Ballina Local Planning Objections - Fear of Retaliation

Residents feel that they cannot lodge a planning objection to any ‘Council sponsored' projects without facing ‘punishment' down the road. Hence, they contact groups and agencies from outside the county to submit objections on their behalf. This is the feedback from quite a number of people to an article published in last week's Mayo Echo, in which Ballina Councillor Michelle Mulherin questioned the motivation behind the latest objection to An Bord Pleanala regarding the Ballina Pedestrian Bridge project by Peter Sweetman.

One elderly Ballina businesswoman explained it well, "Over the years, it has become common knowledge that if you cause trouble with the council, they will cause trouble with you. You will have difficulty getting planning permission, you mightn't get commercial contracts, and your children will be wasting their time applying for jobs in the council.

Residents feel that they cannot lodge a planning objection to any ‘Council sponsored' projects without facing ‘punishment' down the road. Hence, they contact groups and agencies from outside the county to submit objections on their behalf. This is the feedback from quite a number of people to an article published in last week's Mayo Echo, in which Ballina Councillor Michelle Mulherin questioned the motivation behind the latest objection to An Bord Pleanala regarding the Ballina Pedestrian Bridge project by Peter Sweetman.

One elderly Ballina businesswoman explained it well, "Over the years, it has become common knowledge that if you cause trouble with the council, they will cause trouble with you. You will have difficulty getting planning permission, you mightn't get commercial contracts, and your children will be wasting their time applying for jobs in the council. The council are the biggest employer in the county, and although there is plenty of work around now, a few years ago the position was entirely different. A job in the council was seen as a safe number, but you needed a bit of pull to get in there."

Indeed, in 2006, Castlebar businessman and County Councillor, Paddy McGuinness alleged that a ‘personal vendetta' against a planning applicant had resulted in the application being turned down. Although it was reported later that Cllr. McGuinness had withdrawn the allegation, few people were surprised that such a thing might occur, they were just surprised that someone had the gumption to voice the allegation. The fear of discrimination lasts to this day. All of those who contacted this paper did so on condition of anonymity. One Ballina resident has put together a reply to Cllr. Mulherin's allegations which we publish in full this week.

Dear Editor,

I was saddened and angered to see an article in last week's edition of your paper entitled "Mulherin Accuses Environmentalist of Abusing the Planning System". In the article Cllr Michelle Mulherin, of Ballina Town Council attacked a Mr. Peter Sweetman, for having lodged an objection with An Bord Pleanála that may further delay the construction of a foot bridge across the River Moy. In the article she speaks about "democracy" "consultation" and "environment". This reader's definition and understanding of these words is very different from Cllr. Mulherin's understanding of them. I would like to deal with each of these words in turn.

"Democracy" : I believe Cllr. Mulherin's criticisms are reminiscent of a spoilt child throwing all of her toys out of the pram because thus far she has failed to get her own way. The councillor needs reminding that the right of objection and protest are the very cornerstone upon which any democracy is founded. Remove this facility from the public and we endanger the very fabric of society - in this instance the word dictatorship comes to mind. Just look at the proposed Canalside car park fiasco which is connected to the issue of the foot bridge in the An Bord Pleanála report. As a result of public protest a decision was made on the 20th of July 2006 by a majority of Councillors not to proceed with the destruction of this green river bank area. Did Cllr Mulhern, as a believer in democracy feel compelled to defend this democratic vote? Why no, she welcomed the reversal of the decision when the issue was undemocratically brought back on to the table for a second vote on January 18th 2007.

As a resident of the town I have often heard the complaint expressed that the people of Ballina are not bothered or don't take enough interest in their own town. In this instance they did take an interest. Ballina Town Council received a total of 181 submissions on the issue of which only 31 were favourable to a car park while a staggering 150 submissions expressed the wish to see this unspoilt area enhanced as an amenity for the public. Did this democratic expression of interest carry any weight in the council chamber or with Cllr Mulherin? Sadly the answer is no!

Consultation : Cllr. Mulherin's understanding of the word consultation is very different to mine. Let's look at the "consultation and compromise" process that took place in relation to the proposed foot bridge. She mentions three groups as stakeholders; The North Western Regional Fisheries Board, The Ballina Salmon Anglers Association and The National Parks and Wildlife Service. Firstly I believe that the Ballina Salmon Anglers were "facilitated" in their objection for no other reason than fear. If the anglers were ignored there was the potential for a mass protest inclusive of both the angling community in Ballina and from much further afield. This protest would have included the submission of a public petition which risked drawing too much negative public attention on the council and their activities. The Council's facilitation of the anglers was a matter of convenience and nothing more. While The North Western Fisheries Board had no outright objection, there were however preconditions. This government agency took the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" attitude in that as a pre-condition of not objecting, the council would agree the re- turn of property which they had previously taken from the NWR Fisheries Board by way of Compulsory Purchase Order.

