Inchicore on Track 4B. Architecture and Built Heritage (Agreement between DCC and IÉ)
Section 4B. Agreed position between DCC and Iarnród Éireann The fact that DCC and Iarnród Éireann had to agree a set of 114 conditions not covered in the EIS, implies that DCC did not regard the EIS as giving a complete description of the likely impact of the proposed development. This is despite the fact that in their own submission they state that the “assessment of the development provided by the applicant is satisfactory in terms of the statutory and planning context and in terms of the information provided in the Environmental Impact Statement.” It goes on to say however that “the Authority highlights the need for attention to be paid to four areas in relation to the proposed development and, consequently of the requirement for specific conditions relating to these areas.”
<ul><li>These areas are: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Public realm infrastructure affected by the proposed works. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The impact on protected structures and buildings of architectural merit. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The urban design of the proposed stations, with regard to their interaction with immediately adjoining buildings and adjoining lands. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Archaeological assessment and provisions. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>These are precisely the areas which we contend, show the EIS to be inadequate. </li></ul>
Condition 2: Deals with the public realm infrastructure saying it will require to be identified, mapped and referenced and that a method statement addressing the issue of removal, storage, and relocation (if necessary) of such public realm infrastructure be agreed with DCC.
Condition 3: Deals with the quality and reputation of the architects to be employed by the PPPCo and with the detailed designs of stations to be agreed with DCC. This strongly implies that the details provided in the EIS are not enough to determine the final appearance. Condition 4: Deals with intervention shafts. It requires consent from DCC for site specific designs including boundary treatments. The submission shall consist of an evaluation of the local context and how the design will fit in with it. Condition 5: Deals with above ground stations in relation to the treatment of (a) escalator entrances; (b) lift and escalator structures; and (c) flush pavement glazing. Again the agreement is to deal with a lack of specificity. They discuss a suite of treatments without placing them in context. Again it is design detail they are looking for.
Condition 6: Inchicore deals with (a) bus taxi and car drop-off facilities; (b) a comprehensive survey including drawings, photographs and documentary evidence tracing the development of the Inchicore Works site to be presented to the Irish Architectural Archive This is dealt with in an earlier submission We contend that a proper preliminary survey (including photogrammetry) should have accompanied the EIS, also the survey should also have showed what would remain of these buildings after the work is carried out.
Condition 6: Inchicore and (c) that in the event of deviations from submitted drawings, the height of the vent structure behind the Workman's Club should not exceed the ridge line of the building to avoid making it visible from Inchicore Square. We are happy with this condition, however if the Murray O’Laoire proposals ever take place there will be five storey apartments directly behind the intervention shaft.
Condition 7: DCC to agree finishing details of bolt heads for works at Sarsfield Road... to avoid detracting from the visual quality of the masonry retaining walls. Condition 14: The PPPCo Conservation Architect will engage with DCC in agreeing a method statement and conservation techniques to be used for rectifying defects in Protected Structures prior to commencement of any remedial works. [This should also apply to all buildings in the works and estate.] These details, or a method for deciding on them should have been in the EIS This condition should also apply to all buildings in the works and estate. A generic method statement outlining preferred conservation techniques should be part of the EIS/Railway Order. There should also be a statement as to the guidance they would follow as well as to how the tendering process would work. There are guidances which could have been quoted on conservation
Condition 15: Where mitigation by Record of the Past is adopted a paper and digital record of any feature shall be presented to the Irish Architectural Archive. [See above Condition 6b)]. IOT feels that at least a preliminary survey should have been carried out and furnished as part of the EIS. Apart from that similar copies should be supplied to the DoEHLG, they should also have stated what would be in this record. Models for such recording are widely available
Condition 16: CIE and the PPPCo will engage with DCC in agreeing finishes and materials for structures adjacent to buildings of architectural heritage to ensure that the visual impact of such infill structures is addressed satisfactorily. The finishes shall not materially alter the draft Railway Order. Condition 19: Deals with ACAs and protected structures and states that the PPCo's Conservation Architect shall ensure that all developments are carried out in accordance with (among other things) the statutory guidelines for the protection of the architectural heritage issued by the DoEHLG. [This should also apply to the Works and Estate]. Again a method statement for the principles involved should have been included in the EIS. The fact that it states overtly that this is to ensure that the visual impact of such infill structures is addressed satisfactorily agrees with the points raised in Section 4A This could easily have been included in the EIS and the fact that it was not shows that these issues were not dealt with adequately. In relation to tunnel boring the inspector stated that guidelines etc. should be included in the EIS. We feel that such guidelines etc. should be applied to all the buildings in the Works and Estate.
