Pigeon House Precinct (Dublin Electricity Generating Station, Pigeon House Hotel, Harbour and Pigeon House Fort)

Conservation Plan and Re-use Study

Prepared for

Dublin City Council DRAFT Eby

Shaffrey Associates ArchitectsIn collaboration with:

Lee McCullough Mary McMahon Scott Cawley RPS Dr. John Montague

November 2011

Pigeon House Precinct (Dublin Electricity Generating Station, Pigeon House Hotel, Harbour and Pigeon House Fort)

Conservation Plan and Re-use Study DRAFT E

Prepared for

Dublin City Councilby

Shaffrey Associates ArchitectsIn collaboration with:

Lee McCullough Mary McMahon Scott Cawley RPS Dr. John Montague

November 2011

3

4

Map 1: Conservation Plan & Reuse Strategy Boundary Map

5

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Background of StudyThe Pigeon House Precinct1 is a place of .....................layers...

This document generally follows the established format of the ConservationPlan, as enshrined in the Burra Charter on Places of Cultural HeritageSignificance and in accordance with the principles laid down by John SempleKerr. However, it also addresses in a more forthright manner, the issuesregarding reuse of this place of cultural heritage importance. The bringingback into use of this complex represents the biggest challenge facing itsfuture protection. However, the identification of a particular use is not theimmediate issue, rather setting out a strategy whereby a sustainableuse/uses can be achieved. Thus issues such as the perceived isolatedlocation; the poor condition of the former power station; identifyingpartners and funding sources all need to be addressed, in addition toexploring possibilities for interim, temporary and partial use. It should benoted also, the Pigeon House Hotel – which is the earliest surviving buildingin the area dating from 1793 – is currently in use, albeit temporary andpartial use.

The Conservation Plan arises

1 The original title for this study, as set out in the project brief, was quite elaborate and, arising from the research process the name 'Pigeon House Precinct' originally given to this area by J WDeCourcy in his book on Dublin Port, has been adopted for this Conservation Plan and Reuse Strategy2Hamond. & McMahon (2002), 37 393International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage (2003)4Joint Principles are due for ratification at the 17th ICOMOS General Assembly in December 2011.

1.2 Plan Methodology and LayoutAs noted above this study ResearchSite surveys – ecology; hoist; inspections;ConsultationWorkshops

In identifying, assessing, and evaluating the buildings and structures and inthe appraisal of their significance, the guidelines outlined by the HeritageCouncil for recording and conserving industrial heritage2 have beenfollowed. In keeping with international best practice the Nizhny TagilCharter3 for the Industrial Heritage, and the joint ICOMOS TICCIHPrinciples for the Conservation of Industrial Heritge Sites, Structures, Areasand Landscapes4, have also been consulted.

6

Fig 1: Aerial view of Dublin City showing extent of South Wall (marked in yellow) with Pigeon House Precinct at mid point (circled in red) visible withinthe broader context of the metropolitan area.

7Key Map 2:

8

1.3 AcknowledgementsThe consultant team would like to acknowledge the important contributionand assistance of a number of bodies in the preparation of this plan,including

The Project Steering GroupDublin City CouncilESBDublin PortDublin Docklands Development AuthorityIndustrial Heritage Association of IrelandEimear O’ConnellJane O’HalloranRuth Kidney

1.4 Consultant Team

The following is the consultant team :

Project leader / grade 1 conservation architect /consultation:

Shaffrey AssociatesArchitects

Conservation engineer Lee McCulloughConsulting Engineers

Industrial archaeologist/heritage specialist

Mary McMahon

Ecologist and environmental consultant (incl. Appropriateassessment) Scott Cawley

Architectural historian Dr. John Montague

l

9

Understanding the PlaceHistoric Development / Current Context

10

1708 – Establishment of the Ballast Board – improvements to Liffey Estuary commence

1717 – Dublin Corporation begins new South Wall of Dublin Bay

1735 – Piled wall replaced by double stone wall joining Pigeon House to Ringsend Road

1760 – Construction of a ‘blockhouse’ to replace wooden storage house. John Pidgeon continues his role as overseer of Ballast Office employees,living with his family in the new structure

1791 – Ballast Board oversees the construction of a small tidal harbour or ‘bason’ at Pidgeon House – completed in 1793

1793 5 – Construction of Pigeon House hotel at the cost of £10,000, £20 paid to Robert Pool as architect

1798 Fears grow of a French Invasion or a rebellion at home, British Military take over the area. A stockade fort set up comprising accommodationfor officers and men, surgery, canteen and shop, wash house, infant’s school and Provost prison.

1803 – Robert Emmet and his men plan attack of Pigeon House Fort

1813 14 After a long arbitration as to ownership of the Fort between the Committee for the Improvement of the Port and the War Office, the War Officeacquire the Harbour and surrounding area. 1813 Conveyance map forms part of important archive within Dublin City Council Law Department1890 – Dublin Corporation Lighting Committee prepare plans for their first power station in Fleet Street. Work begins in 1891 and power generatedin 1892.

1897 – the Pigeon House Fort sold to Dublin Corporation by the War Department as a site for a proposed sewage works. Once again this is a protractedagreement with the Corporation paying a significant price of £65,000. Details of these negotiations survive within DCC leases.

1902 Pigeon House selected as a site for the new power station and Lord Mayor Harrington lays the foundation stone in …...

July 1903 – power first generated at the Dublin Electricity Generating Station (DEGS), reputed to be first implementation of three phase electricity in anurban context.1927 – Newly formed Electricity Supply Board took over from the Dublin Corporation Lighting Committee and first electrical power generation stationopened on adjacent site

1930 – Pigeon House closed temporarily when Ardnacrusha came on stream but during the major drought of 1932 brought back into action when the RiverShannon all but dried up. It also supplied Dublin during the blizzards of February 1933.

1950s 1980s – Pigeon House used as offices by the ESB

1970’S ESB opens new oil fired power station on adjacent site, with construction of iconic chimneys in 197.. DEGS ceases as a power station in 197….

1991 – ‘The Powerhouse’ – an enterprise initiative founded by Bolton Street College, takes over the Pigeon House premises until 1999

2001 – Hollywood movie ‘Reign of Fire’ filmed at Pigeon House. ESB uses the Hotel builidng for offices for a time but DEGS building obsolete

? – Dublin City Council purchase site from ESB. This is the second time the ‘Corporation’ has had to buy back this site which it was instrumental indeveloping originally.

TIMELINE

115 De Courcy (1996), xxvii6 De Courcy (1996), xxx

Fig. 2:Liffey Shoreline in the City, 850 from De Courcy (1996) xxviii

Fig. 3:Thomas Phillips Map of Dublin 1685Marked ‘part of Poole Begge’ – indicating the location of the deep water‘pool’ which lends its name to the Poolbeg Penninsula.

12

137De Courcy (1996), 3748 De Courcy (1996), 376

Fig. 4 : Ballast Board Map, dated 1778and showing Ballast Office Wall, which isannotated ’The New South Wall’

Fig. 5 : John Rocque 1760 Location of Pigeon House Precinct14

15

Fig. 6 : Rocque/Scalé 1773, showing ‘The Piles’ with The Packet Wharf runningalongside this wooden structure.

PIGEON’S HOUSE (1760 61)

The Piles had been in need of almost constant maintenance since theirconstruction, and once the causeway to Ringsend had been completedit was decided that they should be replaced by a double wall, similar inconstruction to that of the causeway. It is in this context that we find thefirst reference to any built structure on The Green Patch itself: a‘blockhouse’ built c.1760, presumably for storage of building materials, ofwhich a Mr. John Pigeon was officially appointed caretaker in 1761.

Pigeon supplemented his caretaking activities by providing refreshmentsfor passengers arriving off the packet boats and for Dubliners, who walkedout the causeway to the Green Patch so that they could observe the SouthWall construction works in progress. The building, and subsequently theentire piece of land, quickly became known as Pigeon’s House, and finallyPigeonhouse, as it remains today.

In 1766 the Ballast Office ordered two new wharfs to be built at either sideof the blockhouse “for the more convenient landing of any goods that maybe necessary” (de Courcy, 299) and by 1775 three structures are recorded onthe Green Patch/Pigeonhouse: the blockhouse, a Revenue Barracks and astorehouse. In 1787 a new larger blockhouse was built.

THE SOUTH WALL (1761 1792), PIGEON HOUSE HOTEL (1793) and PIGEONHOUSE HARBOUR (1791 1793)

During this time work had proceeded slowly on the South Wall. The eastabutment and Poolbeg lighthouse were built first, between 1761 and 1767,and the wall proceeded slowly westwards from there to finally meet theGreen Patch in 1792. A Harbour was built at the Pigeon House between 1791and 1793 making it an official landing stage for package and passenger boatsinto Dublin, From 1793 this development made it possible for passengers todisembark from their ships directly onto the quayside – a considerableconvenience at the time. As a harbour however it was not a great success asit could dry out completely at high tide but despite this shortcoming theamount of cross channel passenger traffic was steadily increasing and thePigeon House benefited greatly from this trade.

Fig. 7 : : An early engraving of the blockhouse which preceded the hotel, withrowboat in the foreground to transfer goods and passengers from ships toland. (National Gallery of Ireland).

16

Fig. 9 : South façade of Pigeon House Hotel, with its full height bows at either endof this impressive and robust, granite ashlar finished building.

THE PIGEON HOUSE HOTEL 9

By 1793 then, the Green Patch had become the Pigeonhouse Precinct,now connected to the mainland at Ringsend via the new causeway, and tothe Poolbeg lighthouse via the Great South Wall. It supported at least fourstructures – the blockhouse, Revenue Barracks, stores and a newPigeonhouse Hotel – with wharfs on either side and a large enclosedharbour to its northwest, which brought increased trade and theconsequential need for a new hotel building.

In 1793, after a competition was held, a design for a new and moreelaborate hotel was chosen, and a fine cut stone building was opened in1795, with Mrs Tunstall in place as manageress. According tocontemporary records it was elegantly finished with ‘two chimney piecesof mountain stone, 14 of black stone, 9 of Kilkenny marble, and with alarge Tuscan frontispiece, moulded architraves and piers, and an arch overthe front door 10.

The design of the hotel building has been attributed to Robert Pool. Pool isprobably best known today for Views of the Most Remarkable PublicBuildings, Monuments 11, the book he produced with John Cash.

While there is now some question as to whether Pool ever designed anybuildings, he is credited as architect for the Pigeon House Hotel, followingcompetition, in almost all publications on this subject. A writer in The IrishBuilder of 24th February 1882, described having ‘also seen Robert Pool’sdesigns for Whitworth Bridge and the new hotel at the Pigeon House –examples of Ballast Office drawings nearly a century ago, that might well beimitated by even good draftsmen of to day’. Secondary references note thecost of construction of the hotel as being £2,000 and Pool being paid £10 forhis designs.

Construction on the Pigeon House hotel commenced in 1793 and the buildingwas completed in 1795. It is a classical building in form made of dressedashlar granite (presumably brought in the same ships that supplied the SouthWall with matching stone from the Dalkey quarry), consisting of three storeysover basement with full height bows to either end of the south east elevationand its entrance facing the Liffey and its own harbour.

Fig. 8 : 19th century drawin g (after the area had become a millitary fort)showing Pigeon House Hotel building to right with the Revenue building to leftand in the background.

9 Information on Pigeon House Hotel from Jane O’Halloran’s MUBC Building Study of the Pigeon House Hotel10 Maxwell, Constantia ,Dublin Under the Georges, (London, 1936), p. 46.11 Cash, John and Pool, Robert: Views of the Most Remarkable Public Buildings Monument and Other Edifices in the City of Dublin, printed for John Williams, (Dublin, 1780)

17

Fig. 10 Painting of Pigeon House Fort – view lookng east from Ballast OfficeWall (source: tbc)

2.1.3 The Nineteenth Century – The Fort

THE PIGEON HOUSE FORT (1798 1897)

In 1798, when the United Irishmen’s rebellion broke out, the armyrequisition the Pigeonhouse Precinct from the Ballast Board, for use as amilitary fort. It would remain under army command until 1897, being knownthroughout this era as the Pigeonhouse Fort. By 1800 defensive gateways,with drawbridges, had been added to the east and west, the blockhouse hadbeen demolished and various other buildings (soldiers’ quarters, stores etc.)added to meet the new military needs of the site. Between 1803 and 1813 anew armoury and guardhouse were built. The harbour ceased to be used forpacket boats, which now put in at Howth, but continued to be used formilitary transport. In 1814 the site was formally purchased from the BallastBoard by the government under the Defence Act, thus formalising themilitary occupation. By 1860 the Pigeonhouse hotel had become an Officers’Quarters and the old Revenue Barracks had become a military hospital.

Various constituent elements of the fort:1. Soldiers quarters2. Stores (grain store, known locally as ‘the stables’, survives largely

intact)3. Magazines4. Hospital5. Canteen6. Handball Alley (partially extant)7. Prison8. Water tanks9. Defensive gateways at each end of the South Wall, protected by

trenches and drawbridges (western gate, partially extant)10. Armoury and guardhouse commanding the road from Ringsend11. Guns trained on the South Bull sands and the mouth of the river

(circular gun emplacement on the north east of the site surviveslargely intact)

Fig. 11 Conveyancing map when Fort was formally purchased by Dept of Defence,1813. At this time the millitary were already leasing sections of the fort at anotably high cost of £500 oer annum

18

Fig. 12 Detail from 1868 Map of Dublin in Dublin Port Archives showing Pigeon HouseHarbour marked as ‘Dry Harbour’

Fig. 15 Drawing of East Gate toPigeon House Fort (British MilitaryArchives, Kew London)

Fig. 14 Detail from 1874 Map of Dublin in Dublin Port Archives showing the harbourmarked as ‘Pigeon House Harbour’

Fig. 13: 1830 Plan of Pigeon House Fort (British Military Archives, Kew London

Fig. 16 Drawing (1830) of WestEntrance to Pigeon House Fort(British Military Archives, KewLondon)

19

Fig. 17

Fig. 20Fig. 19 Port Archives showing the harbour marked as ‘Pigeon House Harbour’

Fig. 18:

20

Fig. xx (Dublin Port Archives)

2.1.4 The Twentieth Century – Power and Waste

DUBLIN CORPORATION MUNICIPAL SEWAGE SCHEME (1897 1906)

In 1897 the army vacated the Pigeonhouse Fort and the site was sold toDublin Corporation, which in the years between 1897 and 1906 constructedDublin’s first municipal sewage scheme, with a large outfall works at thePigeonhouse site. The Rathmines and Pembroke sewage scheme, builtbetween 1878 and 1881 had previously run a main sewer line through thesite – presumably by agreement with the army – to its outfall point at thepenstock house at White Bank on the South Wall. The Corporation works,however were a much larger undertaking and an extensive outfall worksfacility was built in to the existing Pigeonhouse Harbour. This marked thebeginning of the precinct’s ‘municipal’ or services function, which continuedin 1902 with the construction of the Pigeon House Electricity GeneratingStation on the site.

Fig. xx Conveyancing map for transfer of Pigeon House Fort from Department ofDefence to Dublin Corporation , dated 1879 (source Dublin City Council LawDepartment Lease Maps). This sale followed a considerable negotiation process,at the end of which the site was transferred in two phases with the armyretaining rights of access for a period and for the sizealbe sum of £65,000

THE PIGEON HOUSE POWER STATION (1902 1940)

The Pigeon House Generating Station replaced the earlier Fleet Streetstation in Dublin City as consumer demand for electricity expanded rapidlyin the early years of the twentieth century. It was itself extended in 1911in order to keep up with ever increasing demand, this extension (to thenorth) resulting in the demolition of the Military Hospital (former RevenueBarracks) on the site. The site was handed over to the newly formed ESBin 1927, coming under the direction of the Free State Government. In the1930s further capacity was added to the generating station with theconstruction of large concrete extensions to the east of the existingbuilding and further additions and upgrades followed over the subsequentdecades.

21

Fig. xx infilling the Harbouras part of the municipalsewerage scheme

Fig. xx 1970 OS Street Map of Dublin –

POOLBEG GENERATING STATION (1971 1995)

By the late 1960s however the station was struggling to keep up withincreased demand as the rural electrification scheme progressed, briningelectricity to almost every home in the country. In 1971 a new generatingstation was built at Poolbeg, to the east of the Pigeon House site, on landreclaimed partially through the dumping of ash from the Pigeon Housestation. This station was further extended in 1995 and continues inoperation today.

