Demolition of Victorian railway station at Carlilse pier ruled illegal

Tabnabs

Dun Laoghaire pier U-turn could see razed buildings rebuilt

By Cormac Murphy
Monday October 26 2009

A TD wants Dun Laoghaire's knocked down Carlisle Pier buildings to be rebuilt if An Bord Pleanala rules the demolition was illegal.

The Green Party's Ciaran Cuffe made the statement after referring the issue to the planning appeals board.

The Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company demolished a group of derelict buildings on the Victorian pier without planning approval after being informed by Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council permission was not needed.

However, in a letter to councillors afterwards, county manager Owen Keegan admitted there was "uncertainty" over whether the works were, in fact, exempted from approval.

Mr Cuffe, a Dun Laoghaire TD, said he wants the buildings to be put back up again if it turns out permission had been required.

"Our built heritage is under threat from the body [the council] that was set up to protect it. I specifically asked the council to ensure that the demolition works cease on September 1 last. Now, as the dust is settling, the council has decided that it is unsure whether permission is required for the demolition," he said.

An Taisce has already expressed "grave" concern that the council indicated to the harbour company they did not need planning permission, allowing the firm to carry out the works.

It said the harbour company should have sought permission to demolish the buildings because they are located within the area of the harbour itself, a protected structure.

In his letter, Mr Keegan indicated the local authority had significantly altered its opinion of the status of the works.

"The initial view of the planning authority was that the proposed works were exempt and did not require a grant of planning permission. This view was communicated, in good faith, to Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company," he said.

"However, on more detailed examination ... the planning authority formed the view that there was, in fact, uncertainty in relation to the planning status of the works."

The harbour company wants to develop the pier into a promenade with use for an outdoor exhibition and concert space.

Plans for the project were announced in July and no objections were recorded. In August, demolition crews began knocking the "derelict and unsafe".

source

I've seen it before and after. I was a fcuking eyesore that was boarded up for decades. It's now a blank canvass that can be used for all sorts of things. The first positive is that it restores the view to the bay for people walking or driving past and when you enter the harbour to the roundabout.

Why won't the green's and other begrudger's just go away?

xia

I heard different opinions whether the buildings were protected or not. Looks like not even the involved parties were sure about that.
I agree, they were a eyesore. And on the other hand heritage.
But now they are gone. And to spend money that's probably not really available...Doesn't sound like a proper plan to me. Only advantage if they get rebuilt they might be of use to someone again. But who?

CiaranCuffeTD

Thought these two pix taken 100 years apart might show the significance of the 150 year old railways station that was demolished.

I think it was worth retaining.

Here's my statement on the issue if you'd like to have a read:

http://www.ciarancuffe.ie/carlisle-pier-demolition-controversy-referred-bord-plean%C3%A1la

All the best,

Ciarán

Grid.

CiaranCuffeTD wrote: »

Thought these two pix taken 100 years apart might show the significance of the 150 year old railways station that was demolished.

I think it was worth retaining.

Here's my statement on the issue if you'd like to have a read:

http://www.ciarancuffe.ie/carlisle-pier-demolition-controversy-referred-bord-plean%C3%A1la

All the best,

Ciarán

The place was falling apart, and what purpose did it serve?? I'm all for heritage but not when it leads to a few ol diehards who kick up about saving aload of rusted tin that has become a derelict eyesore! Its just time wasting prattle:rolleyes:

lostexpectation

who was responsible for it being derelict, i give you a clue NOT CIARAN CUFFE

leaving things go to **** so you gullible types will accept any poorly thought out replacement is dun laoghaire council speciality

Tabnabs

Well informed argument lostexpectation, you don't even know the correct authority over the site :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

It's funny how the site was allowed to lie derelict for decades only to cause a minor fuss once somebody actually did something about it?. Why did no TD or councillor come out of the woodwork when a world famous architectural practice designed a huge development on this same site? Why was this iron frame and roofing conveniently forgotten about then? How convenient that once the well announced work got under way, suddenly Ciaran Cuff finds his voice...

thegen

CiaranCuffeTD wrote: »

Thought these two pix taken 100 years apart might show the significance of the 150 year old railways station that was demolished.

