|
REBUKE ISSUED TO FRANK DURCAN OVER PLANNING ALLEGATIONS A stern rebuke has been issued to a member of Castlebar Urban Council, Mr. Frank Durcan, over allegations he made that 'a favour' had been extended in a planning decision to another member of the authority, Mr. Paddy McGuinness. Mr. Durcan claimed it was 'sinister and outrageous' how Mr. McGuinness had been given planning permission for a development at the Old Hat Factory site at Newport Road when the technical advice suggested it was not a suitable project for the location in question. He further alleged that 'a travesty of justice' had been committed by the council's planning office when planning permission was refused to Walter Donoghue for the provision of a soft furnishings outlet at the same location. Now Mr. McGuinness has responded to 'the serious and false charges' made against him. A six-page statement issued by Mr. McGuinness reads as follows. STATEMENT BY PADDY McGUINNESS "At a meeting of Castlebar Urban Districts Council held on November 13th, 1997, Councillor Durcan referred to decisions made by the manager of Castlebar Urban Council in respect of planning applications in which I and my daughter have an interest. I immediately declared my interest in the matter and withdrew from the meeting as I was required to do under the provisions of the Planning Acts. The contents of the discussion at this meeting have since been brought to my attention through the media and others who were present. In view of the seriousness of the allegations made, I feel obliged to reply publicly: 1. On January 23rd, 1997, I applied to Castlebar Urban Council for planning permission for internal sub division of portion of former Hat Factory for retail use and on the 19th March, 1997, planning permission was issued by the council subject to 23 conditions. I have since inspected the file and I set out hereunder the facts: (a) On the March 12th, 1997, Mr. Ian Douglas, Executive Planner with Mayo Council reported that "The proposed retail unit subject to this application and outlined in red to be quite extensive and in this particular instance only may be acceptable". It should be particularly noted that nowhere in the report was there any suggestions that planning permission be refused as was alleged by Councillor Durcan. (b) On the March 19th, 1997, the Planning Officer of Castlebar Urban District Council, namely Mr. Cyril Aitken, B.E. reported in writing to the Town Clerk as follows:- "I recommend that the above Planning Application be granted subject to the following conditions". Mr. Aitken listed twenty three conditions and on the same date, the manager of the Urban Council approved of Mr. Aitken's report and decided to grant permission subject to twenty three conditions. (c) No appeal was lodged with Bord Pleanala and on the 23rd April, 1997, the council issued me with full permission. I made no representations to any official or member of the council regarding this application. THIRTEEN CONDITIONS 2. On the May 22nd, 1997, my daughter Aisling applied to Castlebar Urban District Council for planning permission to convert portion of the first floor of the former Hat Factory to apartments and on the 21st August, 1997, planning permission was issued by the Urban Council subject to thirteen conditions. I have since inspected this file and set out hereunder the facts: (a) On the 11th June, 1997 Mr. Ian Douglas, Executive Planner with Mayo County Council reported to the Town Clerk as follows:- "no objection mixed use desirable". (b) On the 15th July, 1997, Mr. Cyril Aitken, B.E., Planning Officer with Castlebar Urban Council reported to the Town Clerk as follows:- "I hereby recommend the above planning application be granted subject to the following conditions" and he listed thirteen conditions. On the same date, the manager of the Urban District Council approved of Mr. Aitken's report and decided to grant planning permission subject to thirteen conditions. (c) No appeal was lodged with an Bord Pleanala and on the 21st August, 1997, the council granted full planning permission. Neither I or my daughter made representations to any official or member of Castlebar Urban Council regarding this application. The third application referred to by Councillor Durcan was made by Mr. Walter Donahue. I do not propose commenting regarding this application in keeping with my long established practice of not commenting on individual planning applications. I have noted that there is at present a current application from the applicant with the Urban Council for consideration. All of the files in relation to the aforementioned application are available for public inspection by any member of the public and I invite them to so inspect. I have seen no more documents than is available to any member of the public. ALLEGATIONS REFUTED The nature of the allegations made by Councillor Durcan against me at the council meeting held on the 13th November, 1997 were:- (a) That I as elected member of the council abused my position to obtain planning permission "in spite" of the recommendations of the Planning Officer. (b) That this "favour" has compromised me as a Councillor. Although both applications are without foundation they have been given some credence by the fact that Councillor Garavan is quoted as saying the "entire matter posed questions that Councillor McGuinness needed to answer". Any objective examination of the files as I have summarised earlier will reveal this allegation to be without foundation and without an iota of truth. Note that the incontrovertible facts have been clearly outlined, I am hopeful Councillor Garavan will accept that nothing untoward surrounds any of the applications. In fact he may view this sordid episode as a cheap lesson to be on guard against being sucked into controversies which have been initiated by others whose motives may not be as pure as his own. DURCAN'S BEHAVIOUR At each and every meeting held during the period while my application was under consideration, I volunteered to withdraw from the meetings to allow discussion on the applications. I now wish to invite the public to contrast my behaviour regarding the aforementioned applications with Councillor Durcan's behaviour regarding some applications in which he had an interest. Councillor Durcan at meetings of Castlebar Urban Council spoke at length on planning applications for sites at Chapel Street and Gallowshill in which he had interests. He criticised the decisions of the Council on these applications in spite of the fact that when these applications were appealed to An Bord Pleanala, the decisions of the Council were upheld. The public may wonder why Councillor Durcan should make such serious and false charges against me. He is quoted in the local Press as saying "I have no argument with Councillor McGuinness. Good luck to him." I would like to believe that he means this. However, it is well known that my decision not to vote for Councillor Durcan as chairman in 1988 has led to "tension" between us ever since. This is not the first time he has made a personal attack on me. Nor is it the first time he has tried to embarrass me on the Hat Factory application. Some time after I was granted permission there, he raised publicly the question as to how the development was allowed without a connection to the public sewer. He obviously was not aware at the time that this was dealt with as one of the twenty three conditions attaching to my permission. The question I would like to pose now is: how does his concern with sewer arrangements on my premises which has twelve employees, equate with the fact that he acted as an auctioneer in the letting of the entire Hat Factory premises when there were almost two hundred people using toilets in a facility that was not connected to the public sewer? Did he raise the issue then in the Council Chamber? Like many other decent people I find having to enter into this type of comment quite distasteful. However, apart from the need to refute these groundless allegations, I feel there is an onus on me to highlight my views on how Castlebar is being damaged by our performance as an Urban Council. CONSTANT BICKERING Any achievements by any of the organisations with which I have had the privilege of serving have invariably come about through working as a team, through motivating and encouraging staff and showing respect for everyone involved. I have failed to get any semblance of such an approach on Castlebar Urban District Council because Councillor Durcan appeared to regard it as fundamentally wrong to have any kind of co-operation with our officials. The attack on me and the allegations against me puts me into the company of the many fine people who have done their best for Mayo and Castlebar and who have similarly been attacked by Councillor Durcan. This type of constant bickering and fighting shows a very poor and negative image of our Council. Castlebar is a growing and thriving town but much of its development is "in spite of" rather than "because of" our performance as a statutory body representing the town. Its on-going development is being severely challenged by the rapid growth of Westport, Sligo and Galway. If Castlebar is to keep pace with these towns it will require informed, intelligent and progressive leadership from its elected and community representatives. Those who wish to substitute paranoia for leadership are doing our town no service. Finally, I wish to thank the many people who have supported my family and I over the last few difficult weeks. Your encouragement has been a source of comfort to us."
|