LATER DEVELOPMENT & RECLAMATION WORKS (1980+)

Throughout the 1980s and 90s significant further works and further landreclamation took place along either side of Pigeonhouse Road, with theaddition of the new sewage treatment plant on the southern side, a newgenerating station at Ringsend, new container quays on the northern side,and Irishtown Conservation Park on a former landfill site between thePigeonhouse Road and Sandymount. The road itself has been somewhat rerouted. This gradual building up of the area between the Pigeon Houseprecinct and Ringsend and the further reclamation of land between thePigeon House and the South Wall makes for a continuous peninsulastretching out along the Liffey from Ringsend/Irishtown to Poolbeg. It isdifficult to imagine looking at it now that the Pigeon House was essentially anisland until the building of the causeway to Ringsend in 1759, and beforethat, just a small patch of dry ground at high tide on the vast South Bull Sandsin Dublin Bay, over 2km from the nearest landfall at Ringsend.

Fig. xx 1986 OS Street Map of Dublin – Pigeon House Road

22

The Dublin Electricity Generating StationChronology

23

Fig. CHRONOLOGICAL MAP OF THE POWER STATION BUILDING Manning & Mc Dowell (1984), 1

12Manning & Mc Dowell (1984), 1

2.2 The Dublin Electric Generating Station – Chronology

BACKGROUND

According to Manning & McDowell “The first electric light in Ireland was anarc lamp outside the office of the Freeman’s Journal in Prince’s Street,Dublin, in 1880.” 12, but the early years of electricity production anddistribution in Ireland were haphazard, with a high degree of competitionbetween private enterprises and local authorities, and the supply ofelectricity in Dublin did not come largely under Corporation control untilthe late 1880s.

Fig. xx

By 1891 the Electric Lighting Committee of Dublin Corporation was adominant enough force in the market to commence construction on a largegenerating station at Fleet Street. This station was completed and publicsupply commenced in 1892. The electricity market was a growing one andby 1897 the station was generating revenue for Dublin Corporation. By theearly years of the twentieth century however Fleet Street was struggling tokeep up with consumer demand and plans were drawn up for a generalexpansion of the Corporation network, to include a new generating stationat the Pigeonhouse Precinct, which land had recently been purchased bythe Corporation from the Department of Defence.

24

Fig.xx‘Lord Mayor Harrington laying the foundation stone of Pigeon House Works, 10th

February 1902’Source: City of Dublin Electricity Dept. (1928)

13Manning & Mc Dowell (1984), 1114Kettle (1917), 6

Fig. xx Flora Mitchell

PHASE 1: PIGEON HOUSE I (1902 1903)

The proposal to locate the new facility at Pigeonhouse was hotly debated,with many arguing that the site was too far from the load centre to operateeffectively. Plans for the station went ahead however and – in retrospect –the distance from the city centre turned out to be an advantage for thestation, in that it obliged the design engineer, Robert Hammond, to insist ona three phase electricity supply. As a result Dublin was the first city in theBritish Isles – indeed, according to some reports, the first city in the world –to be equipped with a three phase supply, and three phase subsequentlybecame the norm worldwide, despite the initial reservations.The foundation stone for the Pigeon House Station was laid in 1902. “Thenew generating station at Pigeonhouse began supplying the new system ofmains in July 1903 and the generating plant at Fleet Street was finally shutdown in September 1903, when the entire supply to both old and new mainswas transferred to Pigeonhouse.” 13

The new Pigeon House Station was a simple brick built twin gabledstructure, with a Boiler House in the western gabled pace, an Engine Roomin the eastern gabled space and a combination of offices, workshops,control panels and distribution gear in the lean to space to the east of theEngine Room. It was equipped with a coal store at the north end and alarge brick built chimney stack at the south end.The station burned coal which in turn heated water in the boilers to formsteam which fed into the engine room where it drove the generators toproduce electricity. The plant and machinery was chosen as some of thebest available in its day and included:“4 Babcock & Wilcox land type boilers and six Lancashires with Musgrave

superheaters.”“4 vertical slow speed marine type compound condensing Corliss engines

by Stewart of Glasgow” directly linked to “flywheel three phasealternators with direct driven exciters made by the Oerlikon Machine Co.of Switzerland.”The alternators produced three phase alternating current, generated at5000 volts. This was subsequently transformed down to 2000 volts forlighting and 664 volts for power14.

25

Fig.xx The original Pigeonhouse power station. View from northwest, takenc.1904 1911. (Source: 25 Years of Poolbeg)

15Kettle (1917), 7

Fxx Interior of old boiler house, showing Babcock stokers Source: Kettle (1917)

By 1911, however, demand for power from thePigeonhouse station was already beginning tooutstrip capacity and plans were put in place foran extension of the existing facility to the north(including the demolition of the former MilitaryHospital/Revenue Barracks, an 18th centurysurvival from the early Green Patch days of thesite). In 1911 works commenced on thisextension15.

More information on plant and machinery usedover the various stages of the Power Station’sdevelopment is provided in Appendix ….

Interior of Old Engineroom, showing Stewart Oerlikon Corliss EnginesSource: Kettle(1917)

Fig. xx: In 1904: 650 consumers of electricity in theDublin City Area. 1904 28: This graph shows theexponential increase in electricity units sold in theDublin City Area during the period 1904 28

26

Fig.xx Bridging the R&P main drain, with the Military Hospital (former RevenueBarracks) and Chapel in the background. Source: City of Dublin Electricity Dept.(1928)

16Kettle (1917), 1117Kettle (1917), 11

PHASE 2: PIGEON HOUSE II (1911 1913)

Work began on the new buildings in 1911. The large brick stack to the southprevented expansion in this direction, and the existing coal store provided asignificant barrier to the north. After some deliberation, however, it wasdecided to expand to the north, demolishing the existing Military Hospital onthe site. As the coal store and an adjacent economiser stack could not betaken out of use during extension works, it was decided to start building theextension at the north end, on the site of the former military hospital, then totake the building southwards from there, effectively bridging the existing coalstore and economiser stack to join up to the old building. Once new plant hadbeen installed in the new building, and a new coal store built, these could betaken out of commission. A concrete raft was laid under all of the newbuilding area and a basement (one did exist in the old works) was deemed tobe unnecessary. A minor problem in this was caused by the existence of theRathmines & Pembroke main drain which needed to be bridged beforefoundations could be laid.

The first phase of the new buildings, completed in 1911, included a boilerhouse to house two new Babcock boilers, an engine room to house onenew steam turbine and a feed pump house to house the new pumpingplant that would eventually be required. An 80 foot steel stack was alsoprovided at this stage. At this stage: “The old hospital building was leftstanding right against the northern end of the new boiler house, butopenings were pierced through it to provide facilities for the removal ofashes” 16.

In 1913 the old hospital building was demolished along with the old coalstore “and the raft was extended up to the old engine room and boilerhouse. It was also widened to meet the eastern sea wall in order toaccommodate a new four storey switchgear building. The boiler houseand engine room were extended back to meet the old buildings. TheYarrow economiser and stack were still left standing, and the wallscarried over on steel girders. As the roofs of the new buildings are higherthan those of the old, the gable ends were run up to meet the new roofs.The gable walls were left standing so that there are really two enginerooms – in the case of the boiler house, portions of the gable end wereremoved so that the new boiler house is practically one with the old.17”Two new Babcock boilers were installed at this stage as well as a secondnew turbine.

There are references also to the fact that the eastern elevation of thenew extension was rendered externally in order to mitigate thedetrimental effect that weathering and frequent easterly gales werehaving on the eastern elevation of the original power station. The eastelevation, after the extension has been added, is visible in thephotograph below, with the new addition clearly rendered as described.Note also the height difference between the original building and thenew extension, and the new Coal Store under construction to the northof the site. The eastern gate to the Pigeon House Military Fort is clearlyvisible in the foreground of the picture.

27

Fig.xx City of Dublin Electricity Works. View from East side.Source: Kettle (1917)

In addition to the extensions to Boiler House and Engine Room, the 1911 13works included a four storey switchgear house and substation on the easternof the building, reflecting the increased output of the newly extended siteand developments in electrical technology in the ten years since the originalstation was built.

We are fortunate in having a very complete record of the 1911 1913 worksthanks to a presentation by Laurence J Kettle to the Institution of ElectricalEngineers, Dublin, subsequently published as a pamphlet under the title TheCity of Dublin Electricity Works in 1917 and from which the majority of thereferences above are taken. Kettle gives a detailed account of the 1911 1913works and of the operation of each area of the generating station at thattime. Kettle’s drawings of the site in 1917 are particularly useful and arereproduced on this page.

PHASE 3: NEW BOILER HOUSE ADDED c.1920 30 (since demolished)

Photographic evidence shows that a new boiler house was added to thesoutheastern end of the site at some time in the 1920s. This has since beendemolished, most likely in the 1970s, when the new generating station wasbeing built next door at Poolbeg. It is visible in the photograph to the right.

Fig.xx Cross section showing (from l r) Pump House, Boiler House, Engine Room,Switchgear House and how these relate to each other, from Kettle (1917).

Fig.xx Plan from Kettle (1917) showing the layout and function of spaceswithin the newly extended Pigeon House Power Station.

Fig.xx View of Works from East (City of Dublin Electricity Dept. (1902 28).

28

18Murphy (1940), 142 43;19Manning & McDowell (1984), 79;20Murphy(1940), 143;21Murphy(1940), 143;22Murphy(1940), 145;23Murphy(1940), 145

PHASE 4: PIGEON HOUSE III (1933 40)

The ESB acquired the Pigeon House station in 1929 – the same year thatnewly built Ardnacrusha took over electricity supply to Dublin City – and thePigeon House was therefore relegated “to the position of an emergencystand by Station and only put into commission intermittently” 18 . However,with rapid increases in electricity consumption (as well as severe 1932droughts on the Shannon, which badly affected production at Ardnacrusha19),the ESB soon found that it needed a secondary main generating station toback up the Ardnacrusha supply. It was decided, therefore “to reconstructand modernise the Pigeon House Station so as to provide for an ultimateinstalled capacity of about 100,000kW” 20, this representing an almost fivefold increase from the existing total installed capacity of just 21,000kW. Amajor overhaul program was undertaken at the Pigeon House Station,beginning in 1933 and continuing through to its eventual completion in 1940.Major changes were made to both plant and buildings in order to attain thedesired 100,000kW capacity – a target which was successfully achieved by1940 – but PG Murphy, Engineer, is at pains to note in his 1940 article on thereconstruction works that: “It should be stressed, however, that the resultingStation cannot be regarded as an ideal modern Steam Generating Station,but only as a solution of the particular problem of reconstructing acomparatively small Station to one of five times its output, utilising theexisting site, buildings and plant facilities to the greatest possible extent” 21

As a problem solving exercise it was a major undertaking. Nine new boilerswere installed within the walls of the existing Boiler House, all havingindividual steel chimneys (“excepting No.1, which uses the old brickchimney” 22); all except one of the existing turbine generators were removedand replaced with new plant; a new ash handling plant with modern hydrojet system was installed, requiring changes to the reserve water storage areaadjacent the brick chimney stack; a completely new coal handling system wasdevised, with roof level coal hoppers and conveyors running the length of theBoiler House buildings; Fig.xx Pigeon House Wharf and Coal Handling Plant Source: ESB Archive

Major changes were made to the wharf, which was “extended in lengthfrom 200ft to 380ft and in width by 18ft” and to the harbour, which was“dredged and deepened by about 3 ft2”23 – these last changes wereaimed at allowing larger colliers to dock alongside thus increasing thecoal handling capacity of the Station; the existing Engine Room easternelevation of the existing station.

The photograph below shows the changes to the gable walls of theoriginal station and the addition of the extensive coal hopper system atroof level during the 1930s overhaul.

29

Comparative floor plans contained in PG Murphy’s report help to give an ideaof the extent of the changes implemented at this time, and are reproducedbelow

Fig.xx Annotated cross section after Barrett Mahony drawing.

Note in particular the extensive changes to the wharf itself and the additionof an extensive coal handling and conveyor system, including the hoppersto Boiler House roof level. The engine room has also been extended to thenorth.

Fig.xx General Plan of Station before reconstruction (1928) Source: Murphy(1940)

Fig.xx General Plan of reconstructed Station (1940) Source: Murphy(1940)

Also notable is the addition of the new Control Building to the east side ofthe power station, at the northern end of the site. This comprised a threestorey switchgear room (needed to cope with both increased output andincreased voltage from the new plant), a new modern control room, and anew pump house. The new control building was built directly abutting thePigeon House II Engine Room and incorporating the lean to Pigeon House IIswitchgear house. The Cross Section (right) shows how the two phases ofthe building relate to each other, with blue lines showing the 1933 40addition, while red lines show the existing Pigeon House II extension.Green lines show elements that no longer exist on site.

Fig.xx General Plan of reconstructed Station (1940) Source: Murphy(1940)

30

Fig.xx Looking SW at Pigeon House 06.09.36 Source: ESB Archive

In addition, a series of photographs from the ESB Archives show theconstruction of the 1933 40 extensions in fantastic detail. A selection of theseis reproduced below:

Fig.xx Looking NW at Pump House 10.05.36 Source: ESB Archive

Fig.xx Looking SW in Control Room 23.08.36 Source: ESB Archive

The above photograph gives a very clear idea of how the 1911 13 EngineRoom Extension was incorporated into the new Control Building. The threestoreys of the existing 1911 13 substations and the gable wall of the existingengine room are visible to the right of shot. Also under construction in thisshot is the full height loading bay space at the north end of the new building,visible as a void in the construction.

The view to the right, showing the fourth floor Control Room underconstruction, also shows the interaction between this phase of the buildingand the clerestory wall to the original 1902 03 Power Station at west. Theclerestory openings are clearly visible along the west wall, with the wall levelhaving been built up above them to coincide with the 1911 13 extension.

In the above photograph we see the Pump House almost complete, withthe Control Building yet to be constructed. Visible above and behind thenewly constructed Pump House is the rendered east elevation of the1911 13 Engine House extension.

31

Fig.xx No.2 Engine Room Extension 22.05.38 Source: ESB Archive

Above photograph shows 1933 40 Engine Room extensionunder construction at north end of building. Control Buildingextension appears largely complete but Boiler House extensionon site of existing Coal Store is not yet completed and northelevation of 1911 13 Boiler House is still visible to right of shot.

Fig.xx Pump House looking S 18.09.37 Source: ESB Archive

Fig.xx Looking SE in newly completed Control Room. Source:ESB ArchiveFig.xx View to E side of Busbar Gallery 20.09.36 Source: ESB Archive

Photograph to leftshows the BusbarGallery at Level 3 of theControl Buildingswitchgear house. Notethe perforated floor,giving direct access tothe switchgear gallerybeneath. This spaceretains a lot of itsoriginal appearance andequipment today.

Photograph to right showsthe interior of the PumpHouse, with a central rowof new pumps drawingwater from the Liffeyestuary.

The newly completed 1933 40 Control Room, below, withstate of the art control and monitoring equipment and asuspended glass ceiling.

32

Fig.xx Plan of the power station dating to 1945 (note wharf is at top of plan)Source: ESB Archive

24 McDonald (1947 48), 14 15

PHASE 5: COAL STORE BOILER ROOM CONVERSION (1940 45)

Comparison between the 1940 floor plan above and the 1945 plan belowshow that during this five year period the existing Pigeon House II concretecoal store (visible in both the 1940 plan and in the series of 1930sphotographs above) was either demolished or largely demolished andconverted into a further Boiler House space, being rebuilt at that time in redbrick. In 1947 8 works were in progress on the installation of two new boilers,new ash disposal plant, storage and handling facilities for fuel oil for firingboilers 24. No access is currently available to the space to investigate thechanges in any detail. The plan below dates to 1945 and shows theconfiguration of elements within the Pigeon House site at that time.McDonald (1947 48), 14 15

Fig.xx Boiler Hse No.2 looking S10.04.38 [Source: ESB Archive]

This series of photographs, istitled “No.2 Boiler House lookingSouth” but may show theconversion of the coal store toBoiler House use. It is alsopossible that the views representinstallation of new plant in theexisting Boiler Houses during the1933 40 works. In either case, theseries shows the installation ofthe steel framework still visibletoday, the creation of the subfloor level and installation ofvarious phases of boilerequipment. The first photographof the series also shows theworkings of the coal conveyorsystem quite clearly.

Note that the No.2 Boiler House to the southeast of the main powerstation is shown as still in existence at this time. Note also the existenceof a series of transformer stations to the east of the Pump House, whichare no longer visible on site, and of the Workshop addition to theSoutheast, added c.1945.

Fig.xx No.2 Boiler Hse looking S06.06.38 [Source: ESB Archive]

No.2 Boiler Hse looking S 21.08.38[Source: ESB Archive]

33

Fig.zz View of c.1945 addition, seen from southwest

LATER ADDITIONS (1945+)

A large workshop addition was added to the southeast corner of the powerstation c. 1945, while small additions (possibly transformer housing) wereadded to the east elevation of the power station c.1950 60. The smalladditions are no longer in use but the workshop however, which is in twostoreys containing both workshops and offices, is used by a number ofcontactors.

