in inner city areas like Mountjoy Square and Gardiner St.
“It’s a lot got to do with attitudes as well as REITs or investment funds being compliant and having the resources to engage people. In the north Georgian core it’s a free-for-all, much as it always has been.”
A study done on conservation grant funds found that “it’s the middle class south suburbs where people apply for them”, said Hickey.
“Our most vulnerable buildings are based in Dublin 1 and 2 and there’s scant grants [going there]. It needs a joined-up approach.”
They’re part of our physical identity and in Ireland we tend not to put as much emphasis on our built heritage as we do on intangible forms of culture.
Hickey said that the heritage buildings are important for many reasons, including how they were “made from handcrafted materials in a way that will never be produced in humanity again, in terms of craftsmanship and quality of materials used”.
Caring for these buildings would have benefits for the community and wider city, he indicated.
‘We seem to just disregard our heritage as unimportant’
This is something that was also brought up by Frank O’Connor, who is based in Cork City. When he and his partner Jude Sherry (they run the Anois systems design agency, and are passionate about sustainability) moved to Cork in 2018, they were struck by the depth of its built heritage – and the amount of derelict buildings they kept seeing.
They started to keep track of these buildings, sharing them on Twitter. He and Sherry have even made a request for the Sextant to be rebuilt, and he noted these kinds of requests (which don’t guarantee a result, but which do show there is local interest) can be done through the local council.
He said that there seems to be a bit of a “lack of understanding around heritage and its importance for our economy and our people”. He and Sherry want to shine a light on the dereliction and its impact: “We seem to just disregard our heritage in Ireland as unimportant.”
“You come somewhere like Cork, which is an absolutely stunning city, walk around and sadly we’re knocking it down or allowing it to decay or replacing with glass boxes. I am all about development and progress and that combination, but if you destroy all that heritage what makes Cork, Dublin or Limerick significant?” he said.
“I think we need a fundamental shift to our mindset in Ireland before it’s too late. Future generations will try and rebuild our cities, they will go back on old photographs. It’s happening in some other countries, the Dutch are beginning to rebuild certain things.”
It’s only as you get older we get more emotional about these things and recognise them, but we also have a responsibility to ensure future generations can also appreciate it.
He said that Cork “is far more significant from a heritage point of view than I realised”, and he noticed that Corkonians don’t seem to realise it either.
For example,the use of limestone and sandstone distinguishes Cork city from other areas, he said.
There are influences from Italy, from the Dutch. 1750-1840 was a key period in Cork, we had all this wonderful architecture built.
It’s only in the last 50 years where a lot of the stuff has been destroyed.
O’Connor believes Cork city should be taking care of its historic core, which differentiates it from other competing locations when it comes to business and tourism.
“If you are surrounded by derelict and decaying heritage, it affects people’s mental health,” he added.
O’Connor also pointed out that “the most sustainable [building] is an existing one”. Rather than tear down a building to build another, the focus could be seeing on what could be done with the existing building.
He believes that there will constantly be discussions and upset over buildings being knocked “until we take a shift in understanding” in Ireland.
“If you were living in Belgium and the Netherlands there would be a whole different perspective. We lived in Amsterdam and they know every building, all the materials, the dating, the ownership, it’s all controlled – you have to maintain your building, you have a custodial building, your responsibility is to maintain the cultural heritage.”
But he cautioned that it’s “not just about the old church building or old State building, old institutions – it’s about that small terrace in the city that’s there for 200 years. It’s just as important to maintain those as well.”
With regard to dereliction, he said there are lots of existing policy measures, but ”the problem is there no political will to implement them, or cultural will”.
Economy and wellbeing
John Hegarty, an architect based in Cork, works with Save Cork City, who are “trying to protect the heritage of the city of Cork”.
“I would say we are failing in Cork to capitalise on what heritage could mean for our economy and for the wellbeing of citizens,” he said, echoing the thoughts of O’Connor. He too believes that maintaining the historic core of the city would have multiple benefits for the people living here, and for attracting business and tourism.
The development of the docklands in the city – where the Sextant pub was – “needs to be hand in hand with protection of heritage”, he said. “The historic core will support the potential of the docklands.”
He added: “When we think about necessity and how we didn’t have enough resources in the past, we don’t think to think about heritage protection, but heritage protection is protecting the resources of the future.”
He surmised that as Ireland has known austere times ,”we may be reacting too quickly and we may be losing what are our best assets”.
