Is that Éilish a Dó there with the plastic headscarf (pic 3)?
Meanwhile, Spaghetti Hoop adds:
‘1972 is before my time but in the 1980s, my mum parked quite handily (and free) on Moore Lane on a Saturday and we gathered veg and fruit from the Moore Street gals on the way back to the car after a day of shopping and a jorum + Cidona in Madigan’s.
Never bought the meat; bluebottles crawling all over it in the Moore Street butchers.
‘Course at Hallow’een time, my pockets were full of bangers, crackers and stink bombs: WMD for the 31st. Fruitful times…’
Dublin’s 200-year-old Moore Street market could be consigned to history following indications from traders that they are prepared to shut-up shop.
A document entitled “Licence holders who wish to be considered to exit the market” signed by 17 traders who hold casual trading licences to operate on Moore Street has been sent to Dublin City Council.
Assistant council chief executive Dick Brady, who has responsibilty for casual trading, said the 17 signatories correspond with the number of licence holders on the street.
The ruling will impact Joe O’Reilly’s Chartered Land’s plans, above, to build a commercial development on the Carlton site on O’Connell Street.
Further to this, RTÉ’s Áine Lawlor asked Ms Humphreys about the ruling on News At One this afternoon.
Aine Lawlor: “I want to talk to you minster about the recent High Court judgement, particularly long, High Court judgement which pretty definitively ruled for those people who were looking for number 16 Moore Street and the areas around it to be kept from development and the fact that they won their case. Lot of those people now saying it’s now time for you and Peter Cooney from the Save 16 Moore Street committee, saying you should resign and your senior officials, because this was the wrong thing to do and cost the State many millions.”
Heather Humphreys: “Yeah well, first of all, the judgement was delivered last Friday, it runs to almost 400 pages and I and my officials, we’re still studying the judgement and the implications and you’ll be aware that the situation regarding Moore Street long predates my time and, as minister, number 14 and 17 were first declared a national monument back in 2007 and I’m the first person to have actually done anything about preserving those buildings for 14 – 17 Moore Street and we know that they are, they predate 1916, and they were the final headquarters for the 1916 leaders. Now work had started because they’re very, they’re in a fragile condition, 14 – 17, it’s fragile and work had started in November on conserving the buildings and bringing them back to exactly where they were in 1916. Now that work was delayed by protests and occupations in recent months. We have the court ruling and I do need time to consider it in full. And I’m not in a position, at this point, to outline my next course of action but I will consider the judgement and the case is due back in court on April the 5th when we will have further discussions with the judge but I just want to be clear that my priority is to continue the work on the buildings from numbers 14 – 17 Moore Street. And I wouldn’t be in a position to go into any further details at this point.”
Lawlor: “Minister, I know you’re the acting minister, but this is, you know, these are the buildings that have been designated and, indeed, in this very long judgement, the judge talks at length about the case of the Moore Street battle site, how evocative it is and how important it is and how much it impressed him. The state has lost its case. The Save 16 Moore Street people have won their high court case – are you going to appeal to the Supreme Court or are you going to accept the High Court judgement? Surely, this weekend of all weekends, you should be able to say?”
Humphreys: “Yeah, well, the point is 14-17 Moore Street, they are, they’re the four buildings that remain intact. They’re actually the only ones that remain intact and they are my priority because that’s what the last Council of War meeting was held..”
Lawlor: “Is the High Court judgement something you accept?”
Humphreys: “Well, first of all, the High Court judgement, I have to, I do have to look at, and I have to study it, it is 400 pages and we are back in court on the 5th of April to have further discussions with the judge so I must give it due consideration before I make any decision.”
Lawlor: “Do you not give our history more consideration and not leave it to the landowner to appeal if they want to proceed with their development there? I mean the State, surely, it’s interest ought to be our history rather than any development there?”
Humphreys: “Yeah, well I’m being clear, I want to see the work continued on 14-17 Moore Street and the work is to restore it. Now, I have to give, I really do have to give a 400-page judgement, I have to give it due consideration and I, as I said, I and my officials, we’re still studying it and its implications. And, as I said, I will, I have be back in court on the 5th and I will, I will give it consideration.”
Protesters occupying buildings linked to 1916 on Moore Street, Dublin 1, in January
You may recall how protesters occupied buildings on Moore Street earlier this year.
They were attempting to prevent the demolition of certain buildings on either side of 14-17 Moore Street – which has been declared a national monument – claiming other buildings on the street also had historical significance and should be protected.
The High Court has ruled that extra buildings are to be designated as national monuments on Dublin’s Moore Street.
Relatives of the signatories of the 1916 Proclamation had been trying to have a number of buildings added as national monuments.
The State had disputed the buildings had any link to the 1916 Rising.
Today, during Leaders’ Questions, Independent TD Maureen O’Sullivan raised the recent protests at Moore Street.
Ms O’Sullivan specifically asked Taoiseach Enda Kenny why the Government isn’t doing more to protect the entire Moore Street terrace and not just the buildings numbered 14-17.