Fig.xx View of c.1945 addition, seen from southwestFig.xx: 1970’s photo during construction of present Waste Water TreatmentPlant (in foreground) which shows how the power station looked in operation,with the corrugated cladding to the coal hopper structure at roof level. It alsoappears that only one of the ‘Pigeon House’ chimneys has been built at thistime.

34

Contemporary Context

3525 The Dublin City Development Plan and the DDDA Masterplan land use zoning objectives align with each other and so here the City Development Plan objectives are set out.

2.2 Contemporary Context

2.2.1 Statutory and Policy Context – Designations, Policies, ObjectivesThe key statutory documents affecting the Pigeon House Precinct are theDublin City Development Plan 2011 2017 and the DDDA Masterplan 2008.These sit within a national and international legislative and policyframeworks which includes the Planning and Development Acts 20002010; DoEHLG Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines; NationalMonuments Acts 1930 2004; Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000; EUHabitats Directives and International Charters and Conventions relating toCultural Heritage protection.

Map 3 identifies the key statutory designations within the Dublin CityDevelopment Plan 2011 2017 25. These comprise:

LAND USE ZONINGThe site contains two land use zoning objectives – Z14 and Z9 as follows:

Z14: To seek the social, economic and physical development and/orrejuvenation of an area with mixed use, of which residential and “Z6”would be the predominant uses.These are areas where proposals for comprehensive development orredevelopment have been, or are in the process of being prepared. Theseareas also have the capacity for a substantial amount of development indeveloping areas in the inner and outer city. A number of the Z14 areasrelate to important regeneration areas and in the case of each, a numberof development principles to guide the development of each area havebeen identified. These development principles are set out in the guidingprinciples for strategic development and regeneration areas (SDRAs).SDRA 6. Docklands (Spencer Dock, Poolbeg, Grand Canal Harbour) hasbeen identified as one of these strategic development and regenerationareas in the City Development Plan and below are the developmentprinciples set out for the Poolbeg area of SDRA 6 (ref DDDA Masterplan2008). Selected text has been highlighted in italics due to its particularrelevance to the Pigeon House Precinct Conservation Plan & ReuseStrategy:

Poolbeg1. To ensure that new development facilitates the implementation of a globallandscape plan for the Poolbeg Peninsula developed in the context of theunique landscape qualities of the peninsula, river and bay area.2. To ensure that significant dimensions of the landscape framework areimplemented as part of any future development in utilities.3. To support a ‘differentiated character’ approach within an overall landscapeframework that will allow for the consolidation of specific activities.4. To promote an urban scale and form of development with mixed useand defined areas of ‘predominant character’.5. To allow for utilities operation and expansion within an overallenvironmental improvement strategy and landscape plan.6. To promote and protect the ecology of the area, while providing forrecreational open space with public access within a consolidation framework forpublic utilities, including the re use of historic structures.7. To improve accessibility through the development of a movementframework with a strong emphasis on public transport, pedestrian/cyclenetworks and incorporating innovative approaches geared to developingsustainable modes of commuter movement and car parking.8. To initiate a phased development of both commercial developmentand public realm – landscape/road infrastructure to ensure that keyelements of the landscape framework are of the highest quality design and areimplemented early in the overall phasing plan to set future precedent for areacharacter.9. To ensure phased implementation of major redevelopment sites can belinked to the implementation of significant public realm packages of thelandscape framework plan identified outside of the commercial sites inquestion.10. To ensure that all development is compatible with the nature conservationdesignations of the south bay including the Habitats Directive.11. To ensure that the unique landscape qualities of the Poolbeg Peninsula,rivers and bay area are recognised in any development proposals for thePoolbeg area and that the existing open character and nature of the views fromIrishtown Nature Park are retained as far as practicable.The Economic Objective REO16 is also worth noting in the context of the

above. This is “to examine the feasibility of a cruise terminal in the Poolbegarea and Dublin Port, including a review of the current disembarking point andits connectivity with the city and the development of tour options for visitorswithin the city and set out recommendations”.

36

Map 3: Statutory Designations key map: Dublin City Development Plan 2011 2017

3725 Giacometti (2009), 2

The following sets out permissible and open for consideration uses withinthe Z14 zoning objective:

Permissible UsesATM, Betting Office, Buildings for the health, safety and welfare of thepublic, Childcare facility, Community facility, Conference centre,Cultural/recreational building and uses, Education, Embassy office, Embassyresidential, Enterprise centre, Green/Clean industries , Haltingsite, Home based economic activity, Hotel, Industry (light), Live work units,Media recording and general media associateduses , Medical and related consultants, Offices, Open space, Park and ridefacility, Part off licence, Place of public worship, Public service installation,Residential, Restaurant, Science and technology based industry, Shop(neighbourhood), Training centre.

Open for Consideration UsesAdvertisement and advertising structures, Bed and breakfast, Car park, Cartrading, Civic and amenity/recycling centre, Factory shop, Financialinstitution. Funeral home, Garage (motor repair/service), Garden centre,Golf course and clubhouse, Hostel, Internet café, Nightclub, Off licence,Outdoor poster advertising, Petrol station, Pigeon lofts, Public house,Takeaway, Veterinary surgery, Warehousing (retail/nonfood)/Retail Park, Warehousing. In the case of Z14 lands that are identifiedfor key district centres, all uses identified as permissible uses and open forconsideration uses on zoning objective Z4 lands will be considered.

Z9: To preserve, provide and improve recreational amenity and openspace and green networks.The area of site included in the Z9 objective is a narrow band runningaround the perimeter of the Harbour. It is not suitable for developmenthowever the zoning may impact on the uses which this land is to be put.

The Z9 zoning includes all amenity open space lands which can be dividedinto three broad categories as follows:

• Public open space• Private open space• Sports facilities in private ownership

The provision of public open space is essential to the development of astrategic green network. Generally, the only new developmentallowed in these areas, other than the amenity/recreational usesthemselves are those associated with the open space use.

Permissible UsesClub house and associated facilities, Municipal golf course, Open space,Public service installation which would not be detrimental to the amenityof Z9 zoned lands.

Open for Consideration UsesCar park for recreational purposes, Caravan park/Camp site (holiday),Community facility, Craft centre/craft shop, Crèche, Cultural/recreationalbuilding and uses, Golf course and clubhouse, Kiosk, Tea room.

ARCHAEOLOGYThe site lies within a zone of Archaeological interest. It also contains anumber of Recorded Monuments as follows:

The Pigeon House Fort complex is designated Recorded MonumentDU019 027 (Fort – Blockhouse is specifically identified). The RMP filesnote various constituent elements of the fort complex, including soldiers’quarters, stores, magazines, a hospital, a canteen, a handball alley, aprison, water tanks, defensive gateways at each end of the South Wallprotected by trenches and drawbridges, an armoury and guardhousecommanding the road from Ringsend, and guns trained on the South Bullsands and the mouth of the Liffey 25.

RMP No. Description

DU019 027 Blockhouse (Pigeon House Fort)

DU019 028 Battery (South Wall)

DU019 029002 Sea Wall (South Wall)

DU018 066 Building (at Pigeon House Rd Cottages)

3826Giacometti (2009), 227Giacometti (2009), 2

As well as the fort, the Great South Wall itself is also designated as aRecorded Monument (DU018 066 Sea Wall). The RMP Files explain howthe sea wall was constructed from 1715 and linked the channel of theLiffey from Corn Exchange Place to the Poolbeg lighthouse 26.

Recorded Monuments in the vicinity of the Pigeon House Fort alsoinclude shipwrecks, which are recorded on the Maritime Sites andMonuments Record. Just under fifty shipwrecks have been recorded forthe River Liffey at Poolbeg, Ringsend, and the Great South Wall27.

BUILT HERITAGEProtected Structures:The following table lists the protected structures within the site.

It is not clear from this listing if, and how, the Pigeon House Harbour isincluded in the Record of Protected Structures (RPS). It may be included inthe RPS No 6797, or it could be understood to be part of the Great SouthWall listing (6798). As it principally predates the Fort, it might be taken tonot be included within the 6794 listing. This is an anomaly which would

benefit from clarification.

The City Development Plan contains a raft of policies and objectives relatingto the protection of the built of heritage, most of which are relevant to thePigeon House Precinct. Of particular relevance, perhaps, given the currentcondition of the former power station is FC30 which is an objective to:

FCO30 To maintain a register of Buildings at Risk in whichprotected structures at risk from neglect or wilful damage willbe entered and actions will be taken to ensure their survival

This objective accords with the statutory obligations of owners/occupiers ofprotected structures to maintain the special character of the protectedstructure.

Conservation Area Objective:There is a Conservation Area Objective for a defined part of the site, whichcomprises the water body of the harbour, part of the former power stationbuilding and the wharf between the two. This does not recognise thebroader cultural heritage relationships between the harbour and the GreatSouth Wall (of which part the eastern section – lies within as separateconservation area); the harbour and the Pigeon House Fort and, theHarbour, the former power station and the industrial heritage setting whichextends to the present ESB Poolbeg Power Station lands.

Industrial HeritageThere are two polices of relevance within the Development Plan:

FC58 To promote the awareness of Dublin’s industrial,military andmaritime heritageFC68 To implement the relevant recommendations of theDublin City Industrial Heritage Record (DCIHR)

The DCIHR, carried out in 2007, identified a number of existing and formerstructures within the site and adjacent areas (see Figure xx) as being ofIndustrial Heritage significance, as shown on following maps and table.While these are not statutory designations, nonetheless Policy FC68endows some status of protection. It is worth noting the regional meritrating given to the Pigeon House chimneys. The record forms and map areincluded in Appendix ….

RPS No Address Description

6794 Pigeon House Road, Dublin 4 Remnants of Pigeon House Fort

6795 Pigeon House Road, Dublin 4 Former Pigeon House Hotel

6796 Pigeon House Road, Dublin 4 Pigeon House power station: redbrick electricity generatingstation

6797 Pigeon House Road, Dublin 4 Limestone and granite ashlar seawall

6798 Pigeon House Road/SouthPort/Dublin Bay, Dublin 4

Great South Wall (to lighthouse)

7553 Ringsend, Dublin 4 Poolbeg Lighthouse (South BullWall)

39

Map 3: Designated Sites within 1km, 5km and 15km of plan area

Fig. xx: DCIHR Map extracts

NATURAL HERITAGE

The Ecology reports in Appendix B set out in more detail the statutorycontext with regard to natural heritage within the site and surroundingarea. Map 3 (taken from this report), shows the designated sites within arange of distances from the site. The principal designations andprotections affecting the Pigeon House Precinct are:

South Dublin Bay candidate Special Areas of Conservation(0210)/pNHA & Sandymount Strand/Tolka Estuary SPA(004024) & North Bull Island SPA (0400)

Within these designated sites, which lie adjacent to the Pigeon HousePrecinct, but not within it, (EU Annex I and Annex II habitats), areprotected flora and fauna. While not protected flora species wereobserved within the site, several protected fauna species – bats and otters

were observed and others – arctic tern, brent geese, peregrine falcon,kestrel – are all known to breed within or adjacent to the site.

DCIHR No Site Function Merit Rating

19 09 004 Drainage Outfall Works Industrial Heritage InterestRegional Importance

19 09 005 Lightboat House No remains

19 09 006 Electricity Works Architectural/ IndustrialHeritage/Social/Technical interestNational importance

19 09 009 Sluice House Architectural/Industrial Heritage interestRegional importance

19 09 010 Causeway (South Wall Architectural/ Cultural/IndustrialHeritage/Social/Technical interestNational importance

19 09 011 Slip (Wharf) Industrial Heritage/Technical interestRegional importance

19 09 012 Landing Slip Historic/ Industrial HeritageRegional importance

19 09 015 Chimneys Cultural/ Industrial Heritage/TechnicalinterestRegional importance

40

Current Presentation and Condition

41

Fig..xx looks south east toward Sandymount, Dun Laoghaire and Wicklow beyond. The large1970’s power station which superceeded the DEGS is now itself redundant. The developmentof this complex forced the routing of Pigeon House Road through the Fort complex and severed(through restriction of access rather than physical removal) the connection between thePigeon House Precinct and the eastern section of the Great South Wall. The entire ESB site andoperations are an intrinsic part of the industrial heritage story pertaining to the nineteenth andtwentieth century electricity generation, and so is also part of the significance of the PigeonHouse Precinct. The ESB lands are bounded by palisade fencing and poorly considered plantingmaking the journey around its perimeter – to reach the Great South Wall – an aesthetically andexperientially challenging experience

2.2.2 Current Presentation and Condition

One of the key challenges in communicating the significance ofthe Pigeon House Precinct is the manner in which the existingcultural heritage is currently presented: the patently precariouscondition of the power station (by far the most visibleelement); the seeming lack of coherence between one culturallayer and another and, the unkempt nature of the landscapesetting. The rich biodiversity which thrives in such places is hardto perceive if uninformed. And yet, this is typical ‘Edgelands’landscape28, a landscape of particular aesthetic qualities, deeplycultural and hosting diverse and rare habitats.

This landscape also contains functioning industries of greateconomic and infrastructural importance to city and countryand in themselves also of historic importance.

The site and buildings are described in this section, firstly asthey currently existing today, followed by a more detaileddescription of condition, with particular emphasis on the DEGSbuilding due to its more advanced structural and fabricdeterioration.

An extensive photographic inventory of the Pigeon HousePrecinct, site, buildings and structures is contained in Appendix? which is a useful reference for this section of the Plan.

A condition appraisal of the DEGS building, prepared by LeeMcCullough Structural Engineers (Appendix ?) as part of thisConservation Plan and Reuse Strategy, updates an earlierassessment carried out in 2006 (Appendix …) and the mainfindings of this assessment are included within this section,Following a comprehensive description of the DEGS.

Site and SettingAnnotated photographs on this and following pages areprimarily used in this section to describe the currentpresentation of the site and setting of the Pigeon HousePrecinct.

28 Edgelands, Paul Farley Michael Symmons Roberts (2011),

Post 1945 shedscurrently in use forstorage andengineering works

ESB Power Station (1970’S) now redundant The Shellybanks adjacent toRingsendNature Par

42

Fig..xx view looking west over Pigeon House Harbour in the foreground. The broader contextshows the various infrastructure elements relating to major urban utilities and Dublin Portoperations. Distances can appear much greater within such landscapes as the space is poorlydefined with each activity separated from the next and the public realm through layers of poorquality plantings, palisade fencing and carefully controlled entry and exit points (one way inand out). The principal means of connection and permeability within the Poolbeg penninsula isPigeon House Road – which essentially is the Great South Wall (Ballast Office Wall) and, whilethe fabric does survive and read to a large extent, there is little awareness of this by mostvisitors due to the otherwise poor environmental quality of the surrounding landscape context.

Figs xx, yy, zz (top to bottom left) show various sections along Pigeon House Road (west of thePigeon House Precinct) where the line of the eighteenth century causeway/Great South Wall, isclearly demarcated by the low stone walls on either side of the roadway (in some places thishas been breached as can be seen in the top and middle photos. There appears to be littleawareness, or regard for, the statutory protections on this structure

Wastewater treatmentsettlement beds – infillto former Harbour

Grassed openlandscape area – infillto former Harbour

Remnants of formerFort withinovergrown zonebetween road andWastewatertreatment plant

Late 20 century landreclamation – owned byDublin Port, not in use

43

Fig..xx above: View looking east from Pigeon House Precinct (taken from hoist approxmid height at the northern end of the DEGS building). This shows the Great East Wallwhich continues along the boundary of the ESB power station site, although access isnot permitted along here. The wall is owned by Dublin Port, which is also responsiblefor its maintenance.

Figs aa, bb, cc, dd, ee left (clockwise from top left): aa shows the publicly accessiblesection of the Great South Wall looking out towards the lighthouse. The otherphotographs show different sections of the Great South Wall as it runs along thenorthern boundary of the ESB site. While sometwhat overgrown in places andbreached to facilitate intake and outfall of cooling water, the wall is in good conditionand could be brought back into use for pedestrian traffic with some localisedbridging.

The Great South Wallruns along the northernboundary of the ESBplant, with localisedbreaches

Dolphins used for shipssupplying oil to ESB powerstation (although now gas fired,ESB have indicated need toretiain this facility

The base of one of theiconic chimneys, nowredundant

44

The satellite image above from ‘Google Maps’ shows the moderncontext of the Pigeon House Site, surrounded by large areas ofreclaimed land and industrial facilities, most notably the PoolbegGenerating Station to its immediate east and the Ringsend WasteWater Treatment Plant to its immediate south. The coloured linesshow the approximate location of historic features of the site relativeto their modern context. It is worth noting that until the 20th

century, the area outside of the coloured lines shown on the aerialview above was largely open sea, or exposed sand flats.

