Works sanctioned by the Minister for Arts and Heritage which are intended to "isolate" a planned 1916 Rising commemorative centre on Dublin's Moore Street amount to unauthorised development, the High Court has been told.
Conleth Bradley SC argued the Minister’s consent for works to a terrace of buildings at Nos 14-17 Moore Street, intended to house the 1916 centre, cannot be “decoupled” from permission for works on a major retail and residential development in the area.
He was making arguments on behalf of Colm Moore, a nominee of the 1916 Relatives Association, in the continuing hearing of proceedings against the Minister aimed at protecting a wider 1916 “battlefield site” on and around Moore Street.
Mr Moore has brought judicial review proceedings and two sets of proceedings under the Planning Acts.
After Mr Justice Max Barrett heard final arguments from both sides in the judicial review on Tuesday, the sixth day of the hearing, Mr Bradley began his arguments in the planning proceedings.
In those proceedings, Mr Moore argues that plans to demolish No 10 and Nos 13, 18 and 19 Moore Street so as to “isolate” the national monument at Nos 14-17 amount to unauthorised development. The Minister wanted to “narrow” the national monument to Nos 14-17 “no matter what”, Mr Bradley argued.
In his judicial review, Mr Moore wants declarations and orders including an order requiring the Minister reconsider her view it is sufficient that Nos 14-17 Moore Street are protected as a national monument. No 16 Moore Street was the site where the leaders of the Rising gathered on Aril 26th 1916 for the final time before their surrender and executions.
The Minister disputes arguments by Mr Moore that a wider 1916 battlefield site on and around Moore Street should be protected.
In final arguments on the judicial review, Shane Murphy SC, for the Minister, argued the evidence did not justify the claims the Minister failed to apply herself to all relevant statutory criteria when assessing what was of national importance in this matter.
There was no evidence to show any unfairness or that the Minister failed to identity what was and was not of national importance and it was not correct to say there was a lack of historical analysis, he argued.
This case was essentially a late “collateral attack” on decisions by public authorities not previously challenged and Mr Moore should be refused the “drastic” relief sought, counsel urged.
Closing his arguments on the judicial review, Mr Bradley said no legal authority was provided to suggest the court cannot declare that areas, buildings and remnants of buildings are a national monument.
If the court was willing to accept other buildings and areas outside the terrace at Nos 14-17 were a national monument, it was for others to address the consequences of that decision, he submitted.
The developer and Minister were in “a marriage of convenience” in arguing the Minister has no part to play in designating a national monument while also saying the High Court should not get involved in deciding that, Mr Bradley argued.
His side was simply asking the court to direct the Minister to reconsider this matter.
The case continues.