Maureen O’Sullivan: “On the 1st of January in Dublin Castle, there was an impressive flag-raising ceremony to start the 100th anniversary of the Easter Rising. An amazing array of launches and events is being held not just in Ireland, but also abroad, by a wide number of organisations. A number of restorations are ongoing, for example, Kilmainham court and Pearse’s cottage. It appears to me, and others, that this and previous Governments would have preferred it had the men and women involved been airlifted from the GPO to Richmond Barracks and Kilmainham Gaol, thereby bypassing Moore Street. However, they did not bypass it and it is part of the evacuation route. It was also witness to a number of events, not just involving the leaders in Nos. 14-17 Moore Street, but the ordinary men and women who took part as well as citizens in Dublin.”
“Shaffrey Associates conducted a wider assessment of the 1916 battlefield as part of the ministerial consent to carry out work. I will cite parts of that assessment. The block exactly matches the terrace into which the majority of the GPO garrison escaped. The activities relating to the 1916 Rising that took place on Moore Street happened throughout the entire street, on adjacent lanes and within many of the buildings. The assessment specifically mentions buildings other than Nos. 14-17. Furthermore, Article 1 of the Venice Charter reads: “The concept of a historic monument embraces not only the single architectural work but also the urban or rural setting”. Article 6 reads: “Wherever the traditional setting exists, it must be kept. No new construction, demolition or modification which would alter the relations of mass and colour must be allowed.” To me, this means that the fabric of Moore Street and its area must be retained.”
“If one walked into Kilmainham Gaol or Pearse’s cottage or if one went to Brú na Bóinne, one would immediately get a sense of what it was like to have been there at the time in question. This is what we could have at Moore Street. Last week or the week before, the Taoiseach launched a virtual reality tour of Easter 1916. I do not want that to form part of what we will do for Moore Street when we have the opportunity to retain the authenticity of Moore Street now. Westport House was withdrawn from NAMA. Under section 4.1.1 of the NAMA Act, that was possible for legitimate reasons in the public interest.”
“The Government had the power to designate Nos. 14-17 Moore Street as a national monument. Why was this designation not extended to the rest of the terrace? Why has the Taoiseach abandoned what he called the “laneways of history” and why are we leaving it to a vulture capitalist to look after the rest of the battlefield site?“
Enda Kenny: “Thanks, Deputy. I looked at this myself quite a number of years ago. To put it mildly, the condition of the street and of the buildings on either side of what is a national monument were simply disgraceful. I have listened to all of the rows about the national monument, about what should or should not be done about it. For that reason, the Government purchased the national monument.”
“This has dragged on for some many years with so many different variations, given the fact that Dublin City Council, as the planning authority, has responsibility in respect of applications that come before it for planning permission both in respect of Moore Street and the lanes of history at the back of O’Connell Street and so on.”
“In respect of the centenary commemorations for 2016, Government decided to purchase this for a sum of €4million and to restore this building in a proper, authentic and time of the period fashion. As I understand it the maps show clearly other documents, buildings on either side were either non-existent or in a state of collapse before the Rising took place in 1916. And you are right, this was the centre of the end of the evacuation process from the side door of the GPO…but you know Deputy O’Sullivan what the Government wants to do for the people here and for posterity is to take the buildings where the surrender was commissioned from and preserve that as a national monument in respect of one of the first small countries to achieve its, to strike out for independence, politically and economically at the start of the 20th century.
The Government don’t own all the streets and the buildings on either side of 14-17. The Government do own, in respect of the people now, these buildings and the intention is to have that restored in a proper, fitting fashion. It is not a case of just, of the vulture capitalists, the venture capitalists or capitalists doing what they like in respect of the remainder of the surrounding area. The responsibility for planning and for approval of that lies initially with Dublin City Council and, beyond that, if there’s an objection, An Bord Pleanála and that’s independent of the process of Government…”
O’Sullivan: “When you did the right thing, with part of it, why could you not have gone further and have done the right thing with the whole area. In 2014, we had this exchange also and you said to me that commemorative events had to be inclusive, sensitive and appropriate. Now I want to go back two weeks and to just 14 to 17 first of all. The occupation should never have happened. But what happened on that Monday was completely disrespectful, undignified and insensitive to what has happened in 14 to 17. It was all cloak and dagger stuff, there was no conservation expert on hand to oversee the work that was going on, somebody happened to arrive along and heard workers there with claw hammers and, no disrespect to the workers, but they didn’t know where they were, what they were doing and the significance of the building.”
“Now there have been so many mistakes in the reports and I just take one. Number 18 is, in one conservation report saying, that the facade singled out was pre-1916. And in another report, it was omitted. And we know that once something is destroyed, it’s gone forever. And we have examples of that. Now, so far, the Government, the taxpayer, paid €9million €4million to buy and €5million has been designated for 14 to 17. My questions is: whose plan are we following? Because it doesn’t appear to be the State plan, it appears to be the plan that was drawn up by the developer, the same, failed property developer, who wanted to build over, under, around and on top of the national monument. So that seems to be the plan that we’re following.”
“Now I’ve just been to a meeting at [Dublin] City Hall – the Moore Street Forum. Dublin City Council were represented and of course they’re saying that the minister has responsibility, you’re saying Dublin City Council have responsibility. Now there was a motion passed in the city council on the 11th of January and that motion has to be taken on board by the minister and the Government. And because the Government are passing it one way, Dublin City Council are passing it another way, there is a need, and I think the Government and the minister have to take the lead on this for all of the stakeholders to come together, at the same time, so that these matters can be addressed. Because time is very much running out.”