Ballast Office WallGreat South WallPigeon House HarbourPigeon House Fort

The site remained an ‘island’ until relatively recently in its history and its currentbuilt up surroundings mark a major change to the physical and geographicalcontext of the site. The ‘site context’ also includes structures related to theearlier function of the site, including the surviving remains of the Pigeon HouseFort and the Pigeon House hotel. These are important survivals in establishingthe historic context of the site and its continually evolving uses. A furtherimportant link is the Rathmines & Pembroke mains drainage scheme, which runsthrough the site on its route from the pumping station at Londonbridge Road toits outfall at the South Wall.

Ballast Office WallGreat South WallPigeon House HarbourPigeon House Fort

45

Fig..xx above: View looking south from hoist at roof level (northern end) of DEGS building. TheWasterwater Treatment Works building looms large in the background and the tree planting,intended to provide a soft edge screening to the treatment works, does little to temper thisimposing bulk.

Figs aa, bb, cc, left (top to bottom) shows the edge condition to the Pigeon House Harbour, withthe original 1791 93 quay walls, the built up defensive walls of the Fort (on the southern edge)and the 1930’s concrete alteration along the eastern edge. The easter, Pigeon House wharf,where colliers delivered coal to the Power Station, has been reinforced over the years with massconcrete and much of this is now in a poor state of repair. The majority of the surviving remainsdate to the major 1933 40 overhaul of the site, and a number of underground pipes relating tothe pumping water system are still visible. The only visible surviving remains of the extensivesystem of moving cranes and tramways that once lined the wharf are a series of metal tramtracks, some badly damaged by the erosion of the wharf edge. Remains of a wooden jetty are alsostill visible at the southern end of the wharf and much of the original harbour wall appears tosurvive beneath later additions

Generally the structures are sound with some areas (along the eastern wharf) where access isdangerous due to localised collapse. The early colonising plants of these abandoned industrialsites, are apparent forging a benign and distinctive relationship between masonry, metal, water,flora and fauna.

The eastern wharf to the PigeonHouse Harbour, extended andrealigned as part of the 1930’salterations. Localised collapse ofconcrete structure has occurred.

Exposed steelstructure to coalhoppers alongroof of DEGSbuildings

Existing water body inHarbour is likely to besilted and shallow.Reuse may involvedredging.

WastewaterTreatment Works

46

Fig..xx above: Area to east of DEGS with ESB Pigeon House complex beyond. This is quite a largearea, presently used to store skips, of which many have become containers for colonising plants.

Fig aa (top left) showing these skips stored in front of the later (east) Control Room section of theDEGS, with the large open area of concrete hard standing.Fig. bb (middle) shows the distinctive forms of concrete silos built close to the water for ease ofship access. These are in poor condition, the concrete weathered in places exposing thereinforcing steel. The form is somewhat sculptural giving these an aesthetic value in addition totheir industrial heritage merit, although no longer functional. The structure to the right of thesesilos, may incorporate some fabric from the East Gate to the Fort, although it has been alteredbeyond recognition. The entrance location, does survive and suggests the potential futurereconnection with the Great South Wall which continues east of here, along the edge of the ESBplant, to its eventual end at the Poolbeg Lighthouse.Fig. cc (bottom left), view from present entrance to Pigeon House Precinct site, with 1945workshop buildings in the foreground (still in use).

The lower Officeblock section ofthe DEGS.

Roof over EngineRoom/TurbineHall of DEGS)

1945 workshopscurrently being used asa engineering works

Open area east ofDEGS, currentlyunder used as an ahoc storage area forskips

47

Fig.xx Roof of Pigeon House Hotel, showing pebble in valleys andflat roof section. Also the replaced lanterns

Buildings

Pigeon House HotelThe Pigeon House Hotel is presently partially occupied by Dublin City Council andin generally good condition. The building was constructed of the highest qualitymaterials, faced in ashlar granite (possibly from the Dalkey quarry which latersupplied the great harbour construction in Dun Laoghaire), and built by masonsskilled in their trade. During the long years that the Pigeon House served theBritish Government in Ireland as a fort, the building was maintained to a highstandard. However, a great deal of building intervention took place at that time.

More recently, in 2001, an extensive refurbishment of roof and rainwater goodswas carried out and, while this is serving the building well in terms of preventingwater ingress, the replacement of the tow lantern skylights is somewhatunsympathetic. Also, the pebble finish in the wide valleys at roof level requiremonitoring and maintenance to ensure they don’t eventually block the hopperswhich discharge in a rather complex manner to the downpipes. The windows areall generally sound and operational.

Due to its exposed location, it is recommended that a regular monitoring andmaintenance plan is put in place. By far the most important element of this,however, will be the ongoing use of this fine building which is suitable for arange of uses

Fig.xx (top) & yy (bottom): Architectural drawings showing the conversion ofPigeon House to officers’ quarters. (Photographs by Jane O’Halloran, courtesyof the National Archives, Dublin, Reference number:OPW5HC/4/).

48

Fig.xx Plan of power station showing area references for use in compiling a coherent record.

Buildings

Former Pigeon House Power Station/Dublin Electricity Generating Station(DEGS)

Numbering system

For ease of description, the site has been divided into a number of distinctareas for assessment. These are contained in the schematic drawing below.The division into areas is dictated by the current state of the building and bythe means of access to each area rather than by chronology, thus theengine room – which contains three distinct building phases – is describedas one space, while the boiler rooms are divided into two separate spacesdue to the presence of a dividing wall between the two.

Sub numbering is necessary within the 1933 40 Control Building extensionand adjoining areas in order to clarify the layout and distribution of room andfunctionality in this area. A sub numbering scheme is laid out in plan andsectoin diagrams below (which are not fully accurate or to scale; theyrepresent a reference system only.

49

Fig. xx Area F is divided for survey purposes into: F1 (Workshops & Offices) and F2(Switchgear & Substations). Both cover more than one floor level. F1 is located withinthe 1902 1904 building, and F2 is located within the 1911 1913 building.

Figs xx and yy (left): Area G is divided for survey purposes into: G1 (LoadingBay), G2 (Corridor), G3 (Switchgear) and G4 (Control Room). G1, G2 and G3 runthrough 3 storeys. G4 occupies the entire 4th storey. All are located within the1933 40 Control Building extension.

Fig xx: The annotated cross section above helps to give a sense of how thevarious sub numbered areas related to each other in elevation.

50

EXTERIOR: SOUTH ELEVATION

The South elevation of the Power Station is dominated by the octagonalbrick chimney stack, now missing its upper section. Behind the chimneystack two gable fronted brick forms are visible – the Engine Room to theeast, and the Boiler House to the west. All of these major elements werebuilt in 1902 03 as part of the original Pigeon House Power Station. Thegable heights were raised in 1911 13 to coincide with those of the newBoiler House and Engine House extensions to the north and the coalhopper and coal conveyor system was added as part of the 1933 40overhaul of the station. Further changes to the gable heights relating to thenew additions were also made at this time. A collection of flat roofed brickstructures to the west of the chimney stack are of mixed 1911 13 and1933 40 dates, with existing structures being reworked as part of the 1930soverhaul. These are a series of reserve water tank buildings and ashdisposal systems for the chimney, replacing an earlier (1902 03) openwater tank at this location.

Building materials are red brick throughout, laid in English Bond, withgranite window sills, lintels and coping. The windows themselves are metalframed throughout. There is evidence of continual change anddevelopment in the facade, with blocked up openings in several locations,and a ‘Palladian’ style window on the Engine House gable is a particularlyattractive compositional feature. A large square headed door opening withoriginal sliding door is partially obscured by containers but would originallyhave provided direct access into the Engine Room from this orientation.A large, two storey, gable fronted workshop wing was attached to thesoutheastern corner of the elevation c.1945, and is still in use today. This isrendered in roughcast cement, with a pitched corrugate roof.

Figs aa, bb, cc, dd: (top to bottom):aa: General view of south elevation;bb: Detail showing ‘Palladian’ window form;cc: Detail showing coal hopper.dd: South elevation on Control Building extension;

51

EXTERIOR: WEST ELEVATION

The long west elevation consists of three distinct building phases. The southernmost 13 baysare part of the original 1902 1903 Power Station. Numerous openings have been createdand blocked up over the years, but a series of twelve square headed openings at groundfloor level separated by vitrified brick pilasters are part of the original design. Much of thebrick infill in these openings is modern in date and it is unclear how the openings wereoriginally filled. An early photograph suggests that part of the boiler towers themselves mayhave filled the openings but this is unclear. Above these, a row of small arched openings –which do not appear to have been part of the original design has since been bricked up.Differences in the brickwork indicate where the elevation was built up in 1933 40 to supportthe coal hopper structure above. A drip course of moulded brick above the ground flooropenings is the only ‘decorative’ detail.

The adjoining 9 bays were added as part of the 1911 13 extension works and a clear join isvisible in the brickwork where the two building phases meet. Again, numerous openingshave been blocked up and modified over the years, particularly at ground floor level wherea series of large and small square headed openings now exists. Paired round headedwindow openings provide a much more uniform appearance, with moulded keystone detailsand metal framed windows to each opening. Each pair of windows is separated from thenext by a series of relieving arches in the brickwork at sill level. An elaborate brick cornice atparapet level gives a much more decorative appearance to this phase of the building andparticularly decorative pattress plates are also notable. Again, the coal hopper structure tothe upper level of the elevation was added during the 1933 40 overhaul works.

The northernmost 4 bays were added at some time between 1940 and 1945 as a furtherextension to the Boiler House and replaced a 1911 13 concrete coal store at this location.Again a clear join is visible in the brickwork where the two building phases meet. A series ofsquare headed openings at ground floor level is partially obscured by later additions and themain entrance has been blocked up with modern breeze blocks. At first floor level, roundheaded window openings, with moulded keystone details and metal windows echo those onthe 1911 13 Boiler House extension next door.

The coal hopper runs the length of the 1902 03 and 1911 13 extensions only, while theconveyor gear above it runs the entire length of the elevation. A small pump house andreserve water tanks to the ground floor of the 1930s extension appear to be later additions.The brickwork is laid in English Bond throughout although the type of bricks used changeschronologically and the roof is obscured behind the coal hopper/conveyor system.

Fig aa; View showing 1902-03 building phase

Fig. bb; View showing 1911-13 building phase

Fig.cc. Detail showing decorative pattress plate to 1911-13 phase

Fig. dd; Detail showing 1940-45 building phase

52

EXTERIOR: NORTH ELEVATION

The north elevation of the power station consists of three distinct elements: The 1940 45Boiler House extension (west), the 1933 40 Engine Room extension (centre), and the new1933 40 Control Building & Pump House (east).

The Boiler House elevation is of red brick, laid in English bond, with the eastern side of theelevation set back slightly from the western side. On the western side a former low levelopening appears to have been bricked up at a later date. A large granite lintel spans theground level square headed opening. On the eastern side, the only opening is a plainsquare headed window at high level with granite lintel and metal window.

The Engine Room extension is cement rendered with a very shallow pitched roof and threefull length square headed window openings with metal windows. The roof level is slightlylower than that of the earlier Engine Room, the parapet and gable of which can just bemade out behind the 1930s extension.

The north elevation of the Control Building & Pumphouse is composed of two distinctelements: The four storey control building, which itself incorporates the three storey leanto switchgear house, built as part of the 1911 13 Engine Room extension, and the singlestorey Pump House to its east. Both elements are cement rendered. The Control Buildinghas square headed window openings throughout, with metal framed windows, exceptwhere it incorporates the pre existing switchgear house, which is visible within the elevationas a vertical series of three segmental headed openings, marking the location of the earlierfabric. The roof has a shallow pitch and a large loading bay is marked by the square headeddoor opening at ground floor level. The Pump House has a single square headed dooropening on this elevation, with sliding door.

Figs aa – dd (from top to bottom):Fig aa; View showing north elevation of Boiler House extensionFig. bb; View showing north elevations of Engine Room extensionFig.cc: Control Building and Pump House; View showing juncture between1933-40 extensions and the 1911-13 Engine Room/Switchgear House. Fig. dd: View showing north elevation of Boiler House extension in relation to surrounding structures

53

EXTERIOR: EAST ELEVATION

The east elevation of the Power Station consists of a complex assembly of elements: Theeast elevation of the 1940 45 Boiler House extension, the east elevation of the 1930s EngineRoom Extension, the east elevation of the 1930s Control Building & Pumphouse extension,the east elevation of the original 1902 03 Engine Room (with later, post 1950, additions),and the east elevation of the 1945 workshop addition to the southeast. Also visible fromcertain vantage points are the east elevation of the 1911 13 Engine Room extension and theeast elevation of the main Chimney Stack.

The Boiler House extension is of red brick, laid in English bond, as per its other elevations,and modified only by a horizontal series of square headed window openings at parapetlevel. It is partially obscured by the 1930s engine room extension and by a large reservestorage tank.

The 1930s Engine Room extension is cement rendered and consists of one bay, occupied bya large square headed sliding door opening. At the southern end of the elevation, a markeddifference in parapet height shows the junction between the 1911 13 and 1930s EngineRoom extensions.

The Control Building & Pumphouse elevation consists of several distinct elements, allcement rendered. In the foreground is the 16 bay single storey Pump House, behind whichis the 12 bay three storey Switchgear House with the 8 bay Control Room occupying afourth storey. A single bay stairwell is also visible at fourth storey level to the south of theControl Room. Window openings are square headed throughout with rendered surroundsand metal framed windows.

The east elevation of the 1902 1903 Engine House is 11 bays in length, with a two storeylean to range abutting the double height Engine Hall. The lean to range housed workshops,offices and various control gear and is lit in several places by skylight windows. Windows tothe walls of the lean to are square headed with granite lintels and metal frames. On theengine hall, a clerestory level runs the length of the building, lit by paired round headedwindow openings with metal framed windows. There are moulded terracotta stringcoursesto parapets. A 4 bay central breakfront section appears to be contemporary with the rest ofthe elevation. Small single storey extensions were added to the lean to post 1950, possiblyto house transformer gear and a large two storey workshop extension adjoins the southeastcorner of the elevation.

Fig AA: Boiler House & Engine Room extensions

Fig BB: Pump House & Control Building

Fig CC: ; East elevation original 1902 03 power station

Fig DD: Workshop addition to southeast corner

54

INTERIOR: A: RESERVE WATER STORAGE & CHIMNEY

This is a series of interconnected spaces, added during the 1911 13 extension works, andfurther modified during the 1933 40 reconstruction works, which housed reserve waterstorage tanks and equipment related to the functioning of the adjacent chimney stack aswell as ash handling plant. It replaced a single open water tank previously installed in thislocation (1902 03).

The water tanks have been removed and dividing walls between the spaces have beenknocked through. Walls internally are exposed brick, with a number of bricked in openingsand a variety of pipes and conduit relating to the former function of the space. A largeopening at the northeastern corner, opposite the chimney, leads through into the BoilerHouse subfloor and once held a series of economisers, which recovered heat from exhaustgases being discharged into the chimney and redistributed it back into the boiler system. Asign on the wall refers to the ‘Ash Hurling Pump’ of which no other record survives butwhich must have formed part of the ash disposal system for the chimney. Skylights and alarge square headed window opening on the west wall light the space and entrance is via alarge square headed sliding door, again on the west wall.

Fig AA: View to east, chimney base & opening to Boiler House visible in background

Fig BB: View to east in southern room

Fig CC: ; Operating instructions

Fig DD: View to west in southern room

55

INTERIOR: B: BOILER HOUSE 1

This was the original Boiler House, built as part of the 1902 03 power station. It is a largesingle cell space, running the length of the original building, on a north south axis. Theinternal walls are exposed brick and a pitched truss roof with central roof lights is nowmissing its cladding, exposing the interior of the building to the elements. Entrance to theBoiler House space is at what would previously have been sub floor level, with the concreteboiler house floor now inaccessible from ground level.

Full height steel support structures run the length of the west side of the space, supportingthe coal hopper and conveyor system above and containing articulated elements that arepresumed to relate to the distribution of coal, from the hoppers into the stokers of theboilers themselves, which were housed in the centre of the space. A series of steel supportsalong the eastern wall of the space relates to the ventilation system above, whichdischarged to the exterior via a series of steel stacks, of which only a few remains nowsurvive. All of this surviving equipment (steel supports, hoppers, ventilation system) wasinstalled as part of the 1933 40 reconstruction project.

Numerous openings in the east wall – both extant and bricked up – link the boiler housespace to the engine room next door, steam from the boilers being there to power thegenerating engines to produce electricity.

Also notable are bricked up ‘Palladian’ window openings on both the north and south wallsof the space, which were the external walls of the original power station. These match thePalladian opening on the south elevation of the original Engine Room and it can therefore bepresumed that they were a matching motif on all four gables of the original 1902 03 station.Also identifiable in the brickwork is the raising of the gable height to meet that of theadjoining 1911 13 extension.