I think it was worth retaining.

Here's my statement on the issue if you'd like to have a read:

http://www.ciarancuffe.ie/carlisle-pier-demolition-controversy-referred-bord-plean%C3%A1la

All the best,

Ciarán

Nice pictures. Why did you not act on this long before the threat of demolition? Why was it not deemed a historical site long before any work commenced?

Your staff are working well to find this thread.

Congrats on your 1st post on boards. Just trying to protect yourself me thinks.

Hopefully we will see you posting here regularily to inform us of all your progresssive work.

Cookie_Monster

CiaranCuffeTD wrote: »

Thought these two pix taken 100 years apart might show the significance of the 150 year old railways station that was demolished.

I think it was worth retaining.

Here's my statement on the issue if you'd like to have a read:

http://www.ciarancuffe.ie/carlisle-pier-demolition-controversy-referred-bord-plean%C3%A1la

All the best,

Ciarán

The railway station was taken apart decades ago. All that was left was a decrepit shed that was good for nothing apart from pigeon breeding. It would eventually have collapsed anyway. At least now it will be used for something productive.

Insisting it be rebuilt is sheer insanity and typical of the green party in recent months. Who will pay for it, why will it be rebuilt to be an empty useless structure? If it's rebuilt to current standards for use then it just another faceless building that has no connection to its past.

Get real Ciaran! There a far more important things to be worrying about than a useless old shed.:mad::mad::mad:

I bet you'd also like to keep the DL baths in their historic set-up (ie a mess) rather than tear them down and rebuild them to be usable?

uch

CiaranCuffeTD wrote: »

Thought these two pix taken 100 years apart might show the significance of the 150 year old railways station that was demolished.

I think it was worth retaining.



All the best,

Ciarán

I agree with Ciarán, the same thing happened to St helens house years ago, some dodgy builder let his digger drive through a wall by "accident" then said it was easier to knock it, but he gicked his pants when he was made restore it. Historical buildings are just that, whether you like them or not.

p.s Where did you get those photos Ciarán ?

Cookie_Monster

uch wrote: »

I agree with Ciarán, the same thing happened to St helens house years ago, some dodgy builder let his digger drive through a wall by "accident" then said it was easier to knock it, but he gicked his pants when he was made restore it. Historical buildings are just that, whether you like them or not.

p.s Where did you get those photos Ciarán ?

A house and a shed are a bit different.

Also as it was chock full of asbestos it was a hazard especially since it was starting to fall apart

uch

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

A house and a shed are a bit different.

both Historical buildings

lostexpectation

what do you mean dyflin, its your arguement that really misses the point ,its called deliberate dereliction not something the greens fans of, the DLR council could have done something about that site for years, if you want to address all those councillors not ciaran cuffe, all he wanted recently was a bit more of the original structure to kept.

Cookie_Monster

lostexpectation wrote: »

what do you mean dyflin, its your arguement that really misses the point ,its called deliberate dereliction not something the greens fans of, the DLR council could have done something about that site for years, if you want to address all those councillors not ciaran cuffe, all he wanted recently was a bit more of the original structure to kept.

The Harbour company tried for years to get it developed but was never allowed by DLRCOCO who deliberately blocked all attempts at doing anything with the site.

stop

Some good photos of the pier here

Fratton Fred

I think it is only a shame if they abuse the chance to do something useful with the pier.

My wife suggested the other day that it would be a great spot for an Aquarium or marine life centre. Something that would benefit the borough. Dun Laoghaire is a huge missed opportunity. it could be a real centre for the town but, in reality, it is only fully enjoyed by the members of the sailing clubs.

There are some great 19th century photos of the pier and the harbour in the Royal Marine hotel BTW.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it could be a real centre for the town but, in reality, it is only fully enjoyed by the members of the sailing clubs.

