Has Gormley backed into a boreen?
Councillors believe the logic behind their proposals is sound, though the Minister sees it differently
News Feature
Áine Ryan
THE FACT the row between Green Party Environment Minister, John Gormley, and Mayo county councillors is over an issue underpinned by the classic urban-rural divide ensures the gravity of the impasse. Moreover, it also ensures that Oireachtas members from rural constituencies countrywide, and from across the party divide, will keep an eagle eye on the inevitable turns and twists of the Mayo saga.
The fact it has erupted in the lead-up to next year’s local elections further ensures that it will not be swept under the chamber carpet. Nor will it be compromised upon. Not by Mayo county councillors anyway.
But what exactly is the row about? And is the divide between the councillors and the Minister insurmountable? Not if he listened instead of doling out diktats, the councillors claim.
On July 11 last, Minister John Gormley wrote to the County Manager, Mr Des Mahon, directing him to amend aspects of the recently-instituted County Development Plan 2008-2014. Eight days earlier (July 3) the plan – which had overwhelming and unanimous cross-party support – had been signed into law.
Significantly, in the preceding months, potential problem subjects – such as single rural housing – had been the subject of a survey and a series of workshops by the majority Fine Gael members of the Council.
Back to Minister Gormley’s direction – to be implemented by way of a variation. It aims to amend parts of the development plan, which effectively ease restrictions on single rural housing. In his letter to the Manager he points to the objectives of the National Spatial Strategy (NSS) and both Castlebar and Ballina’s role as linked hubs in this. In short, he emphasises that priority must be given to the development of these two hub towns and zonings outside certain urban boundaries must revert to ‘rural character’.
On the other hand, Fine Gael councillor, Paddy McGuinness, explains: “The councillors were saying that if a person applies for planning permission and if the application meets a number of key criteria, then they should be given permission regardless of where they are.”
These criteria were simple: “A, trial-hole tests prove that waste issues can be addressed, without damage to the water tables; B, a traffic hazard is not created; C, the visual amenity is not infringed upon.
“If the planning application meets these three criteria, we are saying let them build. There should be no prior zoning,” Cllr McGuinness says succinctly.
He accuses the Minister of imposing a Bible for planning, ‘with no room for debate’.
“Instead, we are saying ‘here’s an alternative’ and can we sit down and talk to you about it. But don’t treat us like school children,” he continued.
However, to date the Minister has shown no sign of compromise. His direction was made under Section 31 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which has only been invoked on two previous occasions.
Meanwhile, the councillors also have a trump card with their powers under the Local Government Act 2001. It is, ironically, the County Manager who is left in an invidious position, stuck between the two acts.
“I think the Manager has been put in an impossible position. On the one hand the Minister has legislation to direct the Manager but similarly the elected members have powers to direct the Manager under the Local Government Act 2001,” observed Cllr McGuinness.
Of course, dialogue is not the only option open to the councillors. The councillors will examine every route of challenging Minister Gormley’s direction, including the legal one, if necessary.
“We are looking at every way of challenging the Minister’s decision, politically, on a local and national level, logically, and if it requires a legal challenge, well so be it,” concluded Cllr McGuinness.
