Architectural, Archaeological and Cultural Heritage

First party evidence

They had tried to work with narrower boxes. They looked at the area available, the brief was for 75,000m2 giving a three storey building with a footprint of100mx 250m.

The second speaker for the first party was David Slattery, (conservation architect, a fellow of the inst of architects).

Corballis House as it currently stands was afforded regional importance on the NIAH scale. The building was of some architectural interest. Referring to s 52 of the 2000 Act, and going through architectural assessment suggested in the Architectural Heritage Guidelines for listing as a Protected Structure he stated:

• 
  The house was much altered, modified and extended and could not be considered as an exemplar of good quality architectural design of any particular period
  
• 
  The house was not the work of an known and distinguished architect
  
• 
  The building had several phases of construction but did not reflect any style other than that of an early 19^th century house
  
• 
  The building made no particular contribution to the streetscape, landscape or setting
  
• 
  The interiors could not be described as being well designed and rich in decoration, complex and spatially pleasing, though a number of rooms retained a level of quality and decoration
  

He concluded that whilst Corballis House is of some architectural interest, it would be difficult to consider that it merits regional importance. He further considered it extremely difficult to consider that in its much altered setting it can be deemed as holding a considerable significance architecturally. The building was an assemblage of phases of construction which have been pulled together through 19^th century remodelling to appear as an early Victorian House. In his view it would be more appropriate to rate the building of being local importance on the NIAH scale.

The third speaker for the first party was Lisa Courtney, (senior archaeologist with Margaret Gowen & Company Ltd.)

Planning authority evidence

Fionnuala May, (Senior Conservations Architect for FCC ) had extensive professional experience. The purpose of her brief of evidence (AJ-26/04/07) was to set out the policy context underpinning the local authority’s adjudication in relation to architectural heritage and archaeological aspects of the application for Terminal 2, to clarify how assessment were reached and to respond to some grounds of appeal.
In relation to architectural heritage policy context, she referred to UNESCO convention on protection of World Heritage (1972), ratified by Ireland in 1991. The Granada Convention (convention for the protection of architectural heritage of Europe) 1985 was ratified by Ireland in 1997. These provided the basis for Ireland’s national commitment to protection of architectural heritage.
The conservation principles of care and protection of architectural heritage first introduced under early planning legislation were superseded by the local Government planning and development act 1999, and then by the Part IV of the 2000 Act.
The main features of this Act were clear obligations for planning authorities to

• 
  to create a record of Protected Structures (RPS) in their functional area
  
• 
  to preserve character of places and townscapes which are of special architectural historic, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific character or contribute to the appreciation of Protected Structures
  
• 
  to included objectives in the development plans for protection of such structures and preservation of such areas
  
• 
  to include interiors, fixtures and land within curtilage of a Protected Structure
  

All works which materially effected the character of a Protected Structure would require planning permission

She also referred to National Monuments Acts 1930-2004 and stated that this allows overlap with the Planning and Development Act, 2000.
The planning authorities were empowered to protect the architectural heritage in the interest of proper planning and sustainable development of their respective functional areas, through adoption of suitable policies in the development plans. These were given practical effect through liaison between conservation and planning officers.
She referred to policies HP8 and HP9 contained in County Development Plan 2005-2011 for protection of built and architectural heritage.
Policy HP8: To preserve, protect and enhance the architectural heritage of Fingal for future generations

Policy HP9: To protect structures contained in the Record of Protected Structures and features that contribute to the character of architectural conservation areas

Under policy context for archaeology she referred to Valetta Convention which Ireland had ratified and the National Monuments Acts 1930-2004, which provide basis for comprehensive protection, and management of the archaeological resource which included known sites and features and those yet to be discovered.
The Planning and Development Act, 2000 required development plans to contain objectives for the protection of archaeological heritage.
She referred to policies contained in the County Development Plan 2005-2011, in particular Policies HP1, HP2, HO5, HO8, and to the following specific policies included in Dublin Airport LAP.
AR1: To secure an architectural assessment of the Recorded Monument Sites within the Master Plan area in consultation with National Monuments Section

AR2: To secure the assessment of the potential impact of any development on archaeological sites bordering and within the master plan area

She stated that DAA was therefore required to undertake archaeological investigations and to comply fully with the National Monuments Acts to ensure any architectural is fully evaluated and resolved.
She stated that the architectural and archaeological remains as revealed within the application area were

• 
  The site of a castle (RM DU014-011) of which there is no visible upstanding remains
  
• 
  Post-medieval masonry within the existing walls of Corballis House (RPS:613)
  
• 
  The extant of Corballis House
  
• 
  Location of Colinstown House
  

The Council’s decision reflected the singular circumstances embodied in the application.