Condition 20: The PPCo will engage Conservation Architects, Ground Movement and Building Response Experts, Geotechnical Engineers ... of international repute, experienced in tunnel boring and deep excavation in historic and sensitive urban areas to develop method statements, standards and monitoring for all works. It goes on to deal with archaeological and environmental issues. These experts will prepare reports to Iarnród Éireann and DCC in relation to these matters. Independent Environmental & Archaeological Monitoring will be tasked with undertaking independent check monitoring to validate the results of the PPPCo. Again these method statement, standards and monitoring should be specifically included in the EIS. We wish to ensure that such standards are also followed in the Works and Estate. Such reports may well be needed as the project continues, but the basics should be included in the EIS. Again the issue of the third party agreement placing all the issues at the foot of the PPCo. Is strange and it again places the planning/enforcement issue to the fore.
Condition 20 (continued): The PPPCo Experts shall pay particular attention to inter alia: 1. the impact of the proposed development on the totality of the identified structure and not merely restricted to an assessment of the element of fabric immediately adjacent to any proposed works or directly affected by said works; This ties in directly to the point raised in our submission where only the vaguest attention is paid to exactly what is to be demolished and no consideration is given to the groups of buildings as a whole.
2. Clear indication of specific measures designed to eliminate, significantly reduce or mitigate the impact on the structure, such mitigation measures not merely being limited to monetary compensation. Where the assessment undertaken by the PPCo indicates an excessive impact they will submit to DCC (or in default of same, An Bord Pleanala) details of the specific measures to eliminate, reduce or mitigate that impact. Again this shows that there is no clear mitigation strategy in the EIS. Question of who is Planning Authority is fudged, but implies DCC has taken this role.
Condition 20 (Continued): CIE/IE will engage a team of environmental scientists and a Project Archaeologist to review data submitted by PPCo, liaise with authorities and interested parties, and monitor the performance (technically and environmentally) of the PPCo It is our view that a Project Conservation Architect should also be taken on to deal with the Built Heritage. We would also, as interested parties be pleased with such liaison. However this should have been in the EIS in the first place. While a Code of Practice is in negotiation IÉ could have acted as though one existed and stated how they would proceed
Condition 21: Deals with CIE employing a project archaeologist and his/her role, including: the development of an Archaeological Strategy Document; oversight of post excavation and the supervision of all archaeological works. This strategy to be devised in consultation with DCC archaeologist and an archaeologist from DoEHLG. This document will detail how mitigation measures detailed in the EIS will be implemented by the PPPCo archaeological consultant(s). The concept of Codes of Practise in between the DoEHLG and Companies dealing with infrastructure is well established, it is a pity that such a code of practice is not yet in place. Such a system would have given IÉ a chance to oversee the production of the EIS in relation to built heritage. Such a system and the derived strategies would have helped provide a better EIS. Publication of the results is also important
Condition 22: Deals with a protocol for the discovery of significant archaeological finds. Condition 23: Deals with the assessment of the qualifications and experience of all lead archaeologists on the project. Condition 24: Deals with liaison between CIE Project Archaeologist and DCC/DoEHLG, and also the use of that liaison in informing the archaeological tendering and evaluation by PPPCo. All these conditions could have been included from the start, and the advice of other State development companies, such as the NRA, an Bórd Gais or the RPA could have been sought as to their processes and method of doing business in relation to infrastructure schemes and the production of EIS. In the meantime other major infrastructure providers do cooperate in relation to issues that jointly affect them (see right).
