Councillors uneasy with Art House / Pocket Park plan - The Munster Express

Councillors uneasy with Art House / Pocket Park plan General Stories The Munster Express

A handful of councillors have given a lukewarm reaction to the local authority’s plans for numbers 7-8 Thomas Street in the city – a significant lot next to Henry Downes.

At a recent special meeting of Waterford Metropolitan District Council, councillors were told of the council’s intend to build an Art House in front of a small pocket park to provide a creative-makers’ space and café at ground floor with pocket park and recreational space accessible from Thomas Street. The first floor accommodation will provide associated office facilities with meeting room; while the second floor accommodation is to provide artist and creative studio spaces.

The original plan for this site was a small park to provide an outdoor space in what is a highly populated area. This new plan sees an Art House being built to control the entrance to the park.

While it is the council’s contention that this will prevent anti-social behaviour, a number of councillors are concerned that the original intention of having a public park will be lost in a project that has no detail regarding cost or how the new Art House will be operated.

During the meeting Councillor Donal Barry requested to know the exact cost of the project. This request was rejected by the Council, with Director of Services Michael Quinn explaining that publicising the council’s estimates would grant companies who bid for the job an unfavourable commercial advantage.

“There’s already €400,000 of taxpayers’ money after being spent on that site through the Community Recognition fund, and the consultation on that, in my opinion took place after that project,” said Cllr. Barry.

“I don’t know when the Art House came in as part of this project, it was just supposed to be a pocket park … We’re being asked today to make a big decision, on spending taxpayers’ money,” continued Cllr. Barry. “And we have really not got the finer details of the business case for this, how it is going to be run, who is going to be running it, the governance model.”

Many of the councillors present welcomed the project as a new space for artists and the community, and did not have an issue with the overall concept.

“This project came from the ground up,” explained Gary McCormack on behalf of the Council.

“An identification that a highly concentrated residential community in this part of the city have very little outdoor amenity. That generated a pocket park, as seen in different parts of Europe and new residential developments around the country.”

Interestingly, Mr. McCormack also explained that there is the expectation, or hope, that the residents of the area will take ownership of the park and deter anti-social behaviour in the years to come.

“The idea then is that residential communities take on board and take ownership of these spaces,” he explained.

“I think to expect that immediately would be optimistic of ourselves, but I think the long game would be that all those communities identify that as their garden, take ownership, and will have that supervision of it.

“Until we get to there, yes, we’ll have visitors coming through the building itself, but, it’s down to the expression of interest and the operational model of it. It is intended that whoever takes on that building will take charge of that entrance gate,” he said.

“And the entrance gate itself is designed that it has constant visibility throughout. It’s not going to restrict the view into that park or indeed the view out. There are also safety concerns that when there’s kids in there, they can’t run out into the traffic of O’Connell Street.

“But the long term game is that it will be taken in the hearts and minds of everyone that lives around there, but we need to put in that infrastructure in the first place.

“We do have passive supervision over the entrance to that park but eventually the communities are going to take ownership of this space. You might say that’s optimistic but if we give communities and residents these facilities, they’ll take care of them. There’s good overview from the surrounding apartments, either at Claredon Court or those along Thomas Street, we’re quietly optimistic that will happen at the end of the day,” he added.

Some of the councillors made it clear that they were reluctant to support the project.

“Are we not overcomplicating things and perhaps we should be looking at this entirely different,” asked Independent Councillor Joe Kelly. “Maybe just the park without the huge expense of the building in place? The only logic I can actually see for it is stacking up on the security for the park or perhaps opening and closing and managing the park. I’m not quite ready to vote for this I would say,” he said.

“There are too many straws in the wind. With the best of intentions we could end up with a very expensive building almost half used or used in the daytime at best, but nothing after that when the park is not available either,” he explained.

Cllr. Jim D’Arcy echoed these concerns: “I would be very slow to support it. I understand the concept that you need a park that is overlooked and the control of it. I just think maybe we need to downsize the building a bit more”.

“We’re all in agreement here that we want to see a park there and we want to see a park that’s used. There are plenty of places there for the cultural bit,” Cllr. D’Arcy said.

“I do accept that you need to have it controlled and overlooked, I accept you can’t just have a park there on its own. We need time to think about this. I think a smaller building [should be proposed], and we should have someone lined up.

“I would be a lot more comfortable voting for it if the council were to run it for maybe three years, and once the culture was set that it is really a park that’s been managed and the building manages the park, well then we will have achieved what we want to,” he added.

Cllr. Frank Quinlan said he would also be concerned that the park was no longer front and centre of the plans.

He was supportive of artists’ space but suggested that something like a hurling or ball wall for children to play would serve the area better.

Cllr. Donal Barry said there were a number of outstanding questions, including when did the Art House enter the project, why weren’t councillors involved from the beginning, what will it all cost, who will run it, and was there a risk assessment carried out regarding anti-social behaviour before funding was approved?

In the end the councillors took the lead of the Steering Group headed by Cllr. Mary Roche and Cllr. Seamus Ryan and approved the plans, while Councillors Joe Kelly and Donal Barry voted to abstain.

AARON KENT Funded by the Local Democracy Reporting Scheme - Munster Express Submit a Comment Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.