Next month there is a high court case taking place in Dublin involving Mc Caughey developments and the Dundalk Town Council. McCaughey is trying to use the courts to overturn a zoning decision of councillors, who decided after much deliberation to zone an area of land on the lower point road from Residential building to habitat and utility.
The story behind the case is not only complex but also quite murky. In this article we will try to piece together the shananigans that have led to the high court action but also the odd defence being put forward, apparently on the behalf of our councillors.
A number of years ago the land in question was acquired by McCaughey developments from the Dundalk Port Authority. The land served as a buffer zone surrounding the waste/sewage treatment plant. Buffer zones are standard practice throughout Europe. The lands were also a much used soccer pitch and natural setting with many birds and other forms of wildlife using the area. The area is also prone to flooding and as such prevents other surrounding areas from flooding.
It appears that without much if any consultation with residents and local environmental groups, the land was zoned for residential building in the plans for the Dundalk development plan 2003-2009. The fact that the land was zoned as such is suprising in itself but the details of what happened during and after this decision gives good cause for the people of Dundalk to demand a more accountable and transparent council.
During the creation of the Dundalk and Environs development plan for 2009-2015 the person in charge of presenting and amending maps as the public consultation process progressed made a mistake and forgot to colour the said lands as zoned residential one. Instead it was zoned as Habitat and utility. In an attempt to undo this oversight there was an amendment suggested at the final meeting of the plan and voted on by councillors.
Before the vote residents associations from the lower Point road collated lots of data regarding the land, arguing that it should be kept as it was then, as habitat and utilities. They supplied this information to all of the councillors. The councillors voted eleven to none in favour of keeping the land as habitat. Clearly the information given to the councillors allowed them to make a balanced decision, even though the unelected council officials such as the town clerk argued that the land should be changed back to residential one, as McCaughey developments desired it. The only Councillor to abstain from the vote was Councillor Jim D'Arcy. Funny enough during the creation of the development plan, soon after it was first decided to zone the land res one, it was Jim D'Arcy that, according to McCaughey, called the developer to let him know that the land had been zoned in his favour. A strange contact indeed.
McCaughey developments were not happy with the decision of the councillors and have taken a high court action to have their informed decision overturned, claiming that the councillors voted in a vexatious way, in other words to spite the developer. It is clear however, and there is ample evidence proving that councillors had received plenty of information, indeed the green councillors concerned especially have had much experience in such matters.
This is where things get murky and mysterious indeed. One would expect that the council's legal agent, in defence of the councillors, would launch a strong and robust defence arguing that the councillors were well informed. Indeed, if McCaughey succeeds in this case, it sets a precedent for overturning every council decision ever made. We have been reliably informed however that the councils legal defence is minimal, submitting only three affidavits to the high court judge, one from an unelected representative and two from Councillors (Senator Mark Dearey and Marianne Butler) who attended the meeting at which it was decided to keep the land as habitat and utility. Our sources have informed us that the affidavits are only concerned with the few minutes of the meeting itself and do not present the evidence that councillors were provided with ample information to make their decision wisely and in line with planning advice. Indeed we have also been informed that the Senators affidavit states that the meeting was a Louth County Council meeting and that there was very little discussion on the zoning matter at the meeting. This is certainly not a strong and robust defence of the councillors decision and in fact appears to support McCaughey's case. What kind of a legal agent would present such a weak argument, it seems as though the Council's defence argument is actually trying to lose the case.
The Louth Environmental Group have contacted all of the councillors who voted at the meeting asking them to also submit affidavits to the courts in defence of their informed decision. Few have responded to defend their own decision. This could be because the town clerk sent them all emails advising them not get involved, that the legal agent is dealing with it. Is this the town clerk trying to prevent a judge from getting information that would assist him making a judicial decision?
We have had two meetings with Senator Dearey (pictured) over the last week on this issue. He has confirmed for us that he does not know what is in his affidavit. We tried to tie him down on submitting a second affidavit. We argued that the affidavit in it's present form does not tell the whole truth as it only refers to a few minutes of a meeting rather than reflecting the senator's years of experience as well as the information supplied by residents groups. The senator has made a commitment to examine the affidavit. We asked that he provide a supplemental affidavit. He would not make a commitment but has promised us that he will make sure his evidence reflects his experiences, knowledge and commitment to the issue. A typical politicians response but we are hoping that Mark is willing to furnish a more detailed and robust defence of the councillors decision.
Meanwhile time Marches on. The court case is in a few weeks and it looks as though, without the intervention of sleeping councillors, McCaughey will win this high court battle for lack of a strong council defence. We have built up a file on this matter and will be submitting this with a suggested affidavit for all councillors to submit. We will be providing this to councillors over the week, letting them know that we will be publicising their response. We are also collecting affidavits from residents and local walkers who use the Navy Bank.
We have advised the councillors that under section 140 of the Local Government Act 2001 they have every right to direct the Town clerk and legal agent on how to establish their defence argument. It appears that the councillors allow the unelected officials to direct them instead. This must change, councillors must defend their right to represent the people without interference from unelected officials.
You can help win this case for democracy and accountability. We ask that you all contact your local councillors within the coming week demanding that they submit affidavits in this case defending their decision last year. Point out to them that if McCaughey and Co are allowed to win this, then all informed decisions by our elected representative past and present may be overturned in court cases where oddly weak defences are presented on their behalf. It's time to rattle the cage for informed democracy folks. Together we are strong.