Condition 26: Commits CIE to publication and dissemination of archaeological information gained during the DART Underground works. This publication to be benchmarked against the NRA publication policy on archaeology. Condition 27: Deals with the medium term storage and curation of recorded material and the management of finds discovered. Condition 28: Deals with the long term curation of the archaeological archive in DCC Archives. All these conditions could have been included from the start, and the advice of other State development companies, such as the NRA, an Bórd Gais or the RPA could have been sought as to their processes and method of doing business in relation to critical infrastructure schemes and the production of EIS. Codes of practice have been agreed with Bórd Gais, NRA, RPA, Coillte, Construction Industry Federation, ESB Networks and Eirgrid
In the properly regulated world of a project archaeologist half the work should be complete by the time permission is given.
Condition 35: Roadworks: PPPCo shall prepare and submit drawings to DCC showing the extent and type of reinstatement at each location prior to commencement of works. Condition 36: Formal handover procedure for handing back roadways to DCC to be done separately for each piece of roadway affected. Condition 39: All existing and antique stone kerbs and flags to be cleaned, stored on pallets and reinstated to DCC's specifications. These conditions make perfect sense even legally, as DCC is the owner of these roads. However some indication of the extent and type of reinstatement, and DCC’s specifications should have been included in the EIS.
Conditions 41-57: Deal with Noise, Vibrations, Settlements and Air quality and where required mention Conservation Architects and Archaeologists in their role under the Environmental Monitoring Group. Conditions 58-78: Deal with Water Services. Conditions 79-84: Deal with Flora and Fauna. Condition 85 -88: Deals with the creation of a tree management plan. Conditions 89-100: Deal with Parks and Landscape Services. We welcome this, but it should have been in the EIS. Only the relevant conditions will be dealt with below.
Condition 91: PPCo will engage the services of a qualified Landscape Architect to prepare detailed proposals for reinstatement. Reinstatement Plan to be submitted to DCC Parks and Landscape Services for consultation and agreement. In respect of public open space/streetscape, landscape submissions shall consist of the following. 1. Landscape plan at an approved scale 2. Sections/elevations 3. Images 4. Specialist opinions 5. Landscape maintenance specifications This makes sense in terms of DCC’s ownership of some of these spaces. However the general approval for this should have come through An Bórd Pléanala’s judgement of the quality of the EIS. IOT is particularly interested in the standard of work within the public open spaces, both inside and outside the works.
Condition 91 (continued): They shall also include details of proposals for associated drainage, footpaths, services, boundary treatments and seating, where appropriate. A detailed planting plan will be required and should include working drawings, bill of quantities, plant specification and density. Special care shall be taken to provide sufficient topsoil and drainage and/or irrigation when it is proposed to plant trees adjacent to or over underground structures. This condition should also refer to OPW in relation to the War Memorial Gardens and St. Stephen's Green. This condition should also be extended to the open space, now used as a car park between St. George's Villas and the Club which has never been reinstated by CIE. (see below)
Condition 92: Covers further points in relation to the reinstatment plan. Condition 94: Makes the PPPCo responsible for the maintenance of all affected public open space for a period of 18 months after completion of the works. Conditions 101-111: These concern traffic. IOT supports this idea as it will help to have maintenance problems fixed in the early post development phase. These will be dealt with in another submission. An additional condition should be inserted in the traffic section (should this agreement be conditioned by An Bord Pleanála) stating that routes into and out of Inchicore station whether for vehicular or pedestrian traffic should be upgraded and properly lit in order to mitigate against antisocial behaviour. These upgrades should be in keeping with the historic character of the Works and Estate
<ul><li>Condition 113: Deals with supervision and states that the PPPCo shall confirm to DCC the composition, duties and functions of the Contract Management Team, referred to in Section 22.214.171.124 of Chapter 5 Volume 2, Book 2 of 4 of the EIS. </li></ul><ul><li>Additionally </li></ul><ul><li>CIE will assign responsibility for the detailed design, construction and maintenance of the DART Underground to a Public Private Partnership Company (PPPCo). The PPPCo will assume responsibility for undertaking all aspects of environmental monitoring and archaeological monitoring/excavation for DART Underground. The PPPCo works will be governed by the terms and conditions set out in the PPP contract and the requirements of the draft Railway Order. </li></ul>All this should be in the EIS This is to be set out in the PPPCo contract and the requirements of the Railway Order. The outlines of how such a contract might look would be helpful as would some idea of how enforcement would be achieved.
