U2 change position in studio dispute

Rock band U2 last night appeared to yield ground in the battle to save its Hanover Quay recorded studio, earmarked for demolition…

Rock band U2 last night appeared to yield ground in the battle to save its Hanover Quay recorded studio, earmarked for demolition under the Dublin Dockland Development Authority (DDDA) redevelopment plan.

A spokesman said the group had entered talks with the DDDA and would 'defenitely consider moving to somewhere in the vicinity should a suitable property be offered as an alternative."

The breakthrough followed a planning hearing earlier yesterday in which representatives for the quartet opposed the DDDA demolition order.

The spokesman said : "U2 love the docklands area and have always worked here. Although they are very happy in their present studio, and would very much like to stay, they appreciate that change is inevitable and often for the best."

READ MORE

At the planning hearing, the band, none of whom were present, had argued in a submission against a compulsory purchase order by the DDDA issued on the premises at Hanover Quay in Grand Canal Dock.

The band claimed that although it would not qualify as a protected structure, a strong case could be made for the building's retention as an element in the "recognised music-recording heritage of the area".

"The recording studio of an internationally acclaimed Irish rock band fits this profile and would complement any objective of the Authority to convert the area to an amenity space with leisure and entertainment uses," the band stated in the submission to An Bord Pleanála in Dublin.

The plan by the DDDA envisages demolishing the building along with others at the waterside, to make way for a €2 billion development.

The 24-acre site will incorporate shops, restaurants, pubs, residential properties and a public amenity area along the waterfront.

The DDDA claims the recording studio and the other buildings would take up such a significant section of quayside that they would frustrate the objective of the scheme for open amenities.

Other objectors include businessman Mr Harry Crosbie who has two buildings with compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) either side of his house, which is being retained as a preserved building.

The band had been recording music at the premises since in or about 1994. "The latest album All that You Can't Leave Behind, recorded at Hanover Quay, has sold over 10 million copies worldwide," the submission said.

The building was a former warehouse and adapted and converted to its current use which involved considerable work. Mr Garrett Simons, counsel for U2, said it was planned to demolish the building, which was for a special use, and replace it with nothing.

Mr Terence Durney, director of planning and technical services, said the CPO sites were directly related to the front of the area selected as the best location for new premises such as shops and restaurants. "Their demolition is regarded by the Authority as critical to the success of the overall scheme," he said.

Mr Durney said if the objectors' structures were retained they would frustrate the objective of the scheme.

"Partial retention would result in a visual disamenity with a 'gap-toothed' appearance," he said.

It would also force pedestrians to move around buildings on the roadside.

"None of the uses are particular or peculiar to this location in the sense that they must of their nature be in this area. They could be located in any suitable premises in many areas of the city. By contrast, an open waterside amenity is a unique development which can only occur in a location such as Hanover Quay," Mr Durney told the hearing.

"The existing structures prevent public access to the water's edge and inhibit the development of the substantial tracts of lands to the north of the area," he said.

Mr Crosbie told the hearing that he wanted one building for use as incubator units for businesses starting out on short leases.

He said in his previous dealings with the DDDA regarding a CPO involving the Point Depot, the project didn't go ahead.

"I was treated very harshly, an injustice was done and I want to make sure it doesn't happen again," he said.

The hearing continues today before Mr Padriac Thornton, presiding planning inspector.