We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
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.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
A PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT on the 5.5-acre plot stretching from O’Connell Street to Moore Street has been approved by Dublin City Council.
UK property group Hammerson lodged three applications for the €500 million redevelopment in order to construct a mixed retail, office and residential scheme on the city block.
Two of these three applications, which were lodged last June, have been approved by the council and will include residential, hotel, retail, restaurant and cafe and cultural uses on Moore Street and Henry Street.
A third, less significant, application on the northern end of Moore Street at O’Rahilly Parade, has not yet been approved.
The council has asked Hammerson to submit an amended daylight and sunlight analysis on the effect the development will have on nearby apartments.
Both Mary Lou McDonald of Sinn Féin and the great-grandson of James Connolly, James Connolly Heron, have opposed the development because of the historical significance of the area.
The city block approved for development stretches west from O’Connell Street to Moore Street, and north from Henry Street to Parnell Street and was the site of fighting during the 1916 Easter Rising.
McDonald called on the government to act urgently to prevent “the destruction of Moore Street” which she described as “one of the most important sites in modern Irish history.”
McDonald is a TD for the Dublin-Central constituency, which contains Moore Street.
“This wrecking of our history and heritage cannot be allowed to happen. The legacy of 1916 and Moore Street belongs to the people of Ireland, not to a commercial developer intent on tearing it down for profit,” she said.
“Frankly, it is incredible that the Hammerson plan has gotten even this far. The decision flies in the face of Dublin’s City Council policy to have the 1916 terrace added to the list of protected structures.”
During the Easter Rising significant fighting took place on Moore Street due to its proximity to the GPO.
Five of the seven signatories of the Proclamation, as well as Michael Collins and a group of Irish Volunteers, surrendered to British forces from a terrace of houses on Moore Street.
One of the approved applications for the site surrounds the 1916 Rising National Monument buildings at 14-17 Moore Street.
The buildings there are State-owned and due to be developed separately as a Rising Commemorative Centre, at an expected cost of over €16.25 million.
James Connolly Heron, great-grandson of 1916 leader James Connolly said that the council’s decision was “another significant blow to the unique heritage of Dublin,” and “will not stand unchallenged.”
He also stated that the street was in danger of being “lost forever.”
The other approved application will involve the destruction of two buildings: 38 Henry Street will be replaced with a passageway and 41 Henry Street will be replaced with a new building.
The Department of Housing opposed the demolition of 38 Henry Street, deeming it “unnecessary,” however Dublin City Council approved its removal. This decision will be appealed to An Bord Pleanála.
Stephen Troy, chairperson of the Dublin 1 Business Alliance and owner of Troys’ Butchers on Moore Street, said the council had given Hammerson permission to “destroy” Moore Street.
“I believe this will go down as the biggest planning mistake in Irish history to date, as let’s not forget that this will lead to the existing 5.5-acre city centre retail core becoming a 15-year building site,” he told the Irish Times.
The site, which was known as the Carlton site for many years because it encompassed the old Carlton cinema, has been vacant and derelict in some areas for 40 years.
Hammerson issued a statement in which it welcomed the council’s decision.
“This takes us another step closer to delivering what will be a landmark development for the city of Dublin,” it said. “We look forward to submitting a number of further applications for the remainder of the site in the coming months while we continue to work with all stakeholders.”
As part of Hammerson’s plans the facade of the Carlton cinema will be restored, as well as three protected structures, 42 O’Connell Street – the last remaining Georgian house on the street, O’Connell Hall at the back of No 42, and Conway’s pub.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
So what if he served 48 days , and so what if that was the deal made by the prosecutor. He drugged and raped a 13 year old girl ! Why would you want filth like that back in your Country, no matter how good his films are..
@Blarneykite: you’re literally defending a paedophile.
@Blarneykite: you must be deaf if you cannot hear the calls for Blair and Bush to be tried for war crimes, perhaps selectively so. Anyway, back to your defence of an admitted paedophile.
A predator
“Polanski – the only polish wanted in the USA without a valid visa lol”
While I despise him as a person, polish court was right not to extradite him to the us. US made balls of the investigation and charges and wanted to change it after he served what they deemed at first. Only US court fault. Then still interesting why she wanted withdraw her case from the court, being a victim it sounds weird, who knows what was really between them, maybe consensual sex that turned wrong when he said to her bye bye. (Not that’s right anyway to have sex with 13 years old).
@Tomasz Kuchnik: a 13 year old cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse in the US. Anymore vile excuses for Polanski?
@Tomasz Kuchnik: maybe she’s just sick of this following her around and would like closure. She is now living her life and maybe she has recovered and wants it all to go away and I have a lot of sympathy for that. It must be hard for her.
@Paul Fahey: cannot consent legally, but can consent informally… not? and why are you attacking me I said I despise the man, and just thought that’s one possibility…
@Tomasz Kuchnik: what exactly is “informal consent” by a 13 year old child to sexual intercourse? I find that a most disturbing comment, I really do.
@Paul Fahey: Paul ok I need to explain that to you as for some reason you don’t get it, in 90s in the US first sexual intercourse under 13 years of age have been reported by more than 10% of the teenagers. It has been decreasing since then. So in 70s when this happened, that percentage was likely even bigger than 10% although I have no source for it. How do you know she didn’t want to sleep with him as you seem totally rejecting that version? Rape accusation is oldest trick in a book. Now before you go on holy war with me – I’m not saying this is the case. I’m just interested why you don’t let think it could have been consensual from her side then. Himself as a grown up man should have known better and of course shouldn’t touch her either way.
@Tomasz Kuchnik: you are aware how old Polanski was at the time of these crimes aren’t you? He was not a 13 year old boy having “informal consent” sexual penetrative intercourse with a 13 year old girl. No, he was a 40+ year old man committing statutory rape on a 13 year old girl, consent does not come into it, formal or “informal”. If you think all the US 13 year olds you mention are losing their virginity to 40+ year old man, then you need help. You are defending and making excuses for a paedophile, let that sink in. You may think you are being clever with your words, but most normal people will find them quite disturbing.
Good. Horrible man.
He is a dirtbag.
Jesus Barny.. give it a rest.
have your say