Sir, - Robin MacDermott says, concerning the demolition of Sandymount Presbyterian Church (October 11th): "At no stage did any of the planning applications advance dry rot infestation of the church or hall as reason for their demolition". In spite of his contention, Michael Smith, chairman of An Taisce, was indeed correct when he stated that dry rot was put forward by the Presbyterian Residential Trust as a reason for demolishing the church.
Two separate planning applications submitted on behalf of the trust referred to rot in the building. As part of a planning application submitted on May 22nd, 1992, the architect's letter stated: "Our clients have identified a serious outbreak of dry rot." Again, as part of a planning application submitted on December 23rd, 1996, the trust's structural engineer stated: "We conclude that there is a considerable amount of rot in it".
However, when an independent architect's report was commissioned by the local residents in August 1999, no evidence of dry rot was found in the building and the report stated: "The building, although neglected for some years, is in good structural condition and certainly not in any immediate danger and does not warrant demolition and replacement."
I also remind Mr MacDermott of a statement made by Ms Linda Wray, residential services manager for the Presbyterian Residential Trust, in The Irish Times on August 13th, under the headline "Dry rot condemns church to bulldozers": "We have had no other option, because of the dry rot, but to demolish the building." In a letter to The Irish Times (August 10th), the Rev Alan Martin, former clerk, Dublin and Munster Presbytery, stated: "The following is part of a statement from the church architects: `As long ago as 1991 this firm explored the possibilities of converting the old buildings into practical accommodation, not only to find that they were impossible to adapt successfully, but that the stone veneered walls were riddled with dry rot fungus'." Neither of these statements was retracted.
An Taisce has nothing but good will towards the Presbyterian Church and its social works. We do not, however, believe that those works are incompatible with retaining churches such as Sandymount and Adelaide Road. We have argued constructively and in detail that it was possible for the two churches to be retained and used for social uses; and we reject their statements about Sandymount Church, its dry rot and its structural problems. - Yours, etc., Valerie Yeaton,
An Taisce, Dublin City Association, Tailor's Hall, Dublin 8.