In support of Material Alteration Reference Number Appendix RPS 1.4

Valerie Driscoll

[Redacted]

31 August 2022

Re: Material Alteration Reference Number Appendix RPS 1.4 (RPS No. 8849)

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to support the material alteration 1.4 from the proposed listing on the RPS (8849, [Redacted]) from:

(18th century stone and brick boundary walls to include surviving opening to laneway)

to

{Historic stone and brick east boundary walls (i.e. boundary wall with [Redacted] only).}

As the owner of [Redacted], I am very glad that Dublin City Council voted in favour of this material alteration. As this proposed addition to the RPS was the second attempt to add my property to the RPS, I am very glad that the false claims circulating about elements of my property have now been put to rest. As the east boundary wall is the only element of my property that contains original material, I have no objection to this wall (which is actually already on the RPS in the Curtilage of [Redacted]), being added to the RPS again, as part of my property.

I am very glad to see that with this material alteration, the proposed addition to the RPS of my property at [Redacted] no longer includes the breeze block/concrete boundary walls, concrete floors and corrugated plastic roof, as previous attempts to add this property to the RPS did! I am also glad that the poorly constructed, heavily altered façade wall to [Redacted] (constructed circa 1940) is no longer to be included on the RPS.

With reference to this northern boundary wall and again, as this was now the second attempt to add my property to the RPS, in an effort to put a halt to the many false claims circulating about it, I engaged a Grade 1 Conservation Architect to inspect the property. Tom McGimsey RIAH Grade 1 Conservation Architect with Mesh Architects, carried out a full and very detailed inspection of the entire site in February 2022. He spent an hour inspecting the property and compiled a comprehensive report (included with this submission). His conclusion with regard to this northern wall is that one small section in the corner of this northern wall at my property may include “…a small amount of possibly C18th, but highly altered, masonry remains on the north elevation” and that “It would be remarkable to consider this small piece of masonry to confer National Significance”.

“In relation to the northern boundary wall between [Redacted], it has been shown that nothing of significance remains from the original C18th development. I have presented examples of physical and archival evidence to support this opinion, and which show that only a small amount of possibly C18th, but highly altered, masonry remains on the north elevation to [Redacted].”

[Picture Redacted]

The blue arrow above shows what’s left of the 18th century east boundary wall, already on the RPS. The green arrow above shows the northern boundary wall, that includes reinforced concrete over the entranceway and the rubble and gravel to the right of this wall, exposed by water damage to the render (see photos below).

Please note the reinforced concrete head jamb that could not have been added to this wall until after the 1930s.

Tom McGimsey states, “It is possible that the lower half of the wall between the two large door opening is a part of the C18th laneway wall, however it has been heavily altered over the last two and a half centuries. That piece of wall is only a small fragment of the larger property and contains no significant architectural details. It would be remarkable to consider this small piece of masonry to confer National Significance on the structure that currently stands at [Redacted].”  Tom Mc Gimsey, RIAH Grade 1 Conservation Architect at Mesh Architects.

Detail of poorly constructed northern wall at [Redacted]. Please note, gravel, slate, bits of brick and rubble. This is the bottom right-hand corner of the front of my property (northern wall) that Grade 1 Conservation Architect Tom McGimsey says may include some original stone (only in this section) but that even this has been very heavily altered.

Please note that my property at [Redacted] has been under separate ownership from the main house for nearly a century (since 1926) and many and various structures have existed here, having been demolished, rebuilt, demolished and rebuilt several times in the 270 years, since the house was built, as is shown in Tom McGimsey’s report. I purchased this former mechanics garage on [Redacted], 2018. My intention is to build a modest family home here that is respectful of its context, and in keeping with the zoning allocation for this property, Z1 “to protect, provide and improve residential amenities”. I am working with architect André Negri to do this.

I therefore write to support this material alteration and I thank the Council for their efforts.

Kind regards,

Valerie Driscoll