She referred to Section 57(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, which provided that permission may only be granted for the demolition of a Protected Structure in exceptional circumstances. Where a proposal is made to demolish such protected structure, it required the strongest justification before it can be granted permission and will require input from an architect and engineer with specialist knowledge so that all options other than demolition, receive serious consideration. It may happen that the special interests of a Protected Structure have been damaged or eroded to an extent that demolition is permissible.
She described the alternative options considered for the treatment of Corballis House.

• 
  Retention /incorporation of Corballis House within the scheme
  
• 
  Relocation of Corballis House
  
• 
  Deconstruction /reconstruction of Corballis House
  
• 
  Controlled demolition (following comprehensive recording)
  

Following assessment of various options and careful consideration of the conservation assessment submitted as part of the EIS the decision to apply for demolition was made.

The justification came from the fabric, significance and setting of Corballis House.
She stated that although included on the RPS Corballis House had its setting and curtilage (which are an intrinsic part of a structure) eroded to a significant degree over the last 50 years as the airport developed around it. The layout of the roads which have greatly impacted on the house took place prior to enactment of the 2000 act.
Avoidance was a preferable option, but given the significant constraints the architects for the proposed development were unable to generate a proposal which would satisfy the requirements of the terminal and retain Corballis House.
She referred to the recommendations which were incorporated in its entirety as conditions in the planning authority decision.
While avoidance would be the preferred option, given the strategic national importance that the terminal 2 project constituted in this instance ‘exceptional circumstances’ as identified in the Planning and Development Act, 2000.
Therefore, notwithstanding the architectural and archaeological significance, it was proposed that the most appropriate option was to permit the demolition of Corballis House subject to conditions.
In assessing the project Fingal County Council had considered the policies and objectives related to the proposal, and the assessment had concluded that the criteria for exceptional circumstances have been met and the mitigation proposed was in line with best practice and appropriate.
In response to propping by Mr. Flanagan she agreed that the architectural heritage objectives of the LAP were contained in section 8.2, and the list of Protected Structures contained in table 2 were in fact included in the County Development Plan.
She agreed that the LAP made reference to an individual building only in objective AH1. The OCTB was the building with most significant structure of architectural merit on site.
She agreed the other objectives were related to conservation of architectural heritage as far as is consistent with the development of necessary airport infrastructure. AH2, AH4 in particular.

Submissions by third parties

Ms. Lawton was deeply saddened that a house that stood for generations was being knocked down. She would love to know the details of Wilkinson family. The passengers waiting for the planes could be given the tour of the house. The proposed development was not only destroying the planet but also built heritage.
Mr. Byrne said previously while she was the airport manager they had a heritage program. He had visited other airports and their cultural heritage programs. In one of the conference trips to US Dallas, the heritage program involved a house 150 years old with a display of coca cola bottles. He was saddened to see what was being done here.
He said if he could afford would hire an expert who would provide evidence on why the building should be preserved. The experts were hired by companies to justify decisions. He said it seems the decision was made to put the terminal building there and the house had to go. He would have looked at this beautiful historic building with all its imperfections, then decide where the terminal should go.
Ms. O’Brien said she had outlined in her previous submissions that she preferred that the whole airport went to west. She agreed with the previous speakers.
Mr. Harley referred to the storey about the stranger looking for directions and the response by the local stating I would not start from here. He said the issue was whether terminal should be located at this location in the first place.
He referred to the earlier submission by M. Moran (Terminal and Piers study), and the options that were examined, concluding that the eastern option was the best one.

The analysis with sensitivity looked robust superficially.

