[left page]
44 [Heading[ U.C.D. and the Future
could be subject to the approval of the Government, or exercised by it on
behalf of the College). Further, the granting of thesse powers does not neces-
sarily mean that they would ever be invoked. The mere possession of them
would render more easy the acquisition of property by normal means.
[heading] V. A STUDY OF ADJACENT SITES
[sub-heading] A. THE COMMISSION'S REJECTION OF ADJACENT SITES
"We began with our work,' writes the Commission (Report, Chapter I,
p. 28), 'by seeking for a solution of the College accommodation problem
in the vicinity of the main College buildings at Earlsfort Terrace.
Every circumstance indicated to us that that was the proper course
-the necessity for maintaining the pysical unity of the College, the
College's place in the city and in proximity to libraries and galleries,
the avoidance of disturbance to the life of the College which would
occur if the College were to be moved, and considerations of economy.'
In short, the Commission was convinced that a move is undesirable and
that if a solution to the problem of the College's accommodation needs can
be found i the neighbourhood, that solution should be adopted. We propose
to show, having regard to the facts outlined in the preceding sections, that
such a solution can be found, and without the 'large-scale compulsory acquisition
of valuable residential, business and hotel premises' which the Commission
seems to think necessary (Report, Chapter 4, p. 124). We contradict it in its
assertion on this point.
The Commission gave 'lengthy consideration' to two blocks of property
which together stretch from Hatch Street to the canal and are marked 'B1'
and 'D' on the outline plan of the Earlsfort Terrace area (Attachment IV to
Chater 1 of the Report. See also out Map* at the end of this Memorandum).
It also considered the question of acquiring the whole of the east side of
Harcourt Street as far as Hatch Street together with the whole of St. Stephen's
Green, South, and made a passing mention of the impossibility of acquiring
the whole of the blocks bordered by Lr. Leeson Street, Adelaide Road and
Earlsfort Terrace. Naturally the immediate purchase of the whole of any
one (or any combination) of these latter blocks would cause widespread
disturbance, and such ideas were dismissed by the Commission as impracticable.
We contend that such widespread acquisitions are not at all nececssary, that
more limited objectives will suffice, and that these can be achieved with little
or no resort to the machinery of compulsory purchase.
The Commission made no mention whatsoever of the block marked 'B2,'
the Harcourt Street Station site, although it was long known that C.I.E.
[line]
*Our map covers the same area and carries the same letters to denote the blocks
as does that given by the Commission. However block D as considered by us is slightly
different from block D as considered by the Commission. We include the C.I.E.
property and exclude the houses in Adelaide Road and Harcourt Terrace, the Commision's
block includes these houses and omits the railway viaducts.
[end left page]
[begin right page]
EN