Whereas the idea [of protecting heritage] is being degraded into some idea of backwardness, the reality is the backwardness is the development that doesn’t consider the asset that is the historical city.
”We’ve had a lot of societal issues in this country that we’ve been working through in the past 50 years. We are now facing this situation where we have to take our environment more seriously because we are harming our own citizens in the way we are treating heritage and the way we are not looking after our heritage towns and cities,” he said.
For Hegarty, focusing on protecting built heritage isn’t about getting stuck in the past.
“We can care for our historic environment and embrace technology and progress while also feeding our creative souls that come up with the ideas that make us a vibrant economy.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
There’ll be no shortage to the UK quota I’ll bet
@Jeff Nolan: there has been, that’s why instead of the recommended three to four week interval between doses it’s been extended to 12 weeks. Chief medical officers in the U.K. said vaccine shortages was main reason for the longer vaccine schedule.
@EillieEs: my understanding is that they have enough vaccine but they want to show how many people vaccinated statistics so they are giving it to double the amount of people first and second vaccinations much later. There have been no headlines in the uk of 60% reduction in vaccine for uk. All of their headlines say that the reduction is for the EU.
@Jeff Nolan: EU s main allegiance is to Pfizer who are making profits on vaccines. Astra Zenica is not for profit and is in fact prioritising India and other poor countries in conjunction with WHO.
@Tony Lyons: it’s 2 doses. The Johnson vaccine is 1 dose
@Tony Lyons: You are wrong. In trials they gave one dose followed by a half dose. Two doses have been found to be more effective and they are supplying this vaccine on the understanding that each person receives two doses. This is why there is a shortage in supply.
@EillieEs: That’s the Pfizer vaccine they are spreading out. I read that AstraZeneca is manufacturing the Oxford Vaccine in the UK for the UK market In Melbourne for the Australian market, India for that market & beyond because they have vast manufacturing capacity & Belgium & Holland for the EU. The EU should just ask for their money back from AstraZeneca if they feel let down & wait for Sanofi to whom they have placed orders for 300 million doses @ $10.50 a pop & lets not forget they haven’t even approved the Astra jab for emergency use yet ;-)
@Tony Lyons: no, it’s 2 doses. Johnson & Johnson are bringing out a vaccine which will be just 1 dose
@EillieEs: they further extended to 24; weeks and medical people not happy as could mess up the protection to people
@Jeff Nolan: AZ had promised that they will deliver the original amount that was promised.. I o w there is no shortage but they wanted to deliver to other countries. There not to be trusted and the EU can better deal with Pfizer from now on.
@EillieEs: wrong answer
@Joe Thorpe: well said Joe
@Eileen O’Sullivan: eu financed it to the tune of £450 million.
@Jeff Nolan: Best vaccine is nicotine and vitamin D.
That would be a very interesting contract to see. Hopefully not too much wiggle room for AZ and lots of penalty clauses.
@Seán O’Loughlin: It wont let me post an appropriate comment to that porkpie
@Joe Thorpe: BBC reporting has been hilarious. When things are going well it’s “Oxford AstraZenica”, all of a sudden it’s “The AstraZenica vaccine – with research from Oxford university”. Shpinnnnn.
Let’s hope the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is soon approved by the US and the EU shortly after. It only requires one jab, and does not require the same storage requirements of the Pfizer vaccine. This vaccine will be the game changer.
@Teresa O’Halloran: yeah but it has lower efficiency so should probably be used on the younger people in society and use the others for the more vulnerable
@Teresa O’Halloran: its the same type of vaccine as the AstraZeneca one.
@John Purcell: ok. If that’s the case then, we are back to square one.
@NotMyIreland: really? I didn’t know that. Bummer.
@Jason Walsh: that’s great. Love a freebie.
@John Purcell: a quick google tells me the clinical data are not in yet. Where’s your source?
@Eugene Norman: I think you are correct. That data is not yet released.
I’d rather the vaccine production to be carried out properly without undue pressure, this kind of rhetoric from EU leaders may lead to shortcuts being taken, dangerous game.
@Mark Malone: how would you propose pushing the pharmaceutical companies to adhere to their contracts so, particularly if money was paid up front to allow production capacity to be increased? You can’t expect the EU to be jumping up and down with joy instead
@Mark Malone: shame on the EU leaders for standing up for its citizens after AZ happily took the tax payers’ money to upgrade their production and meet the demands as per the contract and failed to do so.
@Mark Malone: they had no problem taking the EU’s funding, so they should have no problem delivering what they agreed in the contract.
