The High Court has ruled that a joint motion passed by Galway city councillors amending a Traveller accommodation plan for Galway city did not breach the council’s legal obligations to address accommodation needs of Travellers in its area.
Mr Justice Bryan McMahon yesterday found the amended plan, published by the council in 2009, contained an “explicit commitment” to provide two residential halting sites by 2012 and met the perceived and defined needs for halting sites as identified by the council. He has adjourned the case to next week to allow the sides consider his ruling.
Several Traveller families had brought proceedings alleging the motion led to the council adopting a Traveller accommodation plan for 2009-2013 which failed to ensure two additional halting sites would be provided when the sites were identified by the council as required to meet the needs of 133 Traveller families.
The council had insisted provision of the two sites in 2012 remains its objective “subject to availability of land and resources”, and the plan sufficiently recognised that commitment.
Mr Justice McMahon yesterday gave judgment on a preliminary issue concerning the effect of the “joint motion” passed on February 2009 after “a lively debate” on the draft Traveller accommodation plan put before councillors.
Minutes of the meeting showed some councillors were concerned with the provision of any halting sites in the city and it was clearly “a political issue", he said. While there was confusion, having carefully read the minutes he believed what happened was that motions to amend the draft plan moved by councillors Mulholland and Lyons were passed as a joint motion and removed two paragraphs from the draft plan.
Although those paragraphs included a statement that the plan “includes provision for two sites”, the plan still contained sufficient recognition of the identified accommodation needs of the applicants and an explicit commitment to provide the two sites by 2012, he said.
The motion, passed by 11 votes to zero with four abstentions, did not “emasculate” the plan in the manner suggested.
The judge also ruled the council, since February 2009, has continued to fulfil its statutory obligations under the Traveller accommodation plan and had taken appropriate steps to achieve the objective of provision of two halting sites.It was also of significance, after the case was taken, that the city manager took legal advice after which he told councillors last year the case would be defended on the basis the adopted plan made clear it was an objective of the council “to provide the accommodation for Travellers, including two halting sites (subject to availability of land and resources )”. No councillor had objected to that interpretation.
In their action, the applicants alleged the council sought injunctions to move them on from Millar’s Lane, Rahoon, without providing them with suitable alternative accommodation.
When they moved from Millar’s Lane to the Carrowbrowne transient halting site, the council also sought injunctions requiring them to leave there.
The local authority claimed it has begun the process of providing the two sites and the Department of the Environment had agreed in principle to provide funding for those. It alleged some of the applicants only recently moved to Galway city, while others had left accommodation provided for them and trespassed onto council property in a deliberate attempt to gain priority over others on the housing list.
The Galway City Council has also appealed to An Bord Pleanala against the Galway County Council’s refusal of March 2009 to grant temporary permission to the city council to use a site at Carrowbrowne as a “temporary transient site” for Travellers.
An inspector with Bord Pleanala had reported the Traveller accommodation plan adopted by the city council suggested a number of Traveller families have immediate housing requirements, while Galway city had one transient site for Travellers operating at full capacity.