I think this is very true, at the least they could open to the public for some hours of the day rather than hold a virtual monopoly on most of the seafront (disregarding the purple ocean).

Looking at east pier as it is coming along today (with the new area beside the bandstand) it seems to me that rebuilding a disused warehouse right opposite that is pure insanity. DLRCC should have given clear accurate information to the developers to begin with, blaming them after the fact is as typical as it is ridiculous.

Tabnabs

lostexpectation wrote: »

what do you mean dyflin, its your arguement that really misses the point ,its called deliberate dereliction not something the greens fans of, the DLR council could have done something about that site for years, if you want to address all those councillors not ciaran cuffe, all he wanted recently was a bit more of the original structure to kept.

Spectacularly uninformed post again. DLRcoco have sweet fanny adams to do with the Carlisle pier. Not only have they not had a policy of deliberate dereliction, they have had no policy whatsoever on the pier, it's simply not their property!

Here's a hint for you;

The Dun Laoghaire Harbour Company is a state commercial company charged with the responsibility for the maintenance and development of Dun Laoghaire Harbour. The Harbour Company is required to be self-funding by statute. We do not receive any state or local authority funding. All of our funding comes from our commercial activities

There are too many people living in cloud cuckoo land here. It was a train platform and ferry terminal. Neither the ferry nor train use the carlisle pier anymore (or have done for decades). The proposed development (completely unopposed by the good TD) is not commercially viable and so DLHC have to take responsibility for the building and implement a project which is justifiable and economically realistic. They are starting with a clean sheet and can take whatever direction they deem realistic from that point.

Tabnabs

Morlar wrote: »

I think this is very true, at the least they could open to the public for some hours of the day rather than hold a virtual monopoly on most of the seafront (disregarding the purple ocean).

Looking at east pier as it is coming along today (with the new area beside the bandstand) it seems to me that rebuilding a disused warehouse right opposite that is pure insanity. DLRCC should have given clear accurate information to the developers to begin with, blaming them after the fact is as typical as it is ridiculous.

Hang on, open what to the public? There's over 5km of public waterfront space within the harbour. The west pier, west marina breakwater, old quay, traders wharf, east marina breakwater, east pier. All that is open to the public! You want to stroll by the sea, no problem, eat your lunch by the water, easy, picnic with the family on the grass, off you go...

Fratton Fred

Dyflin wrote: »

Hang on, open what to the public? There's over 5km of public waterfront space within the harbour. The west pier, west marina breakwater, old quay, traders wharf, east marina breakwater, east pier. All that is open to the public! You want to stroll by the sea, no problem, eat your lunch by the water, easy, picnic with the family on the grass, off you go...

but that's it. If you aren't a mamber of a sailing club, all you can do is stroll along the piers. There is nowhere to sit and have a coffee, maybe a bite to eat. The Carlisle pier is a good opportunity to do something that could be enjoyed by all. Maybe a kids fair ground or play area with a coffee shop. Maybe a small heritage centre, anything that is open to the public.

Morlar

Fratton Fred wrote: »

but that's it. If you aren't a mamber of a sailing club, all you can do is stroll along the piers. There is nowhere to sit and have a coffee, maybe a bite to eat. The Carlisle pier is a good opportunity to do something that could be enjoyed by all. Maybe a kids fair ground or play area with a coffee shop. Maybe a small heritage centre, anything that is open to the public.

Bingo.

Tabnabs

Fratton Fred wrote: »

but that's it. If you aren't a mamber of a sailing club, all you can do is stroll along the piers. There is nowhere to sit and have a coffee, maybe a bite to eat. The Carlisle pier is a good opportunity to do something that could be enjoyed by all. Maybe a kids fair ground or play area with a coffee shop. Maybe a small heritage centre, anything that is open to the public.

There's a coffee shop on the ground floor of the same building as the Purple Ocean restaurant. The place does a roaring trade a lunch time.