Openings through the north wall at both subfloor and floor level connect this space to the1911 13 Boiler Room next door.

Figs aa dd (from top to bottom):Fig AA: General view to southFig. bb: General view to northFig. cc: Detail showing coal hopper system at ceiling (upper level) viewFig. dd: View showing sub floor space

56

INTERIOR: C: BOILER HOUSE 2

Added as part of the 1911 13 extension, this space was designed as a continuation of BoilerHouse 1 to its south and as such much of the layout and detailing is very similar. In addition,the 1933 40 overhaul works affected both spaces in a similar fashion: an identical series ofsteel supports to the west and east walls support the coal distribution and ventilationsystems respectively and again the space is entered at what would have been sub floorlevel. In the case of this space however the floor level has been almost completely removed,remaining just in one strip along the western side of the space, within the steel supportframework.

Large profile joists and trusses span the space at roof level and the roof is fitted with acentral longitudinal roof light. The walls are exposed brick, with numerous openings andformer openings throughout and evidence of several connection points through to theengine room to the east, from subfloor up to high level. A square headed door opening midway up the east wall, for example, equipped with an observation or loading platform,allowed direct access through into this space from the engine room next door.

Large amounts of pipes, conduit and taps remain embedded in or attached to the walls ofthe space, relating to its former function.

Fig bb: View showing remains of ventilation system

Fig cc: ; Detail showing upper level opening to east wall (fromwhere view aa is taken), connecting through to Engine Room

Fig dd: View showing sub floor space at west

Fig aa: General view to south andwest walls (taken from upper levelopening in east wall shown in Fig cc

57

INTERIOR: D: ‘COAL STORE’

This former coal store site was converted to a further boiler house extension in 1940 45. Noaccess to the interior is currently available, however it was partially viewed through windowopenings during inspection by hoist on 13 October 2011.

PIGEON HOUSE POWER STATION: INTERIOR: E: ENGINE ROOM/TURBINE HALL (

The engine room is the central space in the power station, both in terms of its location andof its function. All of the other spaces were used to either feed energy into the engine roomgenerators (Boiler House, Coal Store, Pump House, Reserve Water Storage) or to receiveelectricity from the engine room generators (Switchgear, Transformers, Substations). Assuch it is very much the heart of the building.

The engine room as it appears today is a single unified space running the length of thebuilding on a north south axis. The building shell incorporates three distinct building phaseswhich are clearly identifiable by joins in the wall fabric, changes in roof structure etc: At thesouth end of the space is the original Engine Room, built as part of the 1902 03 powerstation. The roof level to this section is considerably lower than that of the 1911 1913extension to its immediate north, and the clerestory level is consequently also lower. The1911 1913 extension in turn – rendered and painted white – extends northward to meet thesmaller 1933 40 extension, at which juncture the roof pitch, wall articulation and floor levelall change considerably.

The space is also divided vertically into two floor levels: the raised ‘mezzanine floor level’which supported the upper parts of the generators and alternators, and a sub floor groundfloor level which housed the turbine engines themselves. This internal layout of the spaceappears to date largely to the 1933 40 overhaul works, during which time almost all of theexisting plant was removed and replaced, with supports for the new generators builtaccordingly.

In both the 1902 03 and 1911 13 sections of the space the ground floor level walls are linedwith glazed tiles to a height of approximately eight feet, as noted in Kettle’s account. At thesouthern end of the original engine room, decorative tiling, cast iron railings and the fullheight nature of the space give the impression of a grand entrance which is continued in theadjacent stairwell. An in built mezzanine niche in the east wall provides for a control boardand observation point where the operation of the generators could be monitored.

Fig xx: ‘Coal Store’ interiorview towards east andsouth (part) walls – viewtaken from hoist.

Fig aa: View to south showing 1902 03 building phase

Fig bb: View to north showing 1911 13 & 1933 40 phases

58

Building materials in both the 1902 03 and 1911 13 spaces are brick, rendered and paintedin the case of the 1911 13 spaces. In the 1930s extension at the northern end of the engineroom however this changes to concrete and the large full height square headed windowopenings are a decidedly more modern design feature than the brick arches of the olderbuilding phases. Gantry tracks run the length of the space and the moving gantry survives insitu at the southern end of the space.

INTERIOR: F: F1: OFFICES AND WORKSHOPS

This title refers to the lean to range on the east side of the original Pigeon House powerstation. It houses a series of office and workshop spaces over two storeys as well as severalstairwells and a toilet block. Access was not available to all of these spaces but those thatwe accessible were found to survive relatively intact, although in poor condition.

Fig cc: View of gantry crane

Fig dd: View of sub floor level showing glazed tiles.Fig dd: Workshop space at basement level

Fig dd: Workshop space at first floor level Fig dd: Toilets space at first floor level

Fig dd: Plant room at first floor level

59

INTERIOR: F: F2: SWITCHGEAR & SUBSTATIONSOriginally a lean to range on the east side of the 1911 1913 extension, this area was laterincorporated into – or ‘hidden by’ – the 1933 40 Control Building extension to its east. Itruns through four floors (one of which is a basement level ‘cable cellar’ to which no accesswas available) and is divided into two distinct functional spaces: substations to the north,and switchgear to the south, separated by an internal stairwell with original granite stairs.

Both the switchgear and substation spaces themselves are divided along a central northsouth axis into isolatable units, separated by heavy duty fire doors. Switchgear is housed onlevels 1 and 2, with Busbars housed on level 4.

In terms of function: The switchgear is essentially an intricate system of fuses and circuitbreakers that is used to either isolate individual pieces of equipment or de energiseindividual circuits. In doing this it allows for a reliable supply of electricity to be maintainedat all times as surges, overloads or faults on any one circuit or piece of equipment areprevented from causing problems to the remainder of the system. The generators producethe electricity but the switchgear is essential to maintaining it in a usable form. The Busbars– on the top floor – were high voltage conductors, breaking down the electricity supply intoseparate, interconnected circuits. The substations, in turn, converted the voltage to asuitable usable level and fed it into the distribution network.

Because of the importance of this equipment to the smooth running of the electricity supplysystem and because of the high voltages involved, each set of switchgear and each busbarset was isolated within its own individual ceramic lined chamber, with fire rated doorsbetween each area. All of these survive, although most of the equipment itself has beenremoved. Decorative tiled floors also survive in several of the rooms in this area.

Fig xx: Switchgear room at firstfloor level

Fig xx: Tiled flooring in substation

Fig xx: View showing substation on second floor level.

Fig xx: Busbar room at third floor level

60

INTERIOR: G: G1: LOADING BAY

Part of the 1933 40 Control Building extension, the loading bay isruns through three storeys, and is accessed via a large doubleheight entrance door on the north elevation. Internal openingsconnect through into the 1933 40 Switchgear House (G3) on twolevels and a moving gantry occupies the centre of the space,supported on a steel framework. The space is overlooked byinternal windows from the adjacent Corridors (G2) and Substations(F2). A raised platform occupies the western side of the space.

INTERIOR: G: G2: CORRIDOR

A narrow internal corridor runs between what was the externalwall of the 1911 1913 extension and the switchgear house of the1933 40 extension. The corridor is repeated through three levelsand steps down into the corridors from the 1911 13 building oneach storey accommodate a difference in floor levels between thetwo buildings. At some points, notably at the northern end of eachcorridor, windows which were originally external are visible in thewest wall of the corridor.The corridor itself also contains stairs linking the various levels andis accessed at various points along its length from either side.

.

Figs, xx, yy, zz (l to r): View showing access stairs from 1911 13 switchgear house at north end ofcorridor, note original external window; View showing main staircase at south end of corridor;View along corridor at Level 2

Figs, xx, yy, zz (l to r): View to west showing steel framework; Detail showing hoist system; Viewto south showing openings through to Switchgear House.

61

INTERIOR: G: G3: SWITCHGEAR HOUSE

Like the 1911 1913 switchgear house at F2, this more modern version runs through threestoreys and had a similar arrangement of switchgear surmounted by Busbars. The threelevels in this area connect vertically, with perforated floors allowing for cable andequipment connection between the three levels. The same function was served by theequipment here as that housed in F2 but this equipment was designed to handle highervoltages and increased capacity in line with the aims of the 1933 40 overhaul. Most of theequipment has been removed from the area with the exception of Level 3 where the basicstructure and housing remain intact. Windows to both the east and south elevations makethese very bright and light filled spaces.

Fig xx: Lettering detail

Fig xx: First floor level switchgear room

Fig xx: Ground floor level switchgear room

Fig. xx: Third floor level Busbar room

62

INTERIOR: G: G4: CONTROL ROOM

The Control Room level houses the control room itself, a number of office spaces(located above the loading bay (G1) to the north, and a narrow corridor to the westwhich abuts the clerestorey windows of the 1911 13 Engine Room. A stairwellextension can also be accessed at the south end of the space. Built in 1933 40 thecontrol room was then the ultimate in modern power plant control equipment, with arange of dials and monitors which could feed information to the controller fromnumerous points around the plant. The space is arced in plan on the eastern side andthe walls on all sides are lined with banks of equipment and monitors. An externalcirculatory corridor allows for access behind all of these panels for repair, maintenanceand routine checks. The space is accessed via double doors at north and south. Andremains of the original glass panelled ceiling survive in situ.

The arc form allowed for all of the main panels to be observed easily from one centralcontrol desk, which also still survives.

Fig xx: View showing externalcirculatory corridor with back ofcontrol panels on display

Fig xx: Door to stairwelll southendFig xx: View showing original

clerestory window, whereControl Room abuts the EngineHall at west.

Fig. xx: View to east showing curved metal screen with control panels (controls removed); metalframe of ceiling above and control desk

63

INTERIOR: H: PUMP HOUSEAdded as part of the 1933 40 extension, the Pump House runs the length of the extension atground floor level on the eastern side. It originally housed state of the art pumps which drewwater from the Liffey estuary and circulated it for use within the plant. These pumps have sincebeen removed.

The Pump House is one long unified space, flanked by square headed window openings along itseastern wall. It is rendered and painted internally and concrete support beams add articulationalong the internal walls. A moving gantry, with tracks running the length of the space, survives.

OTHER STRUCTURES ON THE SITE:A variety of structures have been added to the site post 1940 and a number of these are briefly

noted under the photographs below:

Fig xx: View showing workshop additions

Fig xx: Pump house interior – looking north

Fig xx: View showingsubstantially altered gatehouse

Fig. xx: c.1950s building of unspecified function Fig. xx: Details showing internal gantry

Fig xx: concrete silo structure

64

ConditionThe DEGS Building

65

DEGS – FINDINGS OF STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT:(Ref Appendix A for full report)

The primary focus of the condition assessment is the current condition of theBoiler House and Engine Romm sections (areas A, B, C, D & E on fig xxopposite) of the disused power station since it was last surveyed (BarrettMahony, 2006, see Appendix ?). These are the areas of immediate concernand requiring early (urgent) works.

The complex is primarily structural steel framed on piled reinforced concretefoundations, all clad in brickwork. Most of the roof coverings have beenremoved, so the network of pits and troughs at Ground Floor level areflooded and inaccessible for inspection. The majority of the machinery andservices have been stripped out, leaving a relatively bare shell and core.

Fig. xx: key plan showing area of primary focus for condition assessment

Fig. yy: Temperature and Relative Humidity, Dublin Airport (www.met.ie) Fig. zz: Dew Point Calculation using annual mean (www.dpcalc.org)

The Pigeon House Hotel was refurbished in modern times and appears tobe in very good condition. It is evidently well maintained and there are noobvious visible defects of any significance.

The power station has lain derelict for many years, and has accordinglysuccumbed to the inevitable ravages of damp, mould, timber rot, andmetallic corrosion. Close proximity to the River Liffey Estuary effectivelyconstitutes an aggressive marine environment where the air is particularlymoist and laden with corrosive salts that attack steelwork. Figures yy and zzprovide a summary of the environmental conditions typically experienced inDublin, with a sample dew point calculation to highlight that the derelictbuilding is at high risk from decay. In this context, it must be emphasisedthat the building is decaying very rapidly and will quickly become adangerous building if it remains derelict.

66

The removal of the roof covering has accelerated the rate ofdecay and corrosion since rainwater may directly enter thebuilding (splashing and saturating the internal structure, andremoving any nominal differentiation between internal andexternal environmental conditions). The ingress of water hasflooded the network of troughs and pits at Ground Floor level(figure aa). This is a health hazard (drowning) at present.

The roof steelwork is extensively corroded (figures bb and cc) butthe sections do not appear to be in immediate danger of collapse.Thin walled steel sections such as lightweight steel cladding railsand thin steel service pipes are significantly corroded andcollapsing. This is a health hazard (collapse; falling objects) atpresent; especially in windy weather.

The steel columns supporting the mezzanine floor are extensivelycorroded at the bases (figure dd). This is due to a combination ofthe splash from admitted rainfall and the retained dampness inthe debris on the Ground Floor. Some of these columns arealmost entirely corroded and appear to be suspended from themezzanine floor which seems to remain supported byoccasional fixings to adjacent main frame columns. This is ahealth hazard (collapse) at present.

The reinforced concrete columns supporting the mezzanine floorare extensively corroded at the bases (figure ee). As above, this isdue to a combination of the splash from admitted rainfall and theretained dampness in the debris on the Ground Floor. The steelreinforcement bars within the saturated concrete have corrodedand expanded, bursting the covering concrete and removinglarge chunks of structural concrete. Steel links have completelycorroded and some of the columns appear to depend on thebearing strength of the residual portion of unconfined concretefor support. Despite the reduction in loading due to removedplant and equipment, this is a very dangerous condition andrequires attention. This is a health hazard (collapse) at present.

Fig. aa: some steel columns partiallysubmerged in flooded pits

Fig. cc: Roof steelwork is corrodingFig. dd: steel columns are corroding

Fig. ee: reinforced concrete columns aredeteriorating

Fig. bb: Roof covering partially removed

67

The main steel columns supporting the roof and restraining the wallsare extensively corroded throughout (figure ff ). There are cracks inthe brick cladding due to expansion of rusted steel where steelcolumns and beams are embedded in the masonry. The loss ofsection in the visible thick walled members is not yet a significantcause for concern, but the problem is acute in the older steelcolumns which are compound columns fabricated from riveted steelplates and angles. These steel plates are expanding between therivets (figures gg and hh) and require remedial work.

The brick chimney was reportedly reduced in height to improvesafety. The capping appears to be securely strapped (figure ii) andthere are no obvious visible signs of significant distress. There iserosion of masonry joints within the chimney (figure jj) but this is nota major defect.

Fig. jj: Minor erosion of internal joints in brickchimney shaft

Fig. ff: main steel columns are corroding

Fig. hh: corrosion bursting compoundsteel plate columns

Fig. gg: corrosion bursting compound steelplate columns

Fig. ii: Bricks chimney appears to have been stabilised

68

The brick cladding is generally sound. There are localised areas ofdamage due to frost damage (figure kk) at exposed locations anderosion (figure ll) from defective rainwater goods. A number of opesappear to have been carelessly formed or enlarged (figure mm) andthese need to be stabilised. Some lintols are evidently missing (figurenn) presumed to be decayed timber lintols and need to bereplaced to restore structural integrity.

Fig. nn: Defective ope (missing lintol):

Fig. mm: Defective opeFig. kk: localised frost damage at exposed locations Fig. ll: localised erosion from defective rainwater goods

Fig. oo: distressed masonry at embedded steelwork

The past removal of defunct plant and equipment, including theirsupporting secondary steelwork, appears to have been undertakenwith rough handling since many of the residual embedded ends ofthe supporting steelwork are crudely cut and/or twisted, and thesupporting masonry is invariably badly cracked at these locations(figure oo). This is localised damage and should not adversely affectthe overall stability of the structure.

69

The substantial steel ground beam supporting panels of brick cladding over largeservice troughs is significantly corroded (figure pp) and needs remedial work. If thisparticular steel member is allowed to continue to corrode, the relatively thin webof the beam will eventually buckle and the masonry panels will collapse outwardsfrom the building. This is a health hazard (collapse) at present.

There are corroded steel balconies (figure qq) and steel stairs (figure rr) which arevery unsafe and require either removal or repair. This is a health hazard (fall;collapse) at present.

The past removal of part of the reinforced concrete mezzanine floor (presumablyin order to facilitate the removal of defunct plant and equipment) has left anumber of unsafe edges which are liable to collapse under pedestrian traffic. Someedges have already partially collapsed (figure ss) and are ready to fall. The edges ofthe mezzanine floor should be either propped or removed, and the partiallycollapsed edges should be carefully removed. This is a health hazard (fall;collapse) at present.

