A proposed first World War memorial garden in Killester has been turned down by Dublin City Council officials.
A group of local residents are campaigning for a memorial garden on an open space at Abbeyfield, Killester, next to a former British Legion lodge.
The garden suburb in Killester was created after the first World War for returning ex-servicemen.
Rejected
Killester Garden Village consisted of 289 homes in the area of Abbeyfield, Middle Third and The Demesne on the north side of Dublin. It was the largest such development for ex-servicemen in Ireland.
Nil Yalter: Solo Exhibition – A fascinating glimpse of a historically influential artist
A Californian woman in Dublin: ‘Ireland’s not perfect, but I do think as a whole it is moving in the right direction’
Will Andy Farrell’s Lions sabbatical hurt Ireland’s Six Nations chances?
How does VAT in Ireland compare with countries across Europe? A guide to a contentious tax
Plans for a community garden with a first World War theme were unanimously approved by councillors on the north-central area committee on October 17th last year, but have subsequently been rejected by council officials.
Killester WW1 Memorial Campaign chairman Aaron Crampton said they revised their plans to create a community garden instead of a memorial garden but it was also turned down. “It is unfortunate we are at the stage we are while dealing with council officials. We thought it would be smooth sailing,” he said.
Mr Crampton said residents who support the garden are puzzled as to how the council’s policy is consistent with allowing community gardens in the city to mark the centenary of the Easter Rising or the Flanders memorial garden in Christ Church which was opened in 2019 and is on council land.
Dublin City Council has yet to respond to questions relating to the status of the garden, but correspondence seen by The Irish Times shows that senior executive park superintendent Fergus O’Carroll turned down the concept of a memorial garden and a community garden on the basis it did not have sufficient support locally.
“It is disappointing that we have reached this point but it does seem that the persistent promotion on so many fronts of what we were working towards as a memorial campaign has caused considerable upset among a cohort of the residents representing a range of backgrounds and political outlooks and ultimately setting some against any intervention on this open space,” he wrote to the committee in February.
“While the local history including the oral history research element we have been discussing remains of great interest and indeed importance it appears more than a little doubtful that the ‘on the ground’ proposals can be rescued at this stage given the growing opposition locally to your campaign.”
The Parks Services said it was “more than happy” to work with the group on a booklet and a message board, but not a memorial garden, he added.
Mr Crampton countered by stating that the proposed garden had the support of the vast majority of residents in the area and that those who were opposed to it were not locals.