BTW, you do know it's a working harbour and the function of a harbour is to accommodate boats and ships? I don't hear anyone bemoaning the lack of a coffee shop in Howth Harbour, Wicklow Harbour, Arklow harbour, Kilmore Quay, Greenore harbour... You see a pattern emerging?

Victor

That still does change the fact that what they did was illegal.

When people say it was closed for "decades", perhaps they should realise that the period 1996-2009 doesn't quite constitute "decades".

http://www.sealink-holyhead.com/ports/dun_laoghaire/carlisle_pier/home.html

Tabnabs

Victor wrote: »

That still does change the fact that what they did was illegal.

Source?

Victor

(a) the council's change of heart
(b) its illegal to demolish any building over 100m2 without planning permission (or residential property of any size)

Sleipnir

While it may have been illegal for the harbour company to demolish it, they only did so on the advice of the council.

Seems silly to me though that Ciaran Cuffe is saying it should be rebuilt without suggesting why it should be rebuilt. For what reason? Because it shouldn't have been knocked down? That's not a good enough reason!

So, should they;
a.) rebuild it
b.) apply for permission to demolish it again.
c.) Demolish it?

The building itself served no purpose, wasn't particularly attractive and doesn't hold any architectural value.
It's not really part of our heritage, certainly not any more than any of the grand ships it served which I'm sure by now have all been destroyed or recycled.

Whatever about the legalities of it being knocked, rebuilding a train shed is pointless unless it would serve some purpose.

Tabnabs

And yet Kathleen Holohan of the council's planning department is quoted as saying

The structures to be removed are not protected structures or national monuments and the planning authority, with the advice of the conservation division of the council, considers that the Carlisle pier falls outside the curtilage of those elements of the harbour, which are protected structures.

source

If it was as simple as a 100m2 rule, DLHC would have had to obtain permission to demolish, and there would have been absolutely no ambiguity from the CoCo perspective. But you're the only one to come up with this figure as justification of it being "illegal", not the CoCo planning dept, An Taisce, local councillors or TDs

Morlar

Dyflin wrote: »

There's a coffee shop on the ground floor of the same building as the Purple Ocean restaurant. :confused

There is a coffee shop there, it is overpriced and gives a view of concrete and traffic. Hardly the same thing as I am sure you are aware. Also it has limited opening hours (you have probably noticed it is not open at the same hours as either of the yacht clubs).

Dyflin wrote: »

BTW, you do know it's a working harbour and the function of a harbour is to accommodate boats and ships?

There is no rule which says that a working harbour can not also accomodate the needs of people who do not own boats & are not members of the yacht clubs.

Dyflin wrote: »

I don't hear anyone bemoaning the lack of a coffee shop in Howth Harbour, Wicklow Harbour, Arklow harbour, Kilmore Quay, Greenore harbour... You see a pattern emerging?

We are talking about Dun Laoghaire harbour. Not any of those other harbours & if there is a pattern there maybe that needs changing in those other places too ? Dun Laoghaire is a place where large numbers of people daily go to enjoy the seaviews, sea air and walk on the piers, West pier does have facilities wich are not open to the public, East pier has facilities (2 yacht clubs within a few hundred metres of each other) which are also not open for the public to enjoy. I think there should be a facility open to the public which is not a coffee van & not a tacky coffeeshop facing onto the high street traffic and concrete.

Tabnabs

In all the hullabaloo about knocking a railway platform shelter and it's cultural and historical significance, as usual, no one has pointed out that the most significant feature, the pier itself, will remain untouched and they have actually kept the linkspan which means it would be possible to retain it's historical and cultural significance as a ferry berth for the latest generation of young Irish to leave our land. Not something that has been possible in the last decade and a half.

dynamick

Dyflin wrote: »

If it was as simple as a 100m2 rule, DLHC would have had to obtain permission to demolish, and there would have been absolutely no ambiguity from the CoCo perspective. But you're the only one to come up with this figure as justification of it being "illegal", not the CoCo planning dept, An Taisce, local councillors or TDs

It seems that An Bord Pleanala agrees that the demolition of the pier without permission was illegal.
http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/RL2672.htm

The developer (DL Harbour Company) is now legally obliged to rebuild the pier or apply for retention permission for the demolition.