Fig. rr: unsafe stairs

Fig. pp: Distressed masonry at corroded steel ground beam

Fig. qq: unsafe balcony Fig. ss: unsafe mezzanine floor (collapsing)

70

Concrete Block Shed: There is a small single storey concrete block shed locatedin front of the large cylindrical oil tank on the west elevation of the Boiler House(Fig. xx). The shed has a corrugated roof; possibly fabricated from corrugatedasbestos concrete. The concrete block walls are severely cracked; possibly fromvehicular impact. Also, there is severe erosion of the internal faces of the walls;possibly from washdown or chemical attack. In our opinion, the shed is in adangerous condition. The structural report recommends that the structureshould be removed as soon as possible. In the meantime, access should beprohibited, and warning signs should be prominently displayed. This is a healthhazard (collapse) at present.

Reinforced Concrete Framed Silo: There is a large reinforced concrete framedsilo located off the north elevation of the Boiler House. The columns and beamsin the supporting frame are in very poor condition. There is severe spalling ofthe concrete cover to reinforcement, and severe corrosion of the exposed steelreinforcement itself. The corrosion of the main reinforcement in the columns isof particular concern. Also, the steel access ladders are severely corroded andshould be fenced off for safety The structural report recommends that thisstructure should be regularly checked for signs of further deterioration.

Fig. yy: concrete framed silo structure in poor condition. This structurehas sculptural as well as industrial heritage qualities and its retention isdesirable.

Fig. xx: Concrete shed located on northern end of Harbour (west of DEGS building) indangerous condition

ConditionSite Contamination

72

PRELIMINARY CONTAMINATIONS ASSESSMENT(Ref Appendix ? for full report)

The preliminary contamination risk assessment is a purely desk basedstudy, broadly following the EPA EPA Code of Practice for unregulatedwaste disposal sites, and risk assignment has been made on the basis of anumber of assumptions. The overall objective of the assessment is to:

• identify possible sources of contamination in the conservationplan and re use study area and

• Make recommendation with respect to additional siteinvestigation that will be required in order to progress theRisk Assessment process

On foot of a proposed new use a detailed Quantititavie Risk Assessment(QRA) will be required in order to confirm or amend the findings of thepreliminary report (Appendix ?), and to identify significant pollutantlinages. Remediations measures within the area, if required would then bedeveloped having regard to the QRA.

An assumption made on the basis of historic research of the developmentof the site is that fill used to reclaim the study area was of Engineeringgrade i.e. uncontaminated fill. This assumption is made on the basis thatthese areas were intentionally developed with an end use in mind. Inaddition to this, the activities that took place in the area up to the time ofthe construction of the DEGS would have been largely un polluting andtherefore would not have resulted in a residual build up of contaminants inthe ground. This is in contrast to the development to the South of PigeonHouse Road and the Poolbeg ESB power plant. These developments wereconducted on brown field sites which had been subject to a) dumping ofcontaminated material in the case of the area to the south of PigeonHouse Road and b) an area that had acted as a significant coal store in thecase of the Poolbeg ESB power plant.

From site inspections carried out as part of this study, items of note are asfollows:•Bunded cylindrical storage tanks are located at the Northern end of theWestern Façade of the Pigeon House Power Station. It is assumed thatthese were used as a store for Light Fuel Oil (LFO)/ Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO).These tanks were bunded and therefore it is assumed for the purposesof this assessment that there was containment of any

potential contaminant. This would have to be confirmed through a siteinvestigation programme

•There was no evidence of surface water flow on the site.•A large portion of the site is bordered by Dublin Bay•There were no significant odours detected (The only exception to this wasduring the inspection of the Concrete, Phase III, extension. In this locationthere was a very strong odour. It is assumed that this odour was as a result ofthe use of the building by a significant number of pigeons. Contaminantsresulting from this usage does not form part of the scope of this assessmentand should be considered as part of the Health and Safety Plan for any futureproposed construction works at the site)•Significant Standing water in the Concrete, Phase III, extension. Given thenature of the construction, and the stagnant nature of this water, it isassumed that this water is contained. As part of a more detailed riskassessment for contamination a sample of this water should be collected andanalysed. The results of this analysis shall inform any clean up operation thatis proposed in this area.•Asbestos roofing mainly located on the 1945+ additions. RPS was advisedthat DCC have conducted detailed asbestos surveys with respect to thisroofing.

Prevailing Sensitivities and ConditionsNorth Dublin Bay (000206) and South Dublin Bay (000210) are bothdesignated as a pNHA and an SAC. North Bull Island (004006) andSandymount Strand/ Tolka Estuary (004024) are designated as an SPA.

The site is underlain by Calp Limestone which comprises varied dark grey toblack basinal limestone in several different formations, mainlyundifferentiated. The Calp ranges in age from Chadian to Brigantian. The siteis located within the Dublin Basin which is both depositional and structural.The bedrock underlying the site as Dinantian Upper Impure Limestones.Investigative data from schemes located in and within the vicinity of the site,Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Works (report ref: 2182), E.S.B. and atPigeon House Fort (report ref: 2197) revealed the following:•Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Works Trial Pit, cable percussion (shell &auger) and rotary core and rotary core open hole drilling investigationsrevealed depth to bedrock ranging from <1.5m to 53.3m bgl.•For E.S.B at Pigeon House Fort investigation the drilling type is unspecifiedand the depth to bedrock ranged from >6.401m to >21.92m bgl.

73

Existing Potential Receptors•Human – DCC staff and sub consultants, visitors and intruders•Any wildlife present on the site•Groundwater•Dublin Bay•On site buildings and underground services•Other external buildings

Features which has not been assessed as part of this report but which mayrequire further investigation are: a)The Rathmines and Pembroke main whichis referenced as passing through the study area. This is a potential pathwaywhich warrants further investigation. And b) reference is made to a series ofpumping mains within the study area which discharge to the Bay. Given thequality reports for the water in the Bay it is not considered that these areproviding a pathway for contaminants.

Potential Contamination:Potential contaminants resulting from Coal Storage areas are PolycyclicAromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Total Organic Carbon (TOC). The leachategenerated from coal is governed by the composition of the coal and typicallycan contain pyrite, be acidic containing PAHs and toxic metals. In addition tothis, depending on the quantity of deposits there may be a combustion risk.

Groundwater quality in the area is considered poor and this could suggest apotential linkage between the coarl storatge area contaminants and thegroundwater – however, it might also be noted that the majority of the coalstorage areas are located outside the extent of the study area.

An ash handling plant has been identified to the south of the DEGS adjacentto the brickwork chimney stack. There is no evidence of any other ash storageactivity within the study area. Site Investigations on the nearby Waste toEnergy site indicate there may have been some ash storage activity in thisarea. Some contaminants associated with coal burning which may also bepresent in bottom ash/fly ash are carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogenoxide, hydrocarbons and toxic metals. In addition, large deposits of fly ash/bottom ash can be combustible.It can be assumed that the contaminants associated with fly ash/ bottom ashwill be present generally on the site, particularly in the area of the ashhandling plant. Ground water quality has been impacted. This may have beenby the coal storage areas, the general industrial use of site and adjacent sitesand also potentially contaminant from fly ash/bottom ash

The groundwater within the bedrock has been classified as high to lowvulnerability for the site. This indicates that the underlying aquifer isconsidered to be highly to lowly vulnerable to contamination In addition tothis, it should be noted that information from the adjacent Dublin Waste toEnergy Site has identified overlying fluvioglacial sand and gravel depositsoverlaying the bedrock. It can be assumed for the purposes of thisassessment that these deposits extend into the study area. These depositsare identified as having a high storage capacity and are considered theprinciple medium for ground water movement. It can be concluded that thispotentially shallow ground water would have a high to extreme vulnerabilityto pollution.

Groundwater flow is understood to be Easterly to South Easterly direction(from information on adjacent Waste to Energy Site).

Potential Sources of Contamination:The potential sources of contamination as identified during this initial riskassessment are as follows:•Trash deposits as identified in the Archaeological and Architectural Survey ofPigeon House Fort – Antoine Giacometti.•Coal Storage Areas•Bottom Ash/ Fly Ash treatment and storage areas•Contaminant build up as a result of the coal burning activity•Hydrocarbon build up from the general operation of these industrial facility

Potential Pathways for contamination•Dermal Contact: direct contact by DCC staff and subconsultants, visitors andintruders.•Ingestion: ingestion of exposed near surface soil , soil derived dust, site runoff water.•Inhalation: Inhalation of soil derived dust and vapours from contaminatedsoils•Leaching: leaching of contaminants to ground water and potentially DublinBay•Buried Surfaces – migration of contamination through historic drains.•Plant uptake: Direct uptake of contaminants through roots from underlyingsoils.

74

Ground water quality has been impacted. This may have been by the coalstorage areas, the general industrial use of site and adjacent sites andalso, potentially, contaminant from fly ash/bottom ash.

Contaminants resulting from the coal burning activity include carbondioxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, hydrocarbons and toxic metals.The potential exists for these elements to have settled out of the exhaustfumes within the study area. However, for the most part it is assumedthat these contaminants would have dispersed to the wider area andthat there would be limited build up with the study area itself from thissource.

Given the industrial nature of this facility, the potential for significanthydrocarbon contamination in the study area is considered high. It isassumed that this contamination, if present, shall be throughout theDEGS and immediate vicinity but has the potential to be particularly highlocated in the fuel storage areas, within the boiler rooms and enginerooms.

In addition to this, as noted groundwater quality in the area is indicatedas being of poor quality. Hydro carbon contamination has been detectedin the groundwater which may be associated with surfactants, greases,humic acid and dispersants. On the basis of this it may be assumed thatthe groundwater may also be potentially impacted by this contaminationsource. However it is expected that there are multiple possible sourcesfor this contamination and there is no reason to assume thatHydrocarbon and other contaminant build up from the general operationand decommissioning of the DEGS are the main source.

Conculsions:

The overall Tier 1 Assessment concludes that the conservation plan and reuse study area in its current use with limited occupation and limitedidentified SPR linkages presents a low risk. A detailed Tier II risk assessment(detailed site investigation) and Tier III (quantitative risk assessment) wouldbe required in order to verify this preliminary classification.

It should be noted that risk classification will more than likely change as aresult of a change of use (re use strategy) or as a result of Constructionworks. In addition to this the contaminants present on the site may present ahigh risk if the ground in the area is disturbed in any way as this could createan inhalation and dermal contact pathway to DCC workers and subconsultants. The greatest risk presented by the site in its current state is ageneral Health and Safety one with respect to the structure, standing waterand hidden hazards.

Depending on the future re use a tier two risk assessment (detailed siteinvestigation) followed by a tier three assessment (detailed quantitative riskassessment) will be required in order to verify the Source, Pathways andReceptors, determine potential linkages and inform anymitigation/remediation measures.

Figs. Xx (left) & yy(right) show extentof coal storagearound site althoughnotably, coal heapslie mainly outsidesite boundary. Theindustrial nature ofthe site is alsoapparent in thesepictures

Ecology

76

ECOLOGY – PRINCIPLE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS(Ref Appendix ? for full report, including screening for AppropriateAssessment – Natura Impact Statement)

The Study Area is predominantly on made ground, reclaimed from DublinBay following the establishment of the south wall. Excepting the sewageoutfalls of the Ringsend Waste Water Treatment Works 100m to the westof the plan boundary, and the River Liffey, there are no freshwatersurface waters in the local area. The Lower Liffey estuary north of theplan is only weakly tidal, as the channel is maintained by dredging for ferryand cargo services into Dublin Port. According to the Eastern River BasinDistrict Management Plan, the Groundwater status of the Plan Area isGood, while the coastal and estuarine water quality of the lower estuaryand Dublin Bay is moderate. The Liffey estuary is a nutrient sensitive areaunder the Water Framework Directive.

The rest of the peninsula around the Study Area is a hub of industrialactivity for Dublin City and notably includes the Electricity Supply Board(E.S.B) power station and the Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Workswhich treats sewage effluent for the Dublin City catchment and extendsover a large portion of the peninsula. The plant is currently operating atcapacity (ERBDMP 2009), and discharges are a significant contributor tonutrient loading on Dublin Bay. An Environmental Impact Statement isunderway for the proposed upgrade works to cater for increasedcapacity, and this includes proposals to lay a discharge pipe 9km offshorefrom Poolbeg to discharge into marine waters.

Habitats and FloraA detailed habitat map of the Plan Area is included in the appended

report. The table to the right summarises all habitats recorded within thePlan Area and immediate environs.

There were no protected, Red listed, rare, or invasive flora recorded in thePlan Area, composed of scattered semi natural habitats in a brownfieldcoastal setting. There are two small areas of amenity and unmanaged rankgrassland, parkland, treelines and an abandoned site containingvegetating building rubble in the west of the Plan Area. To the east, thinlyscattered scrub, and recolonising bare ground on hardstanding and seawalls are the only significant vegetated areas.

77

A small patch of tidal mudflat within Pigeon House Harbour and north ofthe DEGS building were the only areas of Annex 1 habitat2 recordedwithin the Plan Area. However, there were several other Annex 1 habitatsalong the coast on the boundary of the Plan Area. Intertidal mudflat (EUCode1140) dominates the tidal coastline within the cSAC south of the southwall, while the open marine waters below the low tide line corresponds tothe habitat Large Shallow Inlets and Bays (EC Code1160), within the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SpecialProtection Area (SPA) , outside the cSAC. The small embryonic dune thathas formed at the base of the south wall within the cSAC containselements of three Annex 1 dune habitats and is known locally as the‘Shellybanks’. The Irishtown Nature Park is located on the southern shoreof the peninsula within 400m of the plan area and is a Blackthorn scruband grassland hilltop on the site of the old Ringsend dump of local interestdue to the presence of pyramidal orchid Anacamptis pyramidalis and beeorchid Ophrys apifera. All habitats recorded could potentially be affectedby disturbing activities at the site.

FaunaThere were several protected species recorded. The Anabat detectorsurvey confirmed bat activity within the DEGS building by CommonPipistrelles Pipistrellus pipistrellus close to dusk on two nights at typical batemergence times from a roost. Activity during the night indicates likely useas a night feeding roost. Common Pipistrelle is fully protected undernational and European legislation. The station itself may have limitedpotential as a bat roost due to its draughty dilapidated roof. Furthersurvey is required to confirm whether the DEGS is a breeding roost. Thereare additionally several stone/tiled buildings around the periphery of theDEGS building which have suitable crevices and/or roof spaces for roostingbats (e.g. Pigeon House Fort, Pigeon House Hotel, and an old house withdilapidated slate roof south of Pigeon House Road). One other protectedmammal species recorded. Otter lutra lutra prints were observed in thesand by the disused electricity station, but examination of the adjacentharbour wall indicates it is unlikely to have suitable holes or otherentrances for breeding holts. The otter is protected under European andnational legislation, but in contrast to the Common Pipistrelle isadditionally listed under Annex II5.

There is potential for several other nationally protected mammals suchas badger Meles meles, Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus, and Pigmy ShrewSorex minutus to breed in scrub, grassland and treelines.The site walkover also recorded Common Tern Sterna hirundo roosting onthe Dolphin pontoons (a Special Protection Area and proposed NaturalHeritage Area) and foraging in the waters around the Plan Area during sitesurvey. The species is protected under Annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive,and is one of the qualifying features of the SPA. The two pontoons are theonly major Tern breeding sites in the SPA and are therefore of paramountimportance to site integrity. No other Annex 1 birds were recorded, butArctic Terns Sterna paradisaea are Annex 1 and do also breed here in smallnumbers. Several other Annex 1 species and SPA qualifying speciesbreed/winter in the local area including Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrotawhich feed on specially managed grassland areas south of the powerstation, and a pair of Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus (Annex 1) whichbreeds on one of the thermal chimneys.Grasslands located 200m south of the Plan Area beside the IrishtownNature Park (within the SPA) are managed by Dublin City Council forforaging Brent Geese Branta bernicla hrota , but these are screened fromthe Plan Area by the existing WwTW. There are further foraging areas inSean Moore Park and at some ponded areas /amenity grassland in theRingsend WwTW. The south wall is important for roosting wetland birds,particularly at sections of the wall screened from human/dog disturbancewhere qualifying SPA feature species Sanderling Calidris alba, and DunlinCalidris alpine roost at high tide. All faunal species recorded couldpotentially be affected by disturbing activities at the site.

Fig. Xx: otter prints in Harbour.

78

Following consultation with local NPWS ranger and tern expert fromBirdwatch Ireland (ref Appendix ? for full details of consultation), thefollowing sensitive issues were raised:

•Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota feeding sites are located nearbyin Sean Moore Park inside the soccer pitch, on ponds within theKilsaran Concrete site, and at the council maintained compensatoryhabitat between the ESB station and the Ringsend Nature Park.•Arctic terns nest preferentially on the western pontoon whilethe eastern pontoon is dominated by common terns•Black Guillemots Cepphus grylle nest in quay walls•Swallows Hirundo rustica nest in buildings.•A Kestrel Falco tinnunculus pair nests on the west facing side of theDEGS building.•a small number of Common Tern nests have been found within thePlan Area at the base of the west Pigeon House Harbour jetty, butapparently failed in 2011.