Pharmaceutical production process doesn’t have shortcuts, you are either producing a vaccine or you are not…
@David Van-Standen: scaling up product from lab or clinic scale to commercial scale isn’t easy and can face a number of unforseen setbacks and issues that often aren’t seen until the first batch is made. Any number of things, be it the chemistry when moving to plant scale produces lower expected yields, supplier issues due to Brexit, validation issues, material impurity causing issues with quality, process deviations, quality control issues, plant workers/automation software over/under charging a vessel/reactor with too much of a solvent or chemical in error damaging a batch, engineering issues, the list goes on.
No doubt the hundreds of talented people working tirelessly to get this product made safely, compliantly and within the time frame the top brass promised is commendable.
@Derek: except that’s not what the EU seems to think. That would be a satisfactory response from the company. The EU says the response from the company was not satisfactory. It doesn’t take much reading between the lines to work this out: the EU thinks it’s not getting what it paid for and therefore some other country or countries are.
@D Mems: u assume. U are assuming.
@Derek: Quality and safety would always be number 1 but if that were the case why were AZ not communicating with the e.u on the issue from the outset and all the way through the process
I can understand from a validation point of view in that unforeseen issues can occur with mass production but again the e.u are right as the answers are unacceptable especially after pumping in billions to ramp it up and as a customer they have the right to know why AZ have not adhered to their contract
@Mark Malone: Reading between the lines it seems the EU are not buying the “production issues” excuse and are of the opinion that the vaccines are actually being produced in quantity but are promised to higher bidders. Think back to the early days of the pandemic and all the issues around PPE supplies. Cargo plane pilots with stories about EU bound PPE cargos about to be loaded on their planes but then vans turning up full of US dollars and the cargo being switched to US bound flights. America was basically paying cargo handlers to steal the supplies.
@James Grant: The EU may have pumped billions into the vaccine race but they didn’t pump billions into AstraZeneca they simply paid up front for the lowest priced candidate. Production for the EU deliveries is being done inside the EU so i dare say if the EU goes at them AZ will in turn go after their producer in Belgium.
@Mark Malone: they just want a more clear answer. Basically they want to know if it is indeed manufacturing issues and not favouritism.
Astrazeneca/Pfizer just deliver what u promised/contractually agreed u would and do your job, enough with the setbacks on this pandemic
@Hugo Bugo: Agreed. And they are delivering what they promised to the UK.
@Mairead Jenkins: I beleive the UK supply is being manufactured by Oxford Biomedica in Oxford, England an Wockhardt in Wrexham, Wales
Apparently they are using the chemicals needed to produce orders for others who are paying more. It isn’t a simple production issue, they are selling the product to the highest bidder
@ChuckE: Ball locks.
@Dermot Sexton: if that wasn’t true then why are the EU unhappy?
@Eugene Norman: the statement opened with “apparently”. If there was proof rather than ball locks talk then it would have been given
@ChuckE: What really happened is the UK made an order and contract first then Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands done the same a few weeks later calling it the vaccine alliance, the EU got upset and said it was their job then made them cancel the contract and the EU renegotiated the contract which took over 2 months putting them further back in a que but they want it now, the other problem is the EU still have not approved the vaccine.
So the EU wants to bully a company whose product it still hasn’t approved for use. The EU bureaucracy has publicly raised doubts about this vaccine when the UK authorised it’s use and then delayed approval while other countries began to use it. Like any company supply to its customers with existing supply chains in place will get priority. It’s no use the EU trying to make Astra Zeneca the bad guys – it’s the EU that has shown incredible incompetence.
@Sara Davis: only U.K. and India are using it. It looks like Europe’s manufactured doses which have been paid for went to the U.K., hence the suggestion today that vaccines manufactured in Europe stay in Europe
This NOW is what sovereignity is all about. Germany has bought direct so did UK and neither flouted or broke any eu law which allow member states to do that in c are of emergency but apparently the commission objected to govt here getting supplies from elsewhere , UK , and govt obeys and what is TD doing they are not holding govt to account to the DAIL and their constituents,
@Mary Ward: Dear ould pal, jolly ould pal one for the road?
There is absolutely no way that rich connected folk are paying these very reputable (cough) companies over the odds to jump the queue. No way that’s happening at all.
Imagine we were an independent country in charge of our own policies.. Oh well.
@Valthebear: Of course, Ireland would have so much more leverage on Pharma companies on it own .. FFS!