For those wondering why the pier should be rebuilt, the reason is because the rule of law is the foundation of a civilised society. No individual or organisation should be above the law and act in a way as if the laws are optional.

The Harbour Company should now be held to account for wasting public money and acting in an arrogant and abusive manner in destroying a historic property without permission.

The Harbour Company was well warned when they began demolition that their action was illegal but they chose to proceed rather than seek planning permission.


You can see in the image above that within a horrible 1960s outer shell, there was a 150 yr old historic wrought iron structure.

Highly Salami

Dyflin wrote: »

Ciaran Cuffe is a ****

I give Ciaran Cuffe four stars too, he's great!
btw, I think he is right to get the pier rebuilt, we are too tolerant of corruption in this country.

Cookie_Monster

Highly Salami wrote: »

I give Ciaran Cuffe four stars too, he's great!
btw, I think he is right to get the pier rebuilt, we are too tolerant of corruption in this country.

he is a ****, that'll never change.

That building should have been flattened that day the station was closed and something useful built instead or simply opened up to the public.

It was covered with asbestos too. Just another manky old shed allowed to stand beyond its time

Tabnabs

Rebuild the pier! Rebuild the pier! they cry.

Eh, the pier is still there. The pier was never touched. It stands unmolested. The took down the structure on the pier, asbestos and all. The structures that "were not protected structures" according to ABP.

What happens now? Do they reinstate the asbestos monstrosity? Or do we go round in circles with consultants benefiting the most?

There is no victory for any party in this ruling. Very interesting to see where it goes from here?

(and for the harbour users, another year rumbles by where the pier is off limits)

dynamick

Dyflin wrote: »

Eh, the pier is still there. The pier was never touched. It stands unmolested. The took down the structure on the pier, asbestos and all.

Referring to the structure on the pier as 'the pier' is a simple synecdoche.

What happens now?

Now the harbour company has learnt that it is not above the law. Its officers ought to be held to account for wasting public money by refusing to apply for planning permission before illegally demolishing a 150yr old historic structure. The public has won because the principle of the rule of law has been reasserted.

The harbour company can now opt to restore the entire structure or apply for retention planning permission for a full or partial demolition.

Victor

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

That building should have been flattened that day the station was closed and something useful built instead or simply opened up to the public.

Station closed 1980. Ferry terminal closed c. 1996. It would have been nice to be able to wait indoors for the ferry.

Cookie_Monster

Dyflin wrote: »

(and for the harbour users, another year rumbles by where the pier is off limits)

it is not off limits, in fact I parked on it earlier :P

dynamick wrote: »

Referring to the structure on the pier as 'the pier' is a simple synecdoche.

The peir is still there, the terminal and station were removed. Pretty clear distinction.

The harbour company can now opt to restore the entire structure or apply for retention planning permission for a full or partial demolition.

well hopefully they'll just apply for and be granted retention. there was nothing worth saving about that decrepid, ugly shed. It was a hazard and an eyesore, nothing more.

Fratton Fred

All this fuss about a decrepit building no one went near, whilst the sea front from the east pier to and including the baths is a rat infested junkie filled eyesore.

Why do people worry about the past and not care about the future. There are plenty of historic features in DL, it does not need the old station.

Run_to_da_hills

Dunlaoghaire Harbour Company may have to reinstate a Victorian railway station on Carlisle Pier following a ruling by An Bord Pleanála that its demolition last autumn required planning permission.

To most of us the Carlilse pier was an ugly grey monstrosity that looked as if it was falling apart but beneath the decaying 1960's facade was a historic Victorian Railway station built in 1859.

I hope this railway station is rebuilt to its former glory as this was another "fast one" pulled on the people of Dunlaoghaire just like the demolishment of the former court house up the town.

As it was prior to the 1960's



Amazing wroth iron structure.



Post 1960.

