Agenda item

"That the  illegal and wrong procedure at our 14 December 2020 Meeting RE Item 2 on the Agenda  (CEO ‘s Report To Undertake a Public Realm Improvement Scheme in Mohill and To Modify the curtilage/ front boundary of St Mary’s Church Wall), be revisited by us today and all relevant facts be revealed  about the true extent of this Scheme and  that we be given an undertaking  as to whether, or not, it conforms to all Planning Laws , both National and European."

Report by Director of Services for Economic Development, Planning, Environment and Transportation.

"The procedure carried out at the December Municipal District meeting was neither illegal nor wrong and any statement to that effect is wholly incorrect and without foundation.

As was clarified at the meeting, the relevant legislation (Section 179 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended) provides for modifications to the proposed development by resolution of the Members subsequent to the issuing of the Chief Executives Report as follows:

The proposed development may be carried out as recommended in the chief executive’s report, unless the local authority, by resolution, decides to vary or modify the development, otherwise than as recommended in the chief executive’s report, or decides not to proceed with the development.

It was in the context of this legislative provision that the amendments or modifications were put forward by Cllr Mulligan which were subsequently seconded and resolved by the Municipal District as there was no other counter proposal seconded. The amendments as adopted at the meeting are recorded in the relevant minutes of the meeting which are scheduled to be dealt with before consideration of the submitted Notice of Motion. 

Section 5 of the Chief Executives report already deals in detail with the assessment of the works in regard to all relevant legislation and regulations such as the County Development Plan, environmental and habitat regulations, etc. and the works are therein confirmed to comply fully with all such relevant matters. As part of the Appropriate Assessment process, the proposed works were screened by qualified external ecologists who recommended that the project did not require a Stage II Appropriate Assessment.  External consultants also prepared a report demonstrating that the works did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken. Both recommendations were accepted by the Planning Authority as the ‘competent authority’. Furthermore, relevant elements of the works were also subject to examination and report from a conservation architect along with review by the Development Applications Unit of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and their requirements in regard to the undertaking of an archaeological assessment of the project during construction is fully provided for within the Chief Executives report.

Specifically, with regard to the works proposed to the curtilage / front boundary wall of St. Mary’s Church, these works were specified in the description of the proposed development as advertised and as considered by the conservation architect in their report. The Part 8 was referred to the Development Applications Unit who deal with archaeology, built and natural heritage. No comments were made in the submission received in relation to the works to St. Mary’s Church. The further works to undertake repairs to the pillar and gate as approved by the Municipal District are considered repairs which of themselves are not required to be brought through a Part 8 consultation process. The works are subject to funding being obtained and the advice of a conservation architect to specify the methodology to be employed in undertaking such repair works.

As outlined above this project has been the subject of a rigorous assessment process which has been reported in detail to the Municipal District and clearly confirms to all statutory requirements."

Councillor Des Guckian expressed his disappointment in the way the Public Realm Improvement Scheme in Mohill was dealt with at the Carrick-on-Shannon Municipal District meeting on 18^th December 2020.  Councillor Des Guckian said this was illegal, wrong and it was rushed, and no significant study was undertaken.  Councillor Des Guckian urged Planners and Officials to undertake training in National and European Planning laws.

Councillor Thomas Mulligan queried if he was correct in proposing amendments on the day and he believed this course of action was available to all Members in relation to Part VIII planning matters.

Councillor Enda Stenson said Cllr Mulligan was within his rights to propose amendments to the proposal. The proper democratic decision was made at that meeting and he will stand by it. Councillor Stenson said this is only wasting time, people who have concerns on this issue should fight their legal battles on their own and what is being raised now is nothing but bullying. 

Councillor Sean McGowan supported the comments of Councillor Mulligan and Councillor Stenson and said the amendments proposed on the date were fair and accepted by the Executive and he did not have an issue with how the matter was dealt with.

Councillor Finola Armstrong McGuire concurred with the Councillor Stenson and said that procedures at the last meeting were correct and the amendments proposed were from the “heart of Mohill”.

Mr Joseph Gilhooly advised that the modifications made to the Part 8 are in accordance with legislation.  Members had the option to accept or reject them at the meeting when dealt with. This is similar to the procedures at other meetings giving example of adjustments on the day of a budget meeting.

Mr Joseph Gilhooly said that the Part VIII Public Realm Improvement Scheme for Mohill was quite clear and over 50 submissions were received during the public consultation phase.  Mr Gilhooly said such engagement and debate in the community gives a clear indication that people who read and examined the documentation, clearly understood its contents. The objective of the proposal is to improve the streetscape of Mohill. No private developers are involved in public Realm works such as those proposed.

Mr Joseph Gilhooly stated that he took exception to the comments that officials are not familiar with planning law. The Planning officials are competent, professional people who interpret the planning laws and the comments directed towards them are unfounded and unwarranted.

Mr Joseph Gilhooly outlined the relevant legislation (Section 179 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended) provides for modifications to the proposed development by resolution of the Members subsequent to the issuing of the Chief Executives Report as follows:

The proposed development may be carried out as recommended in the chief executive’s report, unless the local authority, by resolution, decides to vary or modify the development, otherwise than as recommended in the chief executive’s report, or decides not to proceed with the development.

It was in the context of this legislative provision that the modifications were dealt with and there was no other counter proposal seconded. The item in hand has been dealt with in accordance with legislation.

Cllr Guckian stated that no one is better at bullying than this coalition that exists in Leitrim County Council.

Cllr Guckian’s motion was not seconded.