Now let's look at the consultation process which took place with the National Parks and Wildlife Service or lack of, to be more precise. The evidence is damning. It would be an understatement to say that I believe the National Parks and Wildlife Service must be incensed by the behaviour of the Ballina Town Council. Here is what they had to say about the consultation process "contrary to the arrangements that this Department has with all planning authorities whereby planning applications that may have an impact on the natural heritage are referred to the Department's local wildlife staff as well as to this Unit, this application was not referred to the Department's local wildlife staff". Their representative goes on to say "I would be grateful if the Council could defer making a decision on this planning application until this Department is able to submit its nature conservation comments to you". This request was met with stunning arrogance in the council chamber as they chose to ignore this call and proceed with a vote just two days after the letter arrived! This is not the only instance when the National Parks and Wildlife Service had cause to express serious concern.

Here is what they had to say about the Council's consultation on the issue of the proposed Canalside car park "The National Parks and Wildlife Service of this Department were not consulted initially - - NPWS should have been sent the papers for comment -- rather than in an ad hoc manner, as was the case, a few days before the council meeting where the development was due to be voted on. The appropriate mechanisms for consultation were not followed in this instance". One wonders how this equates to Cllr Mulherin's statement in last week's edition of the paper when she said "consideration of environmental matters are part and parcel of the Council's routine deliberations on all developments". If this is what Cllr. Mulherin considers to be the definition of consultation and environmental consideration there is something seriously wrong!

This leads me to comment on the Cllr.'s initial statement "Abuse of the planning system". Just who is abusing the planning system I ask? When the private citizen of this town is put to the pin of their collar to abide by planning and development regulation, should we expect anything less from our local authority and those elected to it?

Environment : The River Moy has been designated as a Special Area of Conservation by the European Union primarily because it is a freshwater salmonoid river. Its importance is not just national it's European. The most significant part of this river is to be found flowing through Ballina. It's called the "Ridge Pool" this tiny stretch of water is possibly the single most lucrative piece of salmon fishery in Western Europe. Approximately a third of the annual recorded catch of salmon taken from the whole length of the River Moy comes from this tiny location. I applaud anyone native or outsider who has the interest of our river at heart. It seems utterly ridiculous to endanger in any way this priceless amenity and source of tourism revenue, every attention should be paid to the environmental objection.



The pedestrian footbridge was conceived as a grandiose entrance to a proposed Arts Centre and Theatre the funding for which has presently fallen through. Are we serious in wanting to spend over 1 million euros on a bridge that gets no one anywhere any faster? In my opinion the idea of a pedestrian bridge has great merit - it's just in the wrong place. If this bridge were to span the river at the Ballina town park on the Sligo Rd. it would serve as a much-needed connection between some of the towns outstanding amenities. It would provide people in the Ardnaree, Bunree, Sligo Rd. and Riverslade area with direct pedestrian access to the Ballina athletic track, the Ballina soccer pitch and the beautiful amenity of Beleek Woods, likewise it would provide the residents of Bachelor's Walk, Castle Rd, Castle Court and the Beleek area with easy pedestrian access to the beautiful town park. It would greatly shorten the distance travelled by residents in both these areas when the want to access the amenities on the opposite riverbank. Importantly it would also mean that there was less danger to the ecology of the riverbed during construction as this is a tidal area and not a freshwater section of river. In conclusion I wish to state that I have no connection

to Mr. Peter Sweetman but support and applaud him. By no means are his actions "tedious and technical" in fact An Bord Pleanála recently upheld one of his objections relating to the proposed decentralisation of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to a location at Knock Airport, because Mayo County Council had broke so many planning regulations and codes in relation to granting permission. This issue has resolved itsself in that now the offices will be located at Charlestown, a move that even Minister O'Cuiv has said in a radio interview, was in hindsight probably the better option in the end. I believe that Cllr. Mulherin also holds a seat on Mayo County Council! I would like Cllr. Mulherin to understand that although, like many, I am weary of our council's behaviour I am not asleep to what goes on. Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes and give us open, accountable, and democratic local government. After all that is what the people of Ballina voted for.

Name and address with editor,

(for reasons outlined).

(c) Mayo Echo