NAMA under increasing pressure to act to protect our built heritage

I have a lot of sympathy for NAMA when it comes to its role in fostering the protection of our built heritage. Such a social role was never set out in the NAMA Act which gives NAMA an over-riding objective of managing loans and underlying assets in an optimal way so as to deliver the maximum commercial return to the nation. Social objectives get short shrift in the NAMA Act although section 2 (b) (viii) does provide some minor confusion (“NAMA will contribute to the social and economic development of the State”). One of NAMA’s most expensive board members is Steven Seelig, formerly of the IMF who co-authored a 2004 paper on asset management companies (AMCs) in which he made it clear that for an AMC like NAMA is to be successful, its objectives should be clear and not confused with social responsibility duties – “experience has shown that AMCs with clearly defined, focused, and consistent goals are more likely to be effective. In some instances, such as the United States, social objectives were added to the asset management objectives of the AMC. The RTC [Resolution Trust Corporation] was required to promote social goals in the areas of affordable housing and historic preservation by developing programs and giving preference to buyers who would meet program goals. The practice of mixing goals, and especially establishing conflicting objectives, is not recommended”

That said, NAMA is nominally in charge of buildings which are considered architecturally significant and deserving protection. TheRoyalHibernianAcademyhas made a statement (available here) in which it strongly criticises NAMA for what it believes are NAMA’s failings in protecting our built heritage. As NAMA itself might say, the agency generally doesn’t have direct control over  buildings at this stage, merely control over loans; it is still the developer that generally has direct control over the building – so blame the developer for vandalism and failing to protect buildings. Nonetheless, given the fact that many developers are financially distressed and NAMA has limited funds, it is not surprising that many buildings seem to be deteriorating rapidly, which is troubling those who take an interest in the preservation of our built heritage.

It was only last year that the Gardai were practising their riot control techniques at the Belcamp College site, the 208-acre former college in Balgriffin, north Dublin which was bought by NAMA Top 10 developer, Gerry Gannon for €105m in 2004.  The college had a century-long history as a religious and educational establishment but was gutted by fire on 14th April 2011 (recent photographs here show the extent of the fire damage). Although certain stained glass windows considered culturally important had previously been removed and remitted to the National Museum of Ireland for safekeeping, the fact that only the shell of the building remains standing today is worrying to those who care about the country’s built heritage. With development land in the State having lost 75-90% of its peak value and the population of Dublin falling, by reference to the CSO’s population estimates for April 2010, it is unclear today what value the land now has and how NAMA can manage the asset. The time for preserving the asset seems to have elapsed as the building is now a burnt shell.

The former hospital on Hume Streetjust off St Stephen’s Green has also been the focus of a campaign initially aimed at stopping vandalism in the building and the removal of material, such as copper piping. The building is understood to be owned by a NAMA developer, Michael Kelly. The Irish Times today reports a claim that Dublin City Council has served an enforcement notice on Michael Kelly and NAMA.

And there is 16 Moore Street which has significance to the 1916 Easter Rising and which is also the subject to an intense preservation campaign. NAMA has a degree of control over the property through acquiring the loans of its direct owner, Joe O’Reilly.

I have sympathy for NAMA in respect of this issue. NAMA is not primarily set up to protect our built heritage though it does take on some minimal responsibilities to prevent structures becoming dangerous or causing a nuisance. However, beyond those minimal responsibilities, I think it doubtful that NAMA could even deduct from its income, any costs incurred in protecting these buildings unless it could be shown that such expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively in pursuit of NAMA’s goals. NAMA could potentially claim the expenditure against income if it were to apply to have its buildings included under the Department of Finance historical buildings scheme but that would seem to involve all sorts of conditions and could see NAMA sidetracked into a whole different business sideline.

It seems though that NAMA will need develop a protocol for dealing with preservation issues for properties directly or indirectly under its control. And it would seem desirable that responsibility for built heritage protection be unequivocally removed from NAMA’s remit, in that the function is a distraction from NAMA’s principal objective of maximising the recovery of our outlay on land and development loans. But if NAMA is not to be responsible for these buildings then it would seem to be a government responsibility to deal with the issue in a way which respects NAMA’s commercial remit.