Other Plans and ProposalsThe Dublin Port Company (DPC) draft Masterplan 2011 2040 includes thePlan Area and the Issues Paper includes several relevant proposals to survey,change or modify existing coastal structures/ habitats within the Plan Area.Since 2006, DPC have also been Noise monitoring and actively managingand monitoring the removal of contaminated groundwater. Of highestrelevance however are several proposed environmental enhancementsincluding:

•A new public foot/cycle path along the length of the north shore ofthe port estate•Provision of new grassland areas on the north and south shore ofthe port estate•Proposed relocation of Dolphin tern colonies eastwards in proximityto the south wall•Landscaping proposals on the East Wall Road of the Port•Development of a viewing platform area on the south east point ofthe Port at the start of the Great South Wall possibly overlooking therelocated tern colonies.

Fig. Xx:Intertidal mudflats in Harbour

The proposed extension of the Ringsend Waste Water TreatmentWorks including the new outfall pipe into Dublin Bay is currentlyundergoing detailed environmental assessment, and may includeproposals to develop greenfield habitats or reclaim/disturb themarine environment with cumulative impacts with the proposedPlan.

All the above proposals in addition to specific zoning objectiveswithin the Dublin City Development Plan 2011 2017 and DDDAMaster Plan 2008, for industrial development and changes inrecreational activity relate to the Study Area. All have thepotential to cumulatively impact upon ecological features incombination with the proposed re use strategy within this study, bydirect or indirect disruption or disturbance of coastal habitats andfauna (particularly wetland birds). There is also potential forpositive impacts to biodiversity (e.g. by creation of goose feedingfields or enhancement of Tern nesting sites).

Water QualityReuse may result in significant water quality impacts on Dublin Baydue to effluent loading on the Ringsend Waste water TreatmentWorks. However, if this plant is upgraded before the reuse planis implemented, impacts may be negligible.

Fig xx: Extract from Ringsend Nature Park Management Plan, commissioned by DCCand prepared as an action of the Dublin City Biodiversity Plan

79

80

ConstraintsConstraints are summarised in the table below:

Fig. Xx: West side of DEGS building – home to breeding kestrel and bat populations

Figs yy and zz above, structures with potential fro bat roosts – Pigeon House Hotel;DEGS chimney stack and former battery structure.

Archaeology

82

PRINCIPLE ISSUES

There are two relevant studies which address the archaeological issuespertaining to the site. These are:

•Archaeological and Architectural Survey of the Pigeon House Fort, an 18thcentury artillery fort on the Poolbeg Penninsula., carried out by AntoineGiacometti, BSc, MA, MIAI. For Dublin City Archaeologist, July 2009(Excavation Licence No: 09E 259). This is included in Appendix ?•EIS Chapter on Archaeological Heritage , prepared as part of EIS for DraftPoolbeg Planning Scheme, by Cultural Resource Development ServicesLtd, for Cunnane Stratton Reynolds, February 2009.

The Giacometti study included on site survey investigations as well as desktop research. It defined the existing extent of the monument (PigeonHouse Fort) on the ground and identified its constituent features andareas of potential sub surface archaeological material. In addition itprovided a number of recommendations as to how the surviving elementsof the Pigeon House Fort might be recovered and incorporated within anyproposed development of the Pigeon House precinct.

The CRDS EIS chapter sets out an archaeological mitigation strategy for thedevelopment proposed within the Draft Planning Scheme, which includedthe area comprising the Pigeon House Precinct.

Above ground surviving fabric from Pigeon House Fort:The following elements of the former fort survive and have been surveyedby Giacometti (refer to Appendix ? for a more comprehensive description):

1.Western Gateway: this critical survival – one of only two entry points tothe fort – remains is relatively sound condition, although only partiallyintact and the recent landscape setting around it fails to address thehistoric context.2.Northern Fort Boundary Wall, built on the earlier Ballast Office wall, it isconstructed of limestone and granite with musketry loops at intervals.3.Pigeon House Harbour: Only the eastern part survives, the westernsection being infilled by the Outfall Works of the late 19th centurysewerage treament works.

Fig. xx: Plan of ‘Pigeonhouse fort, 1861’ from De Courcy 1996, 301.

4. Southwestern complex of structures. This comprises thesouthwestern boundary wall, the handball court, overgrown ruinedstructures, and one surviving structure (known locally as ‘thestables’ but really a former grain store). Most of this areacontained the former barracks accommodation, canteen, toilets,cookhouse, prison, armoury and stores, but the majority of thestructures were demolished in the late 20th century by Dublin CityCouncil. All of these features are protected as Recorded Monumentsand Protected Structures.

5. Pigeon House Hotel: While the Hotel building predates the fort, it wasadapted by the occupying army and used as Officer’s Quarters. Itsurvives in good condition and partially used.

6. Circular structure (gun emplacement). Although the rectangularstructure may be more recent, the circular base clearly belongs to themilitary fort and formed part of the military defensive rampartprotecting the harbour. It is the only survival of three gunemplacements which overlooked the harbour.

7. Eastern gate and Slip.: The gatehouse has been significantly altered,although the slipway survives, outside the lands owned by Dublin CityCouncil (owned by Dublin Port)

12

4 5

3 6 7

8

9

83

8. Great South Wall (Ballast Office Wall): The section of this wall –which again predated the fort – which falls within the Pigeon HouseFort site – survives below ground. The Giacometti report notes that“its presence has been noted in previous unmonitored excavationsby Dublin City Council in two locations in the Pigeon House Fortcomplex (personal comment by Dublin City Council WastewaterWorks employee)”.

9. Associated material outside of the fort boundary: This includes themodern cannon emplacement to the southeast of the former fortand outside of the ESB compound. Three cannons are arranged on aroad corner near the gate, placed on modern wooden frames.These cannons are may have originally come from the westerngatehouse of the fort complex. A second area of relevance outsideof the former fort boundaries is the location of the rubbish dumpsdating to the time of the fort’s use. Giacometti notes that due tothe isolation of the fort from the rest of the city, these rubbishdeposits are likely to contain all of the non degradable waste fromthe history of the complex, and their study would be of interest,providing information on diet, daily life in the fort, and distinctionsbetween British and Irish material culture and society. Thelocation of these deposits is, unfortunately, unknown, as is theirsurvival, however Giacometti suggests the most likely place forthem is behind the southern fort boundary in the grounds of thepresent Sewerage treatment works.

Photos produced on this page are takenfrom Giacometti report and relate tomap at Fig.xx

1

1

2 3

4 4

4 6

97

84

CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Both Giacometti and CRDS reports set out recommendations for improvingprotection, enhancing condition and presentation and, mitigating againstpotentially destructive development. These have informed theConservation Plan and Reuse Strategy Policies set out in section 6.0. Belowlists the principal areas of concern considered:

•Improved protection through statutory designation and clarification ofexisting designations: Statutory protection of the Pigeon House Harbouris not clear under the existing legislation/designation, Although it can betaken as part of the curtilage of the former fort, it was constructed at anearlier time and is not a military element as such. The status of the threecannons moved to the entrance of the ESB offices outside of the fortshould be clearly included as part of the Protected Structure andRecorded Monument of the fort as they form integral elements of thecomplex, albeit in an inappropriate location. Giacometti recommendsthat the area immediately outside of the fort boundaries, particularly tothe south and east where rubbish may have been deposited over thecourse of the fort’s use, should be considered to be an integral part of theRecorded Monument of the Fort.•Improved presentation of Western Gateway so that it provides a point oforientation and information for visitors.•Retention and redevelopment of the southwestern surviving structures ina manner which restores the legibility and coherence of the formercomplex.•Retention and repair of circular rampart building to the north of the DEGSbuilding•Retention of Eastern Gateway structure – although substantially altered,its retention and the restoration of the section of the Great South Wall topedestrian use – re connecting the former fort complex with the long walkto the Poolbeg lighthouse, is desirable.

• Mitigation. Any development in or in the vicinity of the recordedmonuments will require the approval of the National MonumentsService of the Department of Arts, Heritage & Gaeltacht. In addition,there is the potential for the survival of unrecorded sub surfacearchaeological remains. Following finalisation of detailed site design,site specific mitigation strategies in the form ofarchaeologicalmanagement plans will be formulated in conjunctionwith the Dublin City Archaeologist, National Museum of Ireland and theNational Monuments Section and/or Underwater Unit of theDepartment of the Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht. Mitigation will havedue regard to the heritage policies and objectives Dublin CityDevelopment Plan 2011 2017 and in the Docklands Master Plan 2008and may include:

Pre Development Archaeological Testing and Archaeological Excavation:Pre development archaeological testing would be required byappropriate experts as archaeological remains are likely to occur.Targeted testing will allow an assessment to be made on the extent ofany surviving archaeology before any further mitigation may decidedupon. Should any archaeological material be uncovered, eitherpreservation in situ or full archaeological excavation may be required.

Monitoring. Archaeological monitoring will be undertaken duringgeological investigations and construction phase of any development byan archaeologist licensed by the Department of Arts Heritage andGaeltacht.

Fig.xx: c. 1895 photo of militarypersonnel leaving Pigeon House Fort(souce Giacometti Pigeon House Fortreport).

POOLBEGELECTRICITY PLANTESB

FORMER PIGEONHOUSE POWERSTATION & HOTEL

WASTE WATERTREATMENTPLANT

SETTLEMENT BEDSFOR WASTEWATER PLANT

The Wider Penninsula SettingNeighbours/Uses/Future Plans

86

Ballast Office WallGreat South WallPigeon House HarbourPigeon House Fort

POOLBEGELECTRICITY PLANTESB

FORMER PIGEONHOUSE POWERSTATION & HOTEL

WASTE WATERTREATMENTPLANT

SETTLEMENT BEDSFOR WASTEWATER PLANT

RINGSENDNATURE PARK

FORMER CONCRETEPRODUCTIONFACILITIY

PROPOSED WASTE TOENERGY PLANT

DUBLIN PORT CONTAINER STORAGE AREA

DUBLIN PORT –UNUSED LANDFILL

SYNERGYNELECTRICITYPLANTGLASS

BOTTLESITE

FABRIZIOSITESEAN MOORE

PARK

DUBLINPORTLANDS

INDUSTRIALUSE

Fig.xx: Map (source DDDA) showing ownerships and uses of lands within Poolbeg Penninsula

87

NEIGHBOURSThe Pigeon House Precinct is surrounded by a small number of large landholdings and this pattern of ownership and use very much defines thephysical and functional character of the area. The systems of relationshipsbetween the adjoining neighbours and uses, which are part of the long andrich history of the plan, suggest potential synergies for the future. Ofparticular note are the following:

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL (DCC) – Owner of the Pigeon House Precinct and ofthe adjacent Waste Water Treatment Works and the public realm, DCC isalso owner of the Ringsend Nature Park and the proposed Waste to Energysite. DCC is also the principal planning authority for the area and in 2006prepared a South Bank Framework Plan for the Poolbeg Penninsula.

ESB – previous owner of the Pigeon House Precinct site. The ESB wasfounded in 1927 and, on ‘inheriting’ the Dublin Electricity GeneratingStation, it gained its first power station. The origins of the ESB, therefore,are intrinsically connected with the Pigeon House Precinct and thisrelationship persists through the continuing generation of power on thePoolbeg Penninsula. The principles of industrial heritage valuesacknowledge continuity of industrial operations and the inherent socialcontext associates with these. Therefore it is the combined lands of theformer power station (the Pigeon House Precinct) and the subsequentelectricity generating infrastructure ‘next door’, comprising the nowredundant 1970’s complex and the currently operational gas fired plant,which constitute a coherent industrial heritage entity. And, in consideringhow best to ‘protect’ this heritage, therefore, this Conservation Planincludes the ESB Poolbeg Plant within its recommended policies.

DUBLIN PORT – Successor of the Ballast Board which developed the port ofDublin in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, along with the ESBDublin Port is the most significant neighbour. It controls navigation alongthe waterways and retains ownership of the Great South Wall – which itduly recognises as a critical piece of infrastructure for the contemporaryPort. The activities within the Port constitute some of the key economicdrivers of the country – exports, imports and a tourist connection ofgrowing importance. Dublin Port has recently produced a draftMasterplan with a 40 year time frame. While this is not a statutory plan, itdoes contain a number of proposals which would have significant impactson the Pigeon House Precinct (see Figures xxx overleaf).

Fig.xx: ESB Poolbeg Electricity Plant (looking east) – the buildings and twin chimneysin this view are now obsolete, although they still hold the redundant generatiingplant within. Power is today generated on a substantially smaller area beyond (eastof) this complex.

DUBLIN DOCKLANDS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DDDA): Statutory Agencywith planning and development powers for the Dublin Docklands area, whichcovers the lands at Poolbeg. Through its Masterplan (2008) and power toprepare a Planning Scheme, the DDDA exerts a significant influence on thearea. Having previously prepared a Draft Planning Scheme for Poolbeg whichwas not adopted, it recently (June 2011) advertised for consultants toprepare Planning Scheme for Poolbeg, however as of the date of completionof this Conservation Plan and Reuse Strategy, nothing has commenced. If thisPlanning Scheme is to proceed, then the recommendations and policies inthis Plan should inform the Planning Scheme.

LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBOURHOODS: While the Pigeon HousePrecinct lies within a predominantly industrial area, there are a number ofcommunities that maintain a sense of connection (ownership?) with andinterest in the area and are affected by what happens here. These includeresidential communities lying within the hinterland and the regular walkers,swimmers (the Half Moon Swimming club has a long history), birdwatchers.

88

NEIGHBOURING USESPower generationShipping – freight and passenger (ferry and cruise).Waste Water TreatmentRecreation – walking, bird watching; boating; fishing; swimming; cyclingResidential – small pockets of long established housing on the Penninsulaitself with the larger communities of Irishtown, Ringsend and Sandymoutnearby.Note some of these uses are SEVESO II uses which means…..

EXISTING AND FUTURE PLANS FOR NEIGHBOURING LANDSESB – In consultation for this study, the ESB confirmed their commitmentto the Poolbeg site and its continuing use for power generation. In additionthe ESB stated their intention to provide for storage of national oilreserves While current power generation only requires a small percentageof the total ESB land holding, the ESB have no plans to dispose of any of itslandholding. It also has no plans to maintain, demolish or otherwiseredevelop the redundant power plant and chimneys . In the absence ofany active management or maintenance, for this part of the complex, it islikely that this significant industrial heritage will fall into disrepair .

Incineration – Waste to Energy Plant: This development still remainsuncertain at the time of completing this study. If it is implemented, it willalter the existing landscape, most notably through the increased intensityof heavy traffic to and from the site during construction and in operation.This will involve upgrading of the existing and possible provision of newroadways , which can offer opportunities for improved landscaping andrecovery of the historic legibility.

Expansion of Waste Water Treatment Plant – increased capacity toaccommodate existing demand through current pipeline project to becompleted in 2015. It is understood that this will reduce occurrence ofodours.

Dublin Port – Master Plan 2011 2040: Land reclamation / increasedcontainer shipping; cruise liners (north quays); green routesPoolbeg Planning Scheme (DDDA/DCC) – Ref mixed use/densification;amenity & recreation; parklands; public transport – improvedconnections,…Implications for all above – increased traffic (heavy); noise; impacts onterns habitats etc; improved water quality ‘planning gain opportunities’

Fig.xx: Extract from Draft Dublin Port masterlan showng proposals for the PigeonHouse Precinct and adjacent lands.

Ringsend Nature Park Management Plan (action of the Dublin CityBiodiversity Plan)

DDDA Poolbeg Planning Scheme

89

Significance

91

3.0 Significance

There are many ways in which the Pigeon House Precinct is significant andserveral perspectives from which this significance can be framed, orarticulated. When considering cultural heritage, which is the primary focusof this study, then perhaps the most concrete of these is the historicalperspective, such that the primary developmental and functional phases ofthis place can be relatively coherently related to dstinct eras. Indeed, thisclarity more or less fits within each of the last three centuries. So, thefollowing statement of significance is aligned with time and the notabledevelopments and associations of each period which remain as definingaspects of the Pigeon House Precinct as it can be understood and valuedtoday and which should be protected and enhanced into the future.