2. An independent Environmental and Archaeological Monitor will be appointed jointly by CIE/IE and the PPPCo. The proposed Independent Environmental & Archaeological Monitor will monitor and report on the compliance of the PPPCo with the commitments in the Environmental and Archaeological Management Plan and Railway Order application. 3. CIE/IE will engage a team of engineers and environmental scientists and a Project Archaeologist to review data submitted by the PPPCo and the Independent Environmental & Archaeological Monitor, liaise with authorities and interested parties, and audit the performance (technically and environmentally) of the PPPCo and Condition 113 (Continued):
Condition 113 (Continued) 4. PPPCo and CIE will liaise with the DCC appointed Interface Manager regarding the dissemination of monitoring data to an agreed schedule. We feel that there should be a Project Conservation Architect in a similar position to the Project Archaeologist to give advice on The Works and Estate, The War Memorial Gardens, Christ Church and St. Stephen's Green as well as the other sensitive areas likely to be impacted upon.
Condition 114: Removes Development Contributions. We feel that another condition should also be attached, similar to the conditions raised in relation to archaeological objects. This should read something like this. Condition 115: That an inventory of railway related artefacts found within the works should be made under the supervision of the Project Archaeologist. That these artefacts should be housed adequately at a site provided by CIE/IE within the Works. That the PPCo's archaeologist should compile the inventory and that these artefacts should be appropriately stored there under conditions agreed with the National Museum of Ireland. We are particularly concerned that with the demolition and removal of so many of the original buildings, many of the cultural artefacts associated with the railway works might dissapear forever.
Slide no longer needed: There was supposed to be a slide here dealing with the aftermath of poor planning decisions and planning decisions which became victim to financial constraints. This would have dealt with St. Michael's Estate (Richmond Barracks) and the debacle caused by the collapse of a PPP scheme in a heritage context, Clancy Barracks where the flats are built, but the remaining heritage buildings are left sitting in a building site, the Royal Hospital, where a national monument is still sitting beside a building site, and Kilmainham Mill, where the building is falling into total disrepair because of the inability of the planning system to cope with dereliction and the needs of the owner. Happily we received a full guarantee at the hearing yesterday, that CIÉ has no plans to use enabling works as a tool to remove any of the heritage buildings in the CIÉ Works, prior to the PPPCo starting on the proposed scheme. Hence, slide no longer needed.
THE STATUS OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN DCC AND IE: Condition 1 of this agreement states that the points/issues contained in this Agreed Position will be addressed in a third party agreement. Irish Rail's obligations under the third party agreement will be delegated to the successful PPP bidder (PPPCo) at contract award. Irish Rail expect that the third party agreement will incorporate specific provisions as to how the methodologies, working arrangements, mitigations and / or other measures set out below will be agreed between us. Our position is that an agreement which expects “that the third party agreement will incorporate provisions… will be agreed between us.” is only an agreement to expect to agree, and therefore has no force in law.
Condition 1 (Continued): The third party agreement will set out timeframes for review and agreement of measures, obligations to act in a timely and reasonable manner and procedures for the resolution of disputes, where they arise. It is agreed between the two parties that any necessary consents, refusals of consent or suggested amendments by the Local Authority shall issue not more that 28 calendar days after the submission to / receipt by the Local Authority of any proposal from CIE, their agents or the contractor and their agents/contractors. In the event of a large, complex submission or a series of submissions a reasonable period may be negotiated between the Local Authority and Irish Rail, their agents or the Contractor and their agents / contractors. It seems to IOT that the basis for this agreement is to pass on all the parts of the EIS which are not properly fleshed out in a delegated agreement which will delegate the responsibilities to the successful PPP bidder. This will have the effect of making him/her responsible for all aspects relating to the fulfilment of this agreement while being supervised by DCC and CIE/IE. It says it will set out timeframes etc., but does not. The only timeframe is 28 days which is imposed on DCC, which is not the planning authority but is being forced to act like one. Again this is short on specifics in relation to mitigation and a simplified version could have been inserted in the EIS.