The story behind the case is not only complex but also quite murky. In this article we will try to piece together the shananigans that have led to the high court action but also the odd defence being put forward, apparently on the behalf of our councillors.
A number of years ago the land in question was acquired by McCaughey developments from the Dundalk Port Authority. The land served as a buffer zone surrounding the waste/sewage treatment plant. Buffer zones are standard practice throughout Europe. The lands were also a much used soccer pitch and natural setting with many birds and other forms of wildlife using the area. The area is also prone to flooding and as such prevents other surrounding areas from flooding.
It appears that without much if any consultation with residents and local environmental groups, the land was zoned for residential building in the plans for the Dundalk development plan 2003-2009. The fact that the land was zoned as such is suprising in itself but the details of what happened during and after this decision gives good cause for the people of Dundalk to demand a more accountable and transparent council.
During the creation of the Dundalk and Environs development plan for 2009-2015 the person in charge of presenting and amending maps as the public consultation process progressed made a mistake and forgot to colour the said lands as zoned residential one. Instead it was zoned as Habitat and utility. In an attempt to undo this oversight there was an amendment suggested at the final meeting of the plan and voted on by councillors.
Before the vote residents associations from the lower Point road collated lots of data regarding the land, arguing that it should be kept as it was then, as habitat and utilities. They supplied this information to all of the councillors. The councillors voted eleven to none in favour of keeping the land as habitat. Clearly the information given to the councillors allowed them to make a balanced decision, even though the unelected council officials such as the town clerk argued that the land should be changed back to residential one, as McCaughey developments desired it. The only Councillor to abstain from the vote was Councillor Jim D'Arcy. Funny enough during the creation of the development plan, soon after it was first decided to zone the land res one, it was Jim D'Arcy that, according to McCaughey, called the developer to let him know that the land had been zoned in his favour. A strange contact indeed.
McCaughey developments were not happy with the decision of the councillors and have taken a high court action to have their informed decision overturned, claiming that the councillors voted in a vexatious way, in other words to spite the developer. It is clear however, and there is ample evidence proving that councillors had received plenty of information, indeed the green councillors concerned especially have had much experience in such matters.
This is where things get murky and mysterious indeed. One would expect that the council's legal agent, in defence of the councillors, would launch a strong and robust defence arguing that the councillors were well informed. Indeed, if McCaughey succeeds in this case, it sets a precedent for overturning every council decision ever made. We have been reliably informed however that the councils legal defence is minimal, submitting only three affidavits to the high court judge, one from an unelected representative and two from Councillors (Senator Mark Dearey and Marianne Butler) who attended the meeting at which it was decided to keep the land as habitat and utility. Our sources have informed us that the affidavits are only concerned with the few minutes of the meeting itself and do not present the evidence that councillors were provided with ample information to make their decision wisely and in line with planning advice. Indeed we have also been informed that the Senators affidavit states that the meeting was a Louth County Council meeting and that there was very little discussion on the zoning matter at the meeting. This is certainly not a strong and robust defence of the councillors decision and in fact appears to support McCaughey's case. What kind of a legal agent would present such a weak argument, it seems as though the Council's defence argument is actually trying to lose the case.
The Louth Environmental Group have contacted all of the councillors who voted at the meeting asking them to also submit affidavits to the courts in defence of their informed decision. Few have responded to defend their own decision. This could be because the town clerk sent them all emails advising them not get involved, that the legal agent is dealing with it. Is this the town clerk trying to prevent a judge from getting information that would assist him making a judicial decision?
We have had two meetings with Senator Dearey (pictured) over the last week on this issue. He has confirmed for us that he does not know what is in his affidavit. We tried to tie him down on submitting a second affidavit. We argued that the affidavit in it's present form does not tell the whole truth as it only refers to a few minutes of a meeting rather than reflecting the senator's years of experience as well as the information supplied by residents groups. The senator has made a commitment to examine the affidavit. We asked that he provide a supplemental affidavit. He would not make a commitment but has promised us that he will make sure his evidence reflects his experiences, knowledge and commitment to the issue. A typical politicians response but we are hoping that Mark is willing to furnish a more detailed and robust defence of the councillors decision.
Meanwhile time Marches on. The court case is in a few weeks and it looks as though, without the intervention of sleeping councillors, McCaughey will win this high court battle for lack of a strong council defence. We have built up a file on this matter and will be submitting this with a suggested affidavit for all councillors to submit. We will be providing this to councillors over the week, letting them know that we will be publicising their response. We are also collecting affidavits from residents and local walkers who use the Navy Bank.
We have advised the councillors that under section 140 of the Local Government Act 2001 they have every right to direct the Town clerk and legal agent on how to establish their defence argument. It appears that the councillors allow the unelected officials to direct them instead. This must change, councillors must defend their right to represent the people without interference from unelected officials.
You can help win this case for democracy and accountability. We ask that you all contact your local councillors within the coming week demanding that they submit affidavits in this case defending their decision last year. Point out to them that if McCaughey and Co are allowed to win this, then all informed decisions by our elected representative past and present may be overturned in court cases where oddly weak defences are presented on their behalf. It's time to rattle the cage for informed democracy folks. Together we are strong.
Councillors contact details are availble by clicking this link below......
No comments:
Post a Comment