An artist claimed in the High Court yesterday that the winning design for the millennium monument in O'Connell Street in Dublin O Nuallain (71), one of the 205 valid entrants in the architectural competition for the Dublin Corporation project to mark the year 2000, said the winning design did not even meet the minimum competition brief laid down beforehand.
Mr Michael O Nuallain (71), a retired inspector of schools, with an address at Belgrave Square, Monkstown, Co Dublin, is seeking an order quashing the decision of Dublin Corporation on March 1st to go ahead with the construction of the 400 ft steel "spike".
He is also seeking declarations that in sanctioning the project the corporation failed to comply with the 1994 Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations.
However, Mr O Nuallain, one of the 205 valid entrants in the architectural competition, has abandoned a claim for damages and also yesterday withdrew an application for an injunction restraining the corporation from carrying out work in connection with the construction of the monument.
Opposing the application, Dublin Corporation says the decision of the jury appointed to assess the competition was not a decision of the corporation but of an autonomous body whose decision was binding on the corporation.
It also denies the winning entry does not relate to the scale of O'Connell Street as represented by late 18th-century and early 20th-century architecture and civic design, or that it should have been disqualified, or that it was outside the competition design brief.
Mr Colm Mac Eochaidh, for Mr O Nuallain, said the proposed new monument would affect buildings of artistic, architectural or historic interest. He argued the corporation had acted unlawfully in failing to send notice of the development to a number of bodies including the Minister for Arts, Culture and Gaeltacht, the National Monuments Advisory Council and An Taisce.
He also submitted that the corporation failed to comply with the need for an Environment Impact Statement and Assessment which were required for an urban development project likely to have a significant effect on the environment because of its nature, size or location.
In an affidavit, Mr O Nuallain said he liked the winning entry. In many ways it was a superior design to the one he had entered. But he was incensed by the selection of this particular design as it appeared to disregard the competition design parameters.
Having selected the winning entry, Dublin Corporation decided to use a procedure under the 1994 Local Government Regulations to, in effect, grant itself a form of planning permission for the structure, he said.
Mr O Nuallain said he did not feel aggrieved at not having won the competition, nor did he disapprove of the design of the winning entry. But having unfairly selected the design for the new monument, the corporation then failed to comply with proper procedures under the planning regulations.
The architect, Mr Sam Stephenson, had said that, at 400 feet, the winning entry did not and could not relate to the scale of O'Connell Street as represented by late 18th-century and early 20th-century architecture and civic design.
He did not seek to criticise the entry because of its height or any other characteristic, but he was saying it could only have won if the competition assessors had effectively abandoned the competition brief.
This was most unfair to those other competitors who sought to confine their proposals to the brief. Had each of the other 204 entrants considered they had carte blanche regarding height, which appeared to have been the approach by the winning entry, both the type of entries to the competition and the winner might be of a different order.
The hearing continues today.