Our understanding of Critical Infrastructure Legislation is that it delegates decision making to An Bord Pleanála, where it was felt that the Oral Hearing Process was more transparent and that all aspects would hopefully be dealt with in a speedy manner. The Local Authority is not the Planning Authority in relation to these developments the Authority is An Bord Pleanála. Thus our understanding is that this agreement will have no force in law unless An Bord Pleanála makes the implementation of this agreement a condition of its grant of a Railway Order.
Secondly, it removes the areas of most concern to us from the open transparent Oral Hearing Process. It turns these issues into a set of problems that will be sorted out by teams of professionals, after the Railway Order has been granted. Most of these problems are supposed to have been solved during the production of the EIS, and if not solved, the parameters by which solutions would be found should have been stated in the EIS. This agreement is an attempt to get around the problem by reinserting DCC in a role as Planning Authority in relation to the areas covered in the agreement. In other modules if IE had failed to show how they were measuring, for instance, ground vibrations the inspector sent them off to come up with an answer. In this case the answer is deferred until after the Order is granted.
The system proposed for monitoring seems good, but the problem is that the demolition complete or partial of large areas of the works is automatically accepted, given that we have shown that they appear to have looked at all buildings individually rather than collectively. It does not appear that they even considered all the buildings within the curtilage of the works as a good reference point in deciding its fate. In our opinion, the correct curtilage would have been the Works and Estate. In relation to the section on ground vibrations, the inspector took the opinion that an ordinary person should be able to read the EIS and understand the consequences for them and their environment. It is not at all clear, from the Architectural Heritage section, what will happen to the buildings partially demolished within the works or to the surrounding area.
Because the decision to bring the DART to Inchicore came late in the day, it appears that CIE has been playing catch up ever since. Firstly, the DART was to stop at Heuston, then it was to come to Inchicore as a turn back only, then as a terminus station, and more recently with a facility to continue on until Hazelhatch. Now Inchicore is supposed to be a terminus again. Each of these changing solutions posed problems for the works themselves and CIE, although saying that the worst problem facing the buildings was redundancy, had no real plan (so far as we can see) for what happened next to the works. It should be pointed out that if Inchicore is indeed a terminus station, there is no need to come above ground at all and the turnback could be underground as well, thus obviating the necessity for removing half the historic fabric within the site. This would be easier to achieve now given that CIÉ are saying that they will be relocating some of their services within the Works in advance of the PPP setup. If the station remained underground it would still be possible to use the platforms at Inchicore for transfer to mainline rail.
They attempted to address the problem of what the Works would look like by commissioning Murray O’Laoire to produce a plan for the site including a layout which looks like removing even more of the original fabric of the works. It seems to IOT that a reasonable survey (including photogrammetry) could have been carried out in the works and produced as part of the EIS (it would have been quite inexpensive). Those drawings could have shown accurately what would be left standing after the insertion of the station. This was not done and it is not clear what function any partially damaged buildings will have after the station goes in. This is redundancy in spades. The issues raised in our submission about details of station design in relation to the remaining buildings would have been answered and the agreement with DCC would have had one less problem to answer.
CIE also took the line with IOT that the development was within the works and therefore our concerns relating to treating the site (Works and Estate) as a whole were incorrect. CIE has land between George's Villas and the Club outside the Works and within the estate. The Murray O’Laoire plan proposes to use these for development as well. So, from the IOT perspective, the rules apply in one way if we chose to object and in another if they wish to develop outside what CIE considers to be the curtilage of the works. Most of that site was made into a temporary car park several years ago and was supposed to be reinstated. We as IOT wish that area to be included for reinstatement using appropriate materials and under the direction of a conservation architects.