3.1 The Eighteenth Century – the Maritime Significance

While the maritime significance of Poolbeg and the Pigeon House Precinctextends back well before the eighteenth century – the name POOLBEG aViking inheritance, referring to the small body of deep water in which shipscould depend on for berthing within the otherwise treacherous Dublin Bay– it was the construction of, firstly, the BALLAST OFFICE WALL andsubsequently the GREAT SOUTH WALL that stand out as REMARKABLEMARINE ENGINEERING ACHIEVEMENTS in their own right, as well as beingthe critical elements of infrastructure which underpinned the developmentof PORT and CITY during this golden period of physical, economic andcultural development for Dublin.

This great breakwater and causeway registered within Europe as a majorfeat of both CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING PROWESS. It reflected anadvanced knowledge and understanding of the marine properties andbehaviours of Dublin Bay, sophistication and skill in masory constructionallied to determination and focus. Today, the Great South Wall –extending more than 3.5 miles (5.9km) in length between its extremitiesat the mouth of Dodder River and the Poolbeg Ligthouse – survivessubstantially intact as a critical piece of infrastructure for the modern Portof Dublin City.

It appears that from early on in construction, the wall – which served asboth breakwater and causeway – became a popular place to take a WALK..This ancillary recreational use has continued to be an important amenityvalue nothwithstanding the apparently incompatible subsequent useswhich the Precinct has hosted.

Construction of the great sea wall brought John PI(D)GEON and his familyto the area and his entrepreunerial skills as innkeeper have resulted in anenduring assocation with the place which continues by way of the namehe has given to the PIGEON HOUSE HOTEL, HARBOUR, FORT, POWERSTATION, PRECINCT. The HOTEL, attributed to Robert Pool, is aaccommplished builidng made more noteworthy by the quality of itsconstruction, materiality and durabiltiy. It survives today, some 230 yearsold, in remarkably fresh condition.

SIGNIFICANCE: MARITIME (18th CENTURY)

• THE WALL – > 3.5 miles (5.9km) Ringsendto Poolbeg Lightouse

• THE PORT

• THE CITY

• JOHN PI(D)GEON – THE HOTEL

• THE WALK

92

93

3.2 The Nineteenth Century – the Military Significance

•The Fort

•The collection of coastal fortifications

•The impact of the military barracks on Dublin No’s within Fort

•The walk

•Extent of surviving fabric

SIGNIFICANCE: MILLITARY (19th CENTURY)

• PIGEON HOUSE FORT

• COLLECTION OF MARITIME DEFENCESOF EUROPEAN SIGNIFICANCE/MILLITARYBARRACKS INFLUENCE ON DUBLIN

• EXTENT OF SURVIVING FABRIC

95

3.2 The Twentieth Century – INDUSTRY

•VITAL CITY/COUNTRY INFRASTRUCTURE – THE Implications of

electricity

• EARLY (FIRST?) URBAN USE OF 3 PHASE POWER

• ESB AS KEY PART OF NEW IRISH STATE

• CONTINUING SITE OF ENERGY PRODUCTION AND

WASTE TREATMENT

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT – THE WORKERS

SIGNIFICANCE: INDUSTRY (20th CENTURY)

• VITAL CITY/COUNTRY INFRASTRUCTURE

• EARLY (FIRST?) URBAN USE OF 3 PHASE POWER

• ESB AS KEY PART OF NEW IRISH STATE

• CONTINUING SITE OF ENERGY PRODUCTION AND

WASTE TREATMENT

SIGNIFICANCE: 21st CENTURY

• RECORDS & ARCHIVES• ENVIRONMENTAL / ECOLOGICAL• ECONOMIC• RECREATION & AMENITY – THE GREAT WALK• PLACE/SETTING/LANDSCAPE – the

legibility of time layers

Considered to have the longest migration of all birds, utilizing the summer of both hemispheres. Summer visitor from March to September to all Irish coasts. Winters off south Africa and as far south as Antarctica.”

98

graphic by BSLA

Issues Affecting Significance

5.0 Issues Affecting Significance:This includes issues which currently and may in the future affectsignificance. The main focus is on those aspects which threaten todamage, or undermine, significance but in some instances there

may be opportunities for improvement also.

5.1 Lack of awareness and visibility5.2 Context and Setting isolation; access; neighbouring uses5.3 Future plans – Dublin Port; ESB; Waste to Energy/Incinerator;Dublin Drainage Scheme (increased traffic, noise, more infill; impacton south wall5.4 Resources5.5 Uses and use needs5.6 Insufficient statutory protections5.7 Archive/Records5.8 Condition

100

graphic by BSLA

RE USE STRATEGY

DEGS

Total existing – 7,500 sq m

Potential Area – 12,500 sq m

5.0 RE USE STRATEGY – ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION:

5.1 WHAT KIND OF RESOURCE IS/CAN THIS PLACE BE?

CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE

SPATIAL / GEOGRAPHICAL – the scale/capacity & ‘iconic’ situation

PREVIOUS PROPOSALS AND OTHER PRECEDENTS OF INTEREST

EXISTING /FUTURE USE NEEDS (DCC/DUBLIN PORT/INDUSTRIAL)

5.2 ESSENTIAL EARLY STEPS:MAINTAIN HOTEL IN USEESSENTIAL SAFETY WORKS TEMP USE/PART USE/PARTMOTHBALLIDENTIFY PARTNERS & PARTNERSHIPSMAKE PHP ‘VISIBLE’ FROM THE OUTSET – COMMUNICATIONS ANDPRESENTATION STRATEGYPROGRAMME OF TEMPORARY EVENTS ON SITEREUSE THE HARBOURINCREMENTAL STEPS TOWARDS FULL REUSE (series of ‘small’ ideas)

5.3 ACCESS AND SETTINGLANDSCAPE AND ACCESS STRATEGY TO:•RECOVER LEGIBILITY AND CONNECTIONOF THE GREAT SOUTHWALL AS WALK•RECOVER LEGIBILITY OF FORT•PROGRAMME OF TEMPORARY LANDSCAPE INSTALLATIONS ALONGROUTE•ENCOURAGE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALTERNATIVETRANSPORTOPTIONS – CYCLE (DUBLIN BIKE STANDS); BOAT(WATER TAXI/SEA SAFARI, etc); BUS (Restoration of busroute?/SHUTTLE BUSES FOR EVENTS)

5.4 LONG TERM VISION – A USE OF REGIONAL/NATIONAL VALUE(the big ‘idea’):

The historic and cultural legacy of the Pigeon House Precinct suggests itshould be a place of creativity and innovation; it should register culturally ata regional / national scale.

The term ‘precinct’ suggests a grouping of complimentary uses which actin a synergistic manner and retain and overall coherence. This consistencyof the name ‘Pigeon’ gives it an added identity allied to its unique anddramatic setting. The liminal place which the PHP holds, both physicallyand symbolically (its potential to be transitional, an ideas thresholdbetween the hard engineering essentials of man in the city and the morespiritual cultural connections with history, environment, place);

•A CREATIVE INDUSTRIES PRECINCT•A SCIENCE & INNOVATION PRECINCT•A MUSEUM OF ENGINEERING, INDUSTRY AND THE SEA•A MUSEUM FOR DUBLIN

APPROACHES TO DETERMINE LONG TERM USE:•SELL AS IS – LET CDP AND NATIONAL POLICIES DRIVE THE ENDUSE/DESIGN•INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPER/DESIGN COMPETITION – No setidea/No set design•IDENTIFY USE – HOLD DESIGN COMPETITION•IDEAS COMPETITION THEN FOLLOW WITH DESIGN•DEVELOP WITH PARTNERS; GROUND UP.•KEEP SMALL SCALE – AS A PLACE OF TEMPORARY CHANGINGUSES.

5.5 SEQUENCE OF PRIORITY ACTIONS TOWARDS REUSE:1. Consult on Draft Conservation Plan/Strategy2. Budget Costs – preliminary works3. Convene Implementation Group4. Identify Partners – EU/Dublin Port/ESB/FI/Universities

a. Hold high level forum with individual partners – agreeinputs

b. Convene Partner Groupc. Events /Temporary Use(s) strategy

5. Secure preliminary funding6. Implement preliminary works7. Initiate events/temporary use programme

REUSE – POSSIBILITIES FOR PARTNERSHIP

REUSE – PREVIOUS IDEAS FOR PHPScience Museum 1997 Biodiversity Centre 2009

REUSE PREVIOUS IDEAS FOR PHPScience Museum 1997 Biodiversity Centre 2009

REUSE PREVIOUS IDEAS FOR PHPScience Museum 1997 Biodiversity Centre 2009

REUSE INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENTS

Le Grand Hornu Belgium Suomenlinna Finland

108REUSE INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENTS

Recovering the Walk

Recovering the architectural and historic legibility of Pigeon House Precinct

OPTIONS FOR IMPROVING ACCESS

POOLBEG PARK: (BIODIVERSITY CENTRE STUDY 2009, drawing BSLA)

PHOENIX PARK – POOLBEG PARK

114

Policies

115

6.0 Recommended Policies:

Policies below are set out under general headings which address each ofthe ‘big’ themes’ which relate to the Pigeon House Precinct:

6.1 Re Use Strategy & Implementation Group:Policy 1: Implement the re use strategy:1. Consult on Draft Conservation Plan/Strategy2. Budget Costs – preliminary works3. Convene Implementation Group4. Identify Partners – EU/Dublin Port/ESB/FI/Universities

a. Hold high level forum with individual partners –agree inputs

b. Convene Partner Groupc. Events /Temporary Use(s) strategy

5. Secure preliminary funding6. Implement preliminary works7. Initiate events/temporary use programme

6.2 Visibility and Awareness: Communicating the SignificancePolicy xxx: Broaden out consultation and communication on foot

of Conservation Plan. Meet with local community groupsand set up blog

Policy xx: commission series of communication projects, eg. Film;game; site visits/walks (Open House type) This mightprovide opportunities to engage with former workers andlocal communities.

6.3 Protecting the Significance:Policy xx: Review RPS descriptions to fully cover the extent of

surviving fabric relating to the Pigeon House Precinct.Policy xx: Review the significance of the ESB Pigeon House plant

with regard to its suitability for statutory protection, eitherthrough the RPS or a broader ACA which would include theexisting CA objective area and the wider composition ofeighteenth century sea wall and Fort including the 1970’scomplex which is now redundant but comprises an intactcollection of electricity generating plant from this periodand also includes the iconic Pigeon House Chimneys.

Policy xx: Prepare scope of works for urgent repairs to safeguardendangered structures; prepare cost estimates and seek fundingPolicy xx: Complete dimensional survey of all structures within thePigeon House PrecinctPolicy xx: Archives and Records: A highlight in terms ofsignificance, is the rich archive of historic documentation whichpertains to all phases of development of the Pigeon HousePrecinct. The process of preparing this Plan has facilitated thebeginnings of a collection of historic documentation which iscontained in the Appendices. However, there is much morematerial of relevance within the archives consulted and a separateproject to expand this collection and identify all documentaryresource should be carried out.Policy xx: Some of the historic documentation examined duringthis study is not archived to current standards and there isconcern over the long term conservation of some of thevulnerable resource. The guardians of these repositeries aboutwhich there is concern should be consulted with a view toassisting and enabling the proper conservation and archiving ofthe relevant documents. Further access to some of the historicmaterial is problemmatic

6.4 Working with Neighbours and their plans:Policy xx: Copies of Conservation Plan and Reuse Strategy to beissued to all neighbouring bodiesPolicy xx: This conservation Plan and Ruse Strategy to form part ofany submissions regarding future plans and developments beingproposed by neighbouring parties, for example DDDA PoolbegPlanning Scheme; Dublin Port Masterplan, etc.,Policy xx:

116

6.5 Access and SettingPolicy xx Recover the historic legibility and the amenity value ofthe Great South Wall as a walk/cycle route. This involvesexploring opportunities to re open those sections of the historicwall/walkway which are currently inaccessible.Policy xx: Implement landscape strategy for the Pigeon HousePrecinct which seeks to retain, repair and reintegrate the survivingfabric of the Pigeon House Fort which recovers the architecturallegibility of the setting and also improves the quality andcoherence of the public realm spaces within the Pigeon HousePrecinct (ref Fig xx). As part of this, integrate solutions which willenhance the biodiversity of the area, eg. The covering over of thesettlement beds with a shallow pond – this would create anenhanced area for birds and insects as well as assist in ‘restoring’the appearance of the original form of the Pigeon House Harbour.

Policy xx: implement landscape strategy for main public routebetween City and Pigeon House Precinct. This primarily involvesthe roadway link from the East Link Bridge, along PigeonhouseRoad to the Great South Wall. This strategy will avail ofopportunities to resotre/recover the line of the wall along thisroadway. It is also likely to require some large impact elements,for example a series of big scale ‘billboards’ with historic photos ofthe Place – as a temporary installation which also conveys amessage. This may be developed in conjunction with aphotographic artist

6.6 Policies where no use happens – maintenance, etc

6.7 Policies relating to archaeology

Policy xx:An archaeological mitigation strategy for any proposeddevelopment within the Precinct would require archaeological monitoringduring site investigation works, and pre development archaeologicaltesting and possibly also archaeological excavation.

Ref other recommendations from Giacometti (where not already stated)

6.8 Policies addressing site contaminantsPolicy – xx Ref RPS recommendations.

117

6.9 Policies to safeguard/enhance the ecological significance of the PlanArea

Policy 1: Ensure adequate protection of Qualifying Interests for allEuropean designated sites for nature conservation through a holisticapproach to development of the Plan AreaObjective 1: Undertake adequate Appropriate Assessment of any proposedworks with due regard to existing and proposed plans for the DublinDocklands to ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of cSACs and SPAswithin the zone of influence of the Plan.

Policy 2: Protect flora and fauna from adverse impacts duringconstruction as a requirement of all future applications.Objective 2: Survey local ecology and provide mitigatory measures for its

protection during construction through sensitive construction methodsand timing of works, with particular regard to the value of the DEGS andother buildings to Kestrel, Peregrine Falcon, and Bats.

Policy 3: Ensure sustainable recreational use of the Plan Area duringoperation by promoting ecotourism in tandem with minimal disturbanceto birds from boat and land based human activities.Objective 3:Protect and enhance the value of coastal areas to birdlife andecotourism through the use of setbacks for pathways/water activities fromthe Dolphins pontoons, goose feeding sites south wall roosting sites, andcoastal habitats. Developments shall employ low level lighting,underground communication networks, and strict regulation of type,timing, and intensity of watersports activities. Enhancement ofecotourism opportunities should consider enforcement of keeping dogson leads, creation of bird hides and viewing platforms, provision of newTern pontoons, and screening of key south wall roosting sites.

Policy 4: Improve the quality of coastal waters through sustainabledrainage and contribute to progress towards the objectives of theWater Framework Directive to restore degraded surface waters to goodstatus by 2015.Objective 4 Ensure that construction and operation of all future projects

follow latest best practice guidance on treatment and discharge ofsurface waters, sewage and process effluent including use ofSustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) in consultation with InlandFisheries Ireland and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Policy 5: Contribute towards the objectives of the National BiodiversityPlan 2011 2016 and Dublin City Biodiversity Action Plan 2008 2012through the protection and enhancement of species and habitats ofconservation concern.Objective 5: Address potential impacts from plans/projects to native

birds, plants, mammals, invertebrates and their habitats identified in theNational Biodiversity Plan 2011 2016 and Dublin City Biodiversity ActionPlan 2008 2012 through sensitive design to buffer key identified wildlifeareas such as the nearby Natura 2000 network, potential bat roosts, raptornesting sites, and undesignated, but locally important grassland,woodland, and coastal habitats.

Policies to address reuse of the sitePolicy 6:Protect and enhance the value of the DEGS and other buildings tobirds and batsObjective 6:Address the potential impact to bats and birds ofrefurbishments or changes of use to built features through adequatesurvey and assessment including provision of mitigation andcompensation where appropriate (e.g. bird/bat boxes, landscape plantingand bat friendly lighting).

Policy 7:Control the spread of invasive species and promote nativeplantings in keeping with the local environment.

Objective 7:Maintain a policy of native only landscaping treatmentsthat reflects the local wildlife context, and excludes all species on theNational Biodiversity Data Centre Invasive Species Database

118

Priority works/initiatives

Undertake suite of bat and bird surveys of the DEGS buildingthroughout 2012 and/or further consultation with the aim of:

1. Establishing the precise location of the Kestrel nest on the DEGSbuilding and providing recommendations for its conservation eitherthrough protection and retention or removal with provision of analternative site.2. Identifying the value (if any) of the DEGS building and Pigeon HouseHotel to the PeregrineFalcons breeding on the Thermal chimneys.3. Confirming location and number of Tern nests around Pigeon HouseHarbour4. Mapping key wintering SPA bird roost sites, particularly along thesouth wall5. Determining if any amenity grasslands within the Plan Area are used byBrent Geese6. Undertaking extensive bat survey of the DEGS building to establish itsvalue as a maternity or hibernation site for bats.