Government accused of incorrect claims about Moore St

The Department of Arts and Heritage has incorrectly claimed lands and buildings around Dublin's Moore Street earmarked for demolition "substantially" date from after the 1916 Rising, the High Court has been told.

The proposed demolition of those lands and buildings as part of a planned development of the area will destroy what the National Museum has described as the “most important historic site in modern Irish history”, Colm Moore, a nominee of the 1916 Relatives Association, said in a sworn statement.

Historian and author Ray Bateson, in another sworn statement, said the proposed development “will more effectively obliterate the laneways and buildings of this battelfeld site than the British guns did nearly 100 years ago”.

The court heard the development will affect, among several locations, No 10 Moore Street, the point of entry into a terrace occupied and held by the Rising leaders; the White House, Henry Place, occupied and held by General Michael Collins and the location of the fatal wounding of Michael Mulvihill, Henry Coyle and Bridget McKane; and Hanlons at Nos 20-21 Moore Street, where the surrender order from the Rising leaders was accepted by Volunteers.

Mr Justice Max Barrett is hearing the action brought by Mr Moore, Sandyford Road, Dundrum, against the Minister for Arts and Heritage aimed at preserving as a national monument a wider battlefield site linked to the Rising which includes part of Moore Street and Moore Lane.

In opposing the action, the Minister contends the historical significannce of No 16 Moore Street, where some of the Rising leaders went prior to their execution, was the determining factor in designating as a national monument a terrace extending from Nos 14-17. A Rising commmorative centre is to be contained in No 16.

The Minister disputes arguments the area of the national monument should be extended as sought by Mr Moore.

On the second day of the case on Tuesday, Conleth Bradley SC, for Mr Moore, read several sworn statements and affidavits.

Counsel said a Department official, in a sworn statement, had said it was “absolutely substantially correct” that Nos 13, 18 and 19 Moore Street are post-1916 structures. However, Mr Moore, in his affidavits, had said it was patently not the case these were post-1916 structures and his claim was borne out by various reports.

Mr Moore stated the official “clearly could not bring himself” to swear Nos 13, 18 and 19 are post-1916 structures although that had been stated in a July 2013 Ministerial consent permitting what Mr Moore argues are unathorised works.

That consent was issued two days after the chief archaeologist for the National Monuments Service said in a report there was no evidence to support the contention that the elements scheduled for demolition dated post-1916. That July 2013 report went on to say an inspection suggested there was evidence of “extensive pre-1916 fabric in a number of the structures concerned”.

The “fudamental and material error” concerning the buildings at issue vitiated the entire Ministerial consent for works to some of the buildings, Mr Moore argued.

Mr Moore has brought judicial review proceedings and two sets of proceedings under Section 160 of the Planning Acts. Chartered Land, previously granted permission for a major development in the Moore Street area, has been joined to the proceedings.

The case continues.