@Paul Harrison: Sure they all pay the tax man here
To a large degree ‘Big Pharma’ appears to have the EU over the proverbial barrel on this one and both sides know it. I see this as simply the EU grandstanding for public consumption full well knowing there’s very little they can do to improve the situation. It looks good in the media though…
Have lost all confidence in AstraZeneca, there’s been dodgy news about them since the beginning, hopefully Pfizer will step up without any more delay.
@Hotirish: nonsense
Another cost of membership or more cost of the loan to ireland and the treaty that commission can hold over govt head NOT APPROVED BY DAIL until loan paid back that control sulloy of vacine to the Irish people . Hw do we know , cos we dont , what type of deal made between commission and suppliers , We dont even know and will never know f the are paid and enif money in the eu to do it ? Nor do we know how much eu is charging us for it ? And dail to whom govt account . ZERO
@Eugene Norman: Grow up and learn. By god u have not a clue what u are talking about. The European Stability Mechanism Treaty make the austerity terms of the loan to ireland the Irish people an international agreement made by M Noonan and the head of the Euro Area States by which M Noonan Agreed that the EU Commission will monitor performance of the terms until the loan is paid back . Not one cent of principal is paid back . Beliieve u me man believe u me U are paying and paying big for membership of the EU. It is becoming a very very expensive e club. As i said even under eu law a member state can buy direct a vacine if there is an emergency. The UK did it . Germany is doing it . The commission said no to the govt doing it . The govt is towing the line . Do u really think our minister are going to do that unless they were afraid of a more powerful lever bing pulled and it is that loan . That treaty not ratified by dail .
@Mary Ward: Are the pubs back open?
@Mary Ward: nah, you made a bad point and badly made there.
@Mary Ward: EU agreed substantial discounts on vaccine prices which any single country would not be able negotiate on their own. So that could be the cause for pharma companies delay shipping to EU and they want to verify
@Massimiliano Gallo: LOL.. AztraZeneca are selling the vaccine at cost, where on earth do you people get your information from????
Another failure of the commission!
Why wasn’t this emergency approved by Ireland at the beginning of January and we could have got some stock in? We can’t stand up for ourselves and do what the commission tells us. The EMA was taking so long to approve the vaccine that Astra Zeneca probably got fed up waiting and sold it to other countries
This vaccine appears to be the game changer in terms of ramping up the programme. Will be interesting to see how this affects the rollout of the programme but I fear it could lead to significant delays well past the “September” target. A serious blow
@Adam O’Connor: other vaccines are also on the way
@Eugene Norman: nonsense
@Eugene Norman: nonsense , they haven’t even approved its use yet
Good luck with that. Most of the vaccine is made in the UK with India likely to play a huge role as I understand it.
The EU had no issue burying developing countries when it along with 4 other countries bought up half the vaccine supply for 2021 (for approx 13% of the world population) and ordered less than was needed (even now about half as many doses per person as UK and Canada) so I have zero sympathy.
Why are they bothered with a vaccine with so low effectiveness, its cheaper……!!!!
Surely there are quite a few manufacturing facilities in Europe that could manufacture it if given composition. It’s been done in India.
The pfizer vaccine has about 50-55% efficacy after dose 1 and can increase to about 94% after 2nd dose. Some studies in israel (ref BMJ) put pfizer vac as little as 33% efficacy after dose 1. The moderna vaccine has approx 70% efficacy after 1 dose increasing to +94% after second dose. Astra zenica is hard to find evidence on efficacy but allegedly provides 70% after 2 doses. But ongoing studies suggest it could be as high as 90% All these vaccines are 2 shot vaccines whereas the Johnson & Johnson vaccine provides 70% with just one dose. So all in all i believe its more of an economic strategy. I could be wrong!! There are many other vaccines on the market these days that have a low efficacy. The shingles vaccine being one. Only a 55 – 65% efficacy.
The EU has made a right balls of this… https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
The vaccine does not need to be approved for administration to ensure delivery. AZ are contractually obliged to deliver the agreed amount of doses in the set time frame. Failure to do so should see the EU throw the legal book at them. It has been paid for up front approved for use or not.
The Brits are at it again
@Anto H: would you like a ham sandwich?
If you cant trust big pharm who can you trust
What really happened is the UK made an order and contract first then Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands done the same a few weeks later calling it the vaccine alliance, the EU got upset and said it was their job then made them cancel the contract and the EU renegotiated the contract which took over 2 months putting them further back in a que but they want it now, the other problem is the EU still have not approved the vaccine.
have your say