Ugly 1960's cladding that covered this magnificant building for almost half a century.





As it is now.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0522/1224270894714.html

Cookie_Monster

what is the point in rebuilding a rail station? It won't be used.

They should put the new library there, maybe with something else like an aquarium or something

Run_to_da_hills

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

what is the point in rebuilding a rail station?

Principal.

They broke the law and thought they could get away with it, just like what happened to the old Dun laoghaire court house. . .

Tabnabs

Surely it's all or nothing? The whole building goes back up and the bit of old iron gets covered over again (as it's useless anyway) and maybe we can have shops and apartments?

Run_to_da_hills

Dyflin wrote: »

Surely it's all or nothing? The whole building goes back up and the bit of old iron gets covered over again (as it's useless anyway) and maybe we can have shops and apartments?

The original was never cladded.

If Dunlaoghaire has serious tennancy problems filling the Shopping centre what hope in hell has it got filling Carlilse pier also with over 200,000 vacant properties in the country, we don't need any more. Additional problems of parking etc would incur.

The original Station would have been an ideal cover for open air markets, artists displaying their works, food stalls etc during the summer.

Agent Smith

illegal or not, The Decaying Building was a Complete Eyesore.

Run_to_da_hills

Agent Smith wrote: »

illegal or not, The Decaying Building was a Complete Eyesore.

You are deceived like every almost everyone else in town.

That dirty old pigeon shi*ted on grey cladded building is of no historical value at all

What was beneath all this was an irreplaceable cast iron frame work of a Victorian railway station.

Its the same as a stupid farmer setting fire to an delapidated barn because he didn't like the look of it and in the process he destroys the Aston Martin DB Mark III that was contained inside it.

Cookie_Monster

Agent Smith wrote: »

illegal or not, The Decaying Building was a Complete Eyesore.

Indeed. They do need to put something there but not the corregated thing that wass there.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The original was never cladded.

It is cladded though, the roof is covered in that horrible corregated iron muck.

Tabnabs

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

You are deceived like every almost everyone else in town.

That dirty old pigeon shi*ted on grey cladded building is of no historical value at all

What was beneath all this was an irreplaceable cast iron frame work of a Victorian railway station.

ZZZZzzzzz.

Pity ABP don't agree with you. They reckon it had no historical significance and was as important as the rest of the old pigeon shi*ted building.

The Sparrow

The Victorian iron railway station actually looks really interesting and it could be a great place for a really good market and other events. Get rid of the rest and just rebuild that.

They should have to rebuild it as far as I'm concerned. You can't just go pulling down historical buildings without the necessary permission.

dynamick

Dyflin wrote: »

Pity ABP don't agree with you. They reckon it had no historical significance and was as important as the rest of the old pigeon shi*ted building.

ABP did not assess the historical significance of the structure. Instead they decided that Carlisle Pier was not on the Record of Protected Structures in Dun Laoghaire and that it was not within the curtilage of a protected structure.

Tabnabs

And protected structures "form part of the architectural heritage and which are of special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest."

Planning and Development Act, 2000

If it quacks like a duck and swims like a duck...

casio4

Victor wrote: »

That still does change the fact that what they did was illegal.

When people say it was closed for "decades", perhaps they should realise that the period 1996-2009 doesn't quite constitute "decades".

http://www.sealink-holyhead.com/ports/dun_laoghaire/carlisle_pier/home.html

thanks for that link Victor some brilliant pictures there:)

bijapos

Was in Dun Laoghaire a couple of times over the last fortnight. Yes, they should have left the original Victorian structure, would make a good cover for markets, concerts etc. The open air films last weekend were washed out to a point, it would have been the ideal spot for them.

From a cultural point it is very significant place. Hundreds of thousands, probably millions of Irish left through DL over the ca 150 years it was there, most probably never returned, a memorial or a small museum would not go astray. maybe an idea for the battery at the end of the East Pier.

Fratton Fred

Why were people not this interested in the shed when it was covered in ugly asbestos cladding?