He had a written submission (AK-26/04/07) where he had carried out an analysis of the options and weightings more closely. He submitted that with the chosen categories and the weights the results were fixed.
He said unless sensitivity test was done to include critical variables you did not really doing a sensitivity test. (He had expertise in the area)
He looked at the three categories, presented in Mr. Moran’s table and added a heritage category from 1-5. He said Corballis House was threatened by this proposal and not by others, and applying ‘heritage’ sensitivity the eastern option would become third and not the first option.
He concluded that on the basis of the analysis on which the choice of East option was based was not robust and could not serve as a sufficiently reliable basis for the planning permission sought. The issue was not whether Corballis House could co exist with the terminal, because evidently it could not.
He did not think (in reference to previous discussions with Mr. Moran) that one could apply the system used by American institute of architects in this case. He repeated that the categories particularly deliverability was conveniently chosen
Mr. Manahan for Ryanair said they would not be arguing on the quality of the house, as put by others.
Their argument was that Corballis House was more important in terms of what could be achieved on the site.
He referred to previous discussions between DAA and Ryanair where DAA had in response to Ryanair plans to locate a terminal in the northern section proposed to locate a smaller terminal to the south east of T1, but then went ahead and put an

application for a much larger structure.

He repeated they believed the size was greater than needed.
It was their believe that rather than controlling the size through conditions (28) it would be better controlled if Corballis House was retained.
He said DAA had no interest in developing western campus, which was realistic as they owned the lands in the eastern campus.
Their case was that T1 was currently accommodating 22mppa, and could accommodate 25mppa, together with T2 which could hold 25mppa capacity of the eastern campus would be over 50mppa. He questioned how one could control this by way of conditions. Corballis House could be a way to control.
He referred to the presentation by Mr. Lamond, and the fixed footprint which they tried to fit into various locations. He said this was based on 25 000m2, and they had not looked at a building with 15,000m2 footprint. He said the whole thing was driven by the applicants starting point of I need this floor area, and I must have it, Corballis House is in the way so it needs to be demolished, rather than saying Corballis House is there how can I work around it.
If one could jump over the road, they could also jump over Corballis House. It could be retained so that the traffic passing could see it in the context of how things were previously.
The option of incorporating it into the new building was dismissed because of interference with other uses such as ‘storage’.
A smaller building could be built in the space and leave the house as is, alternatively a terminal could be built in the northern section, or in the western section.
They did not believe the circumstances were such that a building of this size must be built at this site, there is no alternative and Corballis House must be knocked down. They did not believe such circumstances existed under the current planning system.

Mr. Sweetman started by saying that the section in the EIA process was headed ‘cultural heritage’.
Secondly ‘the yoke’ (referring to connection to pier D in front of OCTB) took so ‘majorly’ from the setting of OCTB, he did not think with that sort of destruction one could do much worse to it.
Similarly Corballis House has been degraded since 2000, since the Act was passed.

The section 57 (10)(b) said you could only demolish under exceptional circumstances, if there is no alternative. There were lots of alternatives.

Questions and clarifications

In response to points raised, Mr. O’Donnell referred to PM/SOM report and stated that reading the report in detail would indicate it is a very sophisticated report and included the points raised by Mr. Harley.

Alan Lamond said while not being the author of PM/SOM study he had examined it very carefully. The study was concerned with the heritage issues. One of their concerns was related Terminal and Piers OCTB.
They too were concerned with cultural/heritage issues, and had looked at various options, and had come to the conclusion that southern option was a better option, for a range of issues. He repeated the impact on the curtilage of OCTB was an important consideration.
He responded to Ryanair team and said that it was not the storage areas that were located in the area where Corballis House was located, it was the key service functions such as stairs and lifts and mechanical functions.
He repeated the depth was the key. Making a building smaller was only possible through reduction of the width.
In response to the question by the inspector that as the 17^th century cottage was discovered within Corballis House following completion of PM/SOM study and indeed the lodgement of the application, would the rating of the house be changed in the light of the recent discoveries (and were they aware of the recent developments), Fiunnula May for the planning authority said they were aware of the recent works being carried out, and no they would not change the rating.
She explained that there was a particular reason why a building was rated in a particular way. It was not necessarily related to their significance, but in accordance with the ratings devised by the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH). If a building was not given a listing of regional higher rating, than the building could not be included in the list for Ministerial recommendation to be included in the Record of Protected Structures.
In some cases there was a borderline situation, which she thought could be apportioned to Corballis House, where the rating was on the cautious side.

