A number of splinters rippled to the surface in the solidity of Mayo County Council’s united front in the face of Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government John Gormley’s directions to change the development plan as adopted by the council on May 6 this year.
At previous meetings the council members voted unanimously in favour of the plan and fighting to keep it. However at Monday’s meeting some councillors broached the idea of dialogue and compromising with the Minister, point which angered Fine Gael chief whip Paddy McGuinness at the meeting and the next day when he spoke to the Mayo Advertiser. “I was angry about it because it could be interpreted by the Minister that the council was not together on this issue and it was only being driven by two councillors [McGuinness and Fianna Fáil’s Al McDonnell]. Most of the members have got the whole issue that’s at stake but I was angry when one of the more senior members of the council said that we were trying to herd people into Ballina and Castlebar with our plan, when that’s the Minister’s plan, not ours.”
Near the end of Monday evening’s meeting Cllr McGuinness when speaking on the issue of dialogue brought up by a number of councillors, said that they should remember that “The councillors should recall that at every meeting we have discussed this, we have begged the Minister to speak to us and he has refused to do so.”
Sinn Féin Cllr Gerry Murray, having his say on the issue, said that “I could score some cheap political capital on the this issue, but my concerns are in relation to the indigenous people and the difficulties they are having in obtaining planning permission now. I want to see a return to the days when there was full co-operation between the members and the officials. “
Collusion remarks claimed to be offensive
A remark by Fianna Fáil Cllr Al McDonnell that there was collusion between the council officials and members of the Minister’s staff caused offence to the members of the council executive at Monday’s meeting. Cllr McDonnell said, in relation to a meeting to a meeting between senior executives in the council and advisors to the Minister, that the councillors’ investigations had revaled, “disturbing information about collusion between planning officials in Mayo and with senior ministerial staff in Dublin. The purpose of this collusion appears to be intended to undermine the fundamental and statutory rights of the elected members of Mayo County Council and represents an open challenge to our democratic entitlement to consider and adopt a development plan.”
He went on to say that “it’s difficult to believe that any meeting in this regard took place in total isolation and without associated phone calls, emails and possible additional meetings.”
Responding to the claims by Cllr McDonnell, county manager Des Mahon said: “I’d like you to reconsider the word collusion, because it is very hurtful towards the staff. They requested to meet us so we had to.”
This meeting was brought up earlier in the debate and senior planner for Mayo County Council, Ian Douglas, stated that, “There was no record of the meeting because it was an informal one. It was to discuss the submissions that had been received on the plan, there was no decision made at the meeting about anything.”
Second legal opinion sought
The elected members of the council had ordered county manager Des Mahon to solicit legal advice on their behalf in relation to the changes being imposed by Minister Gormley at a previous meeting. At last Monday’s meeting Mr Michael Browne gave the members his legal opinion that “The Minister made a directive, my advice is that an action for judicial review of the decision would be unsuccessful”. The elected members of the council put forward a motion to seek second opinion from BL Stephen Dodd. The council executive agreed to this and the item will be put on the agenda for the October meeting of the council. However a number of the elected members raised concerns in relation to planning applications which have been refused in the recent past as they have to be dealt with under the regions in the development plan as issued by Minister Gormley. The members were able to get an understanding with the executive that no applications are likely to be refused due to the revisions by Minster Gormley and that decisions that had to be made due to the statutory time frame in relation to the decision making would be extended or sent out for further information. No decisionwould be made before the October meeting.