This is allowed under Section 8 of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 which allows the imposition of conditions regulating the use of land which adjoins, abuts or is adjacent to the land to be developed and which is under the control of the applicant if the imposition of such a condition is considered expedient ... or constitute an amenity for the public or a section of the public for the purposes of conserving that amenity for the public or a section of the public, provided that the condition would not unduly burden the developer.
In fact that land was supposed to have been reinstated by CIE years ago. One could by extension use the same provision to force CIE to restore and properly maintain the Club and Sports building which is rapidly falling into disrepair and is likely to fall derelict in the next decade. It constitutes an amenity for the public, or section of the public. The club committee has attempted to maintain it's area of the building, but this is almost impossible when you have no control over three quarters of it and that that other seventy five percent is semi-derelict with a leaking roof.
QUESTION 1 FOR THE BOARD? IOT needs clarification from An Bord Pleanála as to what they regard the legal status of the Agreement between IE and DCC to be. Would the Board be able to agree to the partial handing back of the authority to DCC? Or would the Board make that agreement (preferably with our conditions added) a condition of grant of the Railway Order instructing DCC to act as your representatives in these limited areas? It seems to IOT that the very fact that these 114 conditions were agreed to by CIE shows that they themselves know that the EIS is seriously flawed in relation to built heritage and archaeology (among other things) and this agreement is their way out of it.
QUESTION 2 FOR THE BOARD? Another problem IOT has with this arrangement was described to me as “the elephant in the room”: how are these agreements to be enforced? The Local Authority has no function in relation to policing a Railway Order, unless that function has been delegated to them by the Board. Would the DCC have to come back to the Board for a ruling every time they had a disagreement with either IE or the PPPCo?
IOT POSITION IN BRIEF: In relation to Built Heritage, IOT would prefer that the Board would direct that CIE amends its EIS in order to include the areas where the EIS is defective in explaining the impact of their development, while adding in the extra points we have raised. This would be the fairest position, in line with parts of the process such as Tunnel Boring, where IÉ were asked to come back with the problems solved, rather than deferring the solution until after the Railway Order had been granted. However, in relation to Built Heritage and Archaeology, we are aware that it is possible that the Board might agree to the DCC/IÉ agreement. If that was the case and if the Board believes it is legal, and if our points were taken on board. An amended agreement be could be agreed between DCC and the Board which hands part of the Boards responsibility back to DCC. This would without doubt be a second best solution for IOT, but we might be able to live with it. There would be one caveat to that, in that we feel that an immediate survey of the buildings in the Works, together with a similar survey of the Sports and Social Club, should be in place before the agreement with DCC came into play and that suggested amendments be included to the EIS in cases where the EIS is inadequate or fails to protect the Built Heritage.
Section 4B was compiled by Edward Bourke who is a resident of East Square and is a Senior Archaeologist with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. He holds a BA and an MA in archaeology from UCD, worked for several years in the private sector and has since 1989 worked for the National Monuments Service. He has worked on archaeology and planning, in the licensing of archaeological excavations and founded the underwater archaeology unit. He worked for a period in the area of non-road infrastructure (including both existing Luas lines). In 2002 following promotion to Senior Archaeologist he was responsible for all planning and archaeology for the southern half of the country. In 2004 he moved, and is now in charge of the Archaeological Archive Unit and of the Photographic Unit. He has since 1993 excavated at Skellig Michael, County Kerry, which was inscribed on the World Heritage list in 1996 and is on the management team for that World Heritage Site. Section 4A was compiled by Grainne Hassett, she is a resident of East Square and is a qualified architect of some twenty years experience. She is a director of Hassett Ducatez Architects; a practice which has established its commitment to architectural excellence in Ireland and internationally and was recently awarded the Downes Medal for Excellence in Architecture. Ms Hassett has been elected Fellow of the Royal Institute of the Architects and, having taught at Dublin universities for ten years, is now Senior Lecturer at the School of Architecture, University of Limerick.