The buildings of local importance could not be subject of a ministerial list for recommendation for inclusion in the RPS

In FCC they normally accepted the rating given by the NIAH, except in extraordinary situations where an error was made.
Mr. Slattery for the first party stated that there was a difficulty with the level of guidance the guidelines offered. He referred to the criteria he quoted previously. The criteria were very effective and fair. Using the criteria again the rating would remain the same.
The recent investigations had confirmed his view from the earlier stage that the building was a mix of bits and pieces from various times. The findings might have changed the view from archaeological point of view, but from architectural point of view there would be no change.

The inspector invited the experts to express their views.

Dr. Frederic O’Dwyer (DoEH&LG) PhD in architectural history, had a long list of credentials.
He stated that the view of the department previously was that the building was of regional importance and this had not changed.
Referring to the evidence by the planning authority, he stated that the department would take the view that in this case those exceptional cases had arisen.
Reading from section 57(10)(b) of the Act, in relation to exceptional circumstances it was the view of the department that such circumstances have arisen. The suggestion by at third party regarding alternatives, he said there was nothing in
In response to the question posed by the inspector whether something very important and valuable was being lost and if so were there exceptional circumstances to warrant such a decision, he said they agreed that exceptional circumstances had arisen.
The building had incorporated section from six or seven different phases 17, 18, and 19^th century and it was not easy to compare with other buildings. Clearly it had 17^th century building fabric and as such was of some interest. There were other buildings with 17^th century fabric in Fingal area. They had looked at the overall context.
The department had taken an overall view and when one is dealing with important infrastructure development exceptional circumstance may arise and they believed they had done so in this case.
Chief archaeologist, Mr. Brian Duffy (DoEH&LG), wanted to clarify that the National Monuments Act did not provide for any ratings of monuments.
In regard to what was contained in Corballis House, it was a national monument within the meaning of the Act, but the building did not have sufficient archaeological significance to raise it to level of a national monument. They would not be very concerned about its removal through an archaeological process, that would be the standard mitigation measure.
In response to question by Mr. Sweetman Mr. Slatery stated that following taking measurements, he had considered that the thickness of the walls suggested an archaeological dimension.
Mr. O’Donnell clarified that they were directed to carry out further investigations and the maps provided today represented the up to date situation, and there was corroboration between Mr. Slatery and ..
Mr. Sweetman asked if they had considered removing Corballis House to Lisadel house, and whether they considered importance of Countess Marchievitz., and referred to a storey of Corballis House by David Nolan published by Aer Rianta, he read Countess Markiewicz rented Corballis House .when she set up a training programme for republican youth movement and said this was of extreme cultural importance. He said Mr. Slatery’s evidence was completely false.
He also said that the house was used by the British Army in 1918, and asked if that did not constitute cultural significance.
Mr. Slatery had read the book. One of the Wilkinson was Lord Mayor of Dublin which could have some passing significance. Countess Markiewicz had spent a lot of time in a lot of places. He did not think there was any cultural linkage to Corballis House.
In relation to importance of the extent of the landownership and that the reference to a humble cottage was questionable, as it was rather a large ‘farm house’, Fionnula May said it was a three bay cottage and she agreed with the description.
Mr. Sweetman insisted the original building at 6m x9m was very big for its time, it was a stone building, not a mud cottage, and then it was turned into a big house. Its importance was being underplayed.
In response to question when Corballis House was degraded, Mr. Slattery said he said it was compromised, by airport development around it. Mr. Sweetman asked when the lawn around the house was removed, and said it was after 2000 Act. Fionnula May (FCC) did not agree, the aerial photos indicated otherwise.
Mr. Sweetman said it was converted to offices illegally.
Mr. Manahan asked the distance between Corballis House to pier E. Alan Lamond responded 68m to pier C plus the 13-14 depth of pier C.
Yes they had considered relocating pier E to one end. The most valuable piece of land from airport planning point of view was apron space. It was constrained on that side by the runway and there would not be adequate space to park planes.
In response to question that the options they looked at was always based on the area requirement given by DAA (3 storey building of 75,000m2) as the starting point, he responded affirmative.
In response to question by Mr. Manahan that if the Board turned the application down, if keeping the house would cause him grief, Mr. Slatery said he would be quite happy. He had not set out to condemn the house. He had considered keeping the house within the building, and asked how far one needed to move to see it properly. He said one had to ask the question if the house justify a treatment such as moving like a national monument he did not think so.
In response to same question, Fionnula May said the Council’s attitude was always to preserve these buildings and it was not a question of being happy or indifferent. She could not comment on the appropriateness or otherwise of various options. They would respond regardless of the size of the development proposed. If another application came in that did not involve knocking the house it would preferable.
Yes, they had one precedent demolition of a railway bridge (F02A/04259) the bridge was inhibiting freight traffic on Dublin Belfast corridor. It was allowed to facilitate development of national importance.
In response to question if there were other alternatives, the exceptional circumstances would not arise, she said the alternatives were apparently clearly examined and found not be acceptable. Therefore exceptional circumstances would pertain. The application was being examined on the basis of what was being proposed not on other proposals.
In response to question by the inspector regarding the curtilage of Corballis House, Mr. O’Donnell referring to many cases he was involved in, said his submission was that in this as the curtilage was the footprint of the building.
He referred to caselaw, Riversdale House (Begley and Clarke v. south County Dublin) where the High Court held was that the gate piers and the house were protected but the area in between was not
Mr. Slattery referred to 1974 maps were the best to show the earlier curtilage. He agreed with Mr. O’Donnell that it did not have a curtilage anymore.
Mr. O’Donnell stated that this matter (what is protected) was considered in a High Court case, (Ian ? properties v An Board Pleánala). What was protected was what was protected from the date the actual order was made in each development plan, so that what the curtilage might have been when the building was first protected may not have been the same curtilage when it is most recently protected.
Mr. Harley asked if there was a specific sensitivity test in relation to heritage, and following response by Alan Lamond he concluded that this confirmed his earlier conclusion that the results were previously determined.
Dr. Frederic O’Dwyer (DoEH&LG) referred to section 54 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 and said the legislation allowed for architectural salvage.
He said some confusion arose in the Guidelines (Page 91, 6.7.6 and page112, S 7.4). He said while they were against a trade of salvage materials and removal of features from one building to put into another, they were in favour of salvage in the case of buildings that are going to be demolished. These were apart from those that had to be salvaged under the National Monuments Act.
Should the Board decide to grant permission they would expand beyond the condition imposed by the planning authority regarding items to be salvaged, in particular to include joinery items.
He suggested a general condition requiring further evaluation and drawing up a list of features to be salvaged by the applicants with the agreement of the planning authority.
Brian Duffy (Chief Archaeologist, DoEH&LG ) said they would expect and require archaeological supervision of all removal works, and archaeological recovery of all items (stones, timber), re-used in the building. It would then be a mater for the national museum to decide on the disposition of how to proceed.

