History with Monica McGill: Residents caring about our built heritage are dismayed

“WHAT we have here is failure to communicate.” – a famous line from the 1967 American film “Cool Hand Luke”. Actor Martin Strother played the authoritarian Captain over the prison depicted in the film.

Paul Newman played Luke, a prisoner refusing the Captain’s attitude and behaviours.

The scenario could apply to our planning authorities when communicating sometimes with local people – at least in Clondalkin.

As one local said recently “If they can’t be trusted to protect 20m of a wall that’s at least 200 years old, what can they be trusted to protect?”

This dismay refers to part of our remaining local built heritage, a wall built of local black calp limestone along one of Clondalkin’s main roads.

An instruction from An Bórd Pleanála (APB) was the only thing protecting it, but the instruction has been disregarded.

The wall used to be part of the boundary of a landed estate. James Joyce referred to the estate’s big house in his book, Ulysses. Piecemeal, the old wall is going into landfill.

By de facto permission, this old wall is being replaced by a modern hotch-potch of non-local stone not at all in keeping with what was originally there.

The developer has attempted to “age” the replacement wall by applying a preparation to it, a clear admission that the new wall is out of character and unsuitable.

Meanwhile, the Council has a supply of local calp limestone, ready cut, and salvaged from other local projects as suggested by local people and Councillors.

Does this amount to official erosion of our built heritage?

The same developer felled a mature tree outside the boundary of the project.

Replacement wall, with applied blotches. Image: Monica McGill

The Council reacted quickly when notified, but it was too late. The County Development Plan 2022-2028 (Objective NCBH21 SLO1) states part of its purpose is “To protect and maintain the remaining old walls of Clondalkin.”

This County Development Plan was implemented in August 2022, too late to protect this old wall (and also the old walls at the Convent and Boot Road health centre).

The Council okayed the replacement wall. The old wall was demolished because it was later described as unsafe, despite being fine for at least 200 years.

The Council’s okay is in contravention of ABP’s written instruction to retain the original. Both the Council and its superior authority, ABP, regret greatly that there is nothing they can do.

ABP say they have no part in upholding their own instructions, referring people to the Council’s Enforcement Section.

The Council say they are happy with the replacement wall. It is to their satisfaction and their file on the matter is closed. Failure to communicate? No. The message is clear.

Locals caring about our built heritage are dismayed and angry. They ask what’s the point in having Authorities that are toothless?

What a shame – the essence of the communications in this instance is: shut up and put up.

Other than lodge observations like everyone else, or politely ask questions of Council officials, our County Councillors are powerless to influence the situation.

They are permitted to vote only on “Part 8” projects – the ones that are planned for Council-owned lands.

This powerlessness became law years ago after weak and greedy Councillors accepted bribes to vote in certain ways.

Planning Process

Broadly, this involves submitting a planning application to the County Council for permission to build the intended project.

The developer of a larger project can have a pre-planning consultation with the Council.

This takes place before submitting the final plans for publication on the Council’s website.

Presumably, the pre-planning consultation increases the chances that the Council will publicly “pass” the plans and give planning permission.

Details of pre-planning consultations are not available to the public. This is all perfectly legal.

The required official site notice (approximately 12” x 10”) or the required notice in a local or national newspaper notify people about the general project.

Those wanting to support or object to the project get a limited time to write to the Council.

The correct fee (€20) must accompany their “observations”, as these are called. Elected representatives are exempt from this fee.

The final plans are published on the Council’s website. However, experience shows that online they can be too indistinct to convey the detail people sometimes need, and can take days to be uploaded.

The entire file of hard-copy plans should be available at the Council’s public counter at its headquarters, but disappointingly this is not always so.

There are various reasons for this; some of them understandable, some not so much.

The Council carefully communicates with people who have submitted observations, letting them know of progress.

The Council may ask the developer for further information, usually supplied. Shortly after the time limit, the Council announces publicly on their website or by letter to observers whether the project has been “passed” or rejected.

At this stage, either the developer or any initial observer may appeal the Council’s decision to the higher planning authority An Bórd Pleanála Photo © Monica McGill (ABP).

Appeals must be submitted within a time limit and accompanied by a further, larger fee, sometimes unaffordable by ordinary observers. ABP can decide whether to hold a public meeting about the project, or not.

When the relevant time limit has expired, ABP publishes its decision to either uphold the Council’s decision or to alter or reject it. ABP can issue instructions to the developer regarding the project, as they did in the case of the old wall mentioned above – retention.

Dissatisfied developers or observers can then appeal the matter to the High Court for judicial review. However, the High Court rules only on legal issues.

The relevant cost of this is rumoured to be in ten thousands of Euros.

So? On the ground, the sad experience regarding the heritage wall suggests we have a toothless planning process that doesn’t work to serve the people properly.

It seems developers can essentially do what they like (if they apply for planning permission at all).

In 2022, both the Chair and Deputy Chair of ABP resigned following scandalous “months of turmoil … [which] engulfed the authority”

The Deputy Chair was jailed. Dáil deputies (including a local TD) demanded reforms and hopefully things are improving.

Both planning authorities must jettison their inability or unwillingness to serve people properly if public confidence in their processes is to be restored. They could start with this heritage wall.