Dr. Frederic O’Dwyer came back to the hearing on a subsequent day of the oral hearing (02/05/2007) and made a submission to clarify some of the matters raised by third parties in the earlier session. He referred in particular to suggestion that some historical events concerning Corballis House had not been dealt with in the submissions of the applicant, specifically a connection with Countess Markiewicz, and with the arms raid by the IRA in 1918.
Reading from a written statement (exhibit BH-02/05/2007) and including copies of the book by David Nolan referred to by the appellants, and an OS map, he said the houses occupied by Countess Markiewicz in the Dublin area could be identified by references in contemporary Tom’s Directories, and in her biographies. He went through the details of these, and stated that David Nolan’s book was consistent with this account.
The IRA arms raid was related to the Collinstown House which was occupied by two units of the British army, which was demolished in the 1930s lay on the other side of the public road to Corballis House.it was clear that British army did not occupy Corballis House which remained in private ownership until the 10940s.
He said he hoped that this clarified the matter that the connections eluded in the previous session were not in fact correct.
Mr. Sweetman who had raised the issues said he had not read the page of the book prior to the references, agreed with the conclusions and apologised.

Directory: news
news -> Nonprofit grant application
news -> Bulletin 4 Monday July 8, 2002 Backgammon
news -> Last year four of the best Afrikaans Christian singers joined forces to tour Down Under with the production ‘Manne wat Glo’
news -> Management and Marketing
news -> World Computer-Chess Championship
news -> World Computer-Chess Championship
news -> World Computer-Chess Championship

Download 0.92 Mb.

Share with your friends: