THE sorry rezoning mess alone is reason enough to turf most of the country's city and county councillors out on their ear come the next election.
Every serving politican who calls looking for a vote should be quizzed in great detail about their zoning decisions because it is these people who have left us with a multi-billion euro mess that will take years to sort out. Toddlers with maps and coloured pencils could have made a better fist of proper planning.
Councillors essentially just declared everywhere suitable for housing. No political party is immune from criticism. They were all at it.
We have 114 local authorities for a country with a population of just 4.2 million. There are 1,627 elected members, many of whom have their eye on national politics and a Dail seat.
What the figures from the Department of the Environment show is that none of them had their eye on the ball when it came to their local area, and they have let their communities down dreadfully.
Zoning is a function of 88 local authorities and their councillors. They make the decisions on where is deemed suitable for housing, and the decision is theirs alone.
But we didn't cause the mess, they'll say. We didn't grant permission for all these houses, many of which are lying empty.
True, they didn't. But through their rezoning madness they allowed the situation to be created where planning was expected.
The figures are staggering. A population increase of more than four million people was needed to make proper use of the landbanks zoned.
That this didn't happen is hardly a surprise -- while high, Ireland's birthrate isn't so impressive that we can churn out the numbers of babies needed to become mortgage-holders in the near future.
Cheap credit fuelled the boom and resulted in high prices being paid for land. There was no joined-up thinking on what was good planning, and every council in the country was keen to cash in on development levies -- worth €700m a year at the height of the boom.
But where was the oversight from central government -- which was footing the bill to install water systems, roads and all other utilities -- to support a housing development?
There wasn't any because senior politicians were loathe to get involved in local matters because of the outcry that would arise from their meddling.
Planning is not an exact science, but there is a range of policy documents which are supposed to set out how an area should be developed on a national, regional, county and local level.
But until the new Planning and Development Act, signed into law this summer, local authorities were only required to "have regard" to these strategies instead of being "consistent with" as is now required.
The figures show that in practice they were essentially ignored. That the Government announced decentralisation to towns not earmarked for growth showed there was no leadership from the top.
But the Environment Minister did have the power to step in and issue a direction for a local authority to de-zone land, although it was rarely used.
Between 2004 and 2008 they intervened in six development plans belonging to Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, Laois, Monaghan, Castlebar, Mayo and Waterford.
Four of those interventions came from the present minister, John Gormley. One case, that of Mayo, perhaps best illustrates the thought process that has led us to the current mess.
In 2007, councillors proposed zoning six times the amount needed to meet future demand in its county development plan.
The Department of the Environment expressed concerns, including one that instead of clear, robust policies being implemented, there were "non-specific principles".
The county manager said it went against professional advice, and could lead a deterioration in drinking water quality
Notwithstanding the issues raised, the councillors adopted the plan.
When the minister stepped in and forced them to de-zone, they told the Dail Environment committee they were "astounded" he had intervened.
"We are not prepared to allow the meltdown of the social and economic structures of our county. Should the minister's intervention be successful it will ensure the death of rural Mayo," Fianna Fail councillor Al McDonnell told the committee.
It wasn't about one-off housing in rural Ireland. It was about stopping the spread of housing estates outside villages, towns and cities.
It was about leaving some greenfield sites for future generations to enjoy. It was about calling a halt to the madness and trying to have some order on development, instead of developers dictating what should happen.
NOW is the time to decide whether or not we trust local communities (and their politicians) to plan their own futures, or should we leave the decisions with central government?
The current strategy hasn't worked -- 2,700 ghost estates is testament to that. But what's the alternative? Let Dublin decide?
This is the last throw of the dice for the councillors. In the next year, they will have to bring their plans in line with national policy. And when the dust settles, and the country gets off its knees, those toddlers better have grown up.
We can't afford to get it wrong again.
Paul Melia
Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label rezoning and planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rezoning and planning. Show all posts
Monday, 11 October 2010
Monday, 7 December 2009
Department criticised for allowing the rezoning of flood plain
THE wisdom of a decision by Offaly councillors and the Department of the Environment to facilitate the rezoning of a flood plain outside Tullamore has been called into question.
The Tullamore West flood plain, on the banks of the Grand Canal, was rezoned last year to allow for a €30 million housing development to be developed on 60 acres of land.
In the Irish Mail on Sunday Fine Gael councillor Tommy McKeigue called on the plan to be scrapped and the rezoning to be revoked.
He said in the context of recent flooding it was unwise to allow building on natural drainage areas.
And he called on Environment Minister John Gormley to intervene and questioned why his department had sanctioned the rezoning proposal.
"Mr Gormley has been going around for the past week blaming councillors and councils for developing on flood plains yet he is allowed this rezoning to take place [in 2008].
"Why? He was crying crocodile tears when he was driving down to Cork and those places to examine the flooding," he said.
A spokesman for Mr Gormley said the matter was dealt with at official level and was not handled by the minster directly.
He said ministers only intervened in specific circumstances and this area was considered in the context of the overall development plan for Tullamore and was not an isolated rezoning.
The rezoning proposal was supported by eight Fianna Fáil councillors and two independents.
Five Fine Gael councillors and four independents tried unsuccessfully to block it.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
The Tullamore West flood plain, on the banks of the Grand Canal, was rezoned last year to allow for a €30 million housing development to be developed on 60 acres of land.
In the Irish Mail on Sunday Fine Gael councillor Tommy McKeigue called on the plan to be scrapped and the rezoning to be revoked.
He said in the context of recent flooding it was unwise to allow building on natural drainage areas.
And he called on Environment Minister John Gormley to intervene and questioned why his department had sanctioned the rezoning proposal.
"Mr Gormley has been going around for the past week blaming councillors and councils for developing on flood plains yet he is allowed this rezoning to take place [in 2008].
"Why? He was crying crocodile tears when he was driving down to Cork and those places to examine the flooding," he said.
A spokesman for Mr Gormley said the matter was dealt with at official level and was not handled by the minster directly.
He said ministers only intervened in specific circumstances and this area was considered in the context of the overall development plan for Tullamore and was not an isolated rezoning.
The rezoning proposal was supported by eight Fianna Fáil councillors and two independents.
Five Fine Gael councillors and four independents tried unsuccessfully to block it.
Irish Examiner
www.buckplanning.ie
Friday, 30 October 2009
Jackson Way rezoning action to be heard next year
AN ALLEGED beneficial owner of Jackson Way Properties (JWP), Jim Kennedy, is to give evidence to the High Court disputing claims by jailed lobbyist Frank Dunlop made in support of an action by the Criminal Assets Bureau (Cab) against JWP over its €53 million alleged unjust enrichment from the rezoning of lands in south Dublin.
The action will be heard sometime after October next year and is likely to last up to 12 weeks.
JWP had applied last July to have the action dismissed on grounds a number of affidavits for Cab, including one from Mr Dunlop and another from Det Supt John O’Mahoney of Cab, contained inadmissible hearsay evidence. Cab opposed the motions, describing them as “one last desperate throw of the dice” by JWP to avoid the action.
Mr Justice Kevin Feeney adjourned the case to yesterday to allow JWP file replying affidavits in which the allegedly inadmissible evidence should be specifically identified.
Yesterday, the judge heard several affidavits filed for JWP, including one by Mr Kennedy, with an address in Gibraltar, which took issue with many of the claims made against the company.
The judge also heard JWP is subpoenaing 11 people, including councillors Liam Cosgrave and Tony Fox, for the trial of the action.
Cian Ferriter, for Cab, said it was neither tenable nor practical to determine the motions by JWP at this stage of the proceedings.
Mr Ferriter said JWP was making “a wholesale attack” on the claims by Mr Dunlop but should do that at the full hearing, not via a preliminary motion.
Mr Dunlop would have to examine enormous material given to Cab by the JWP side and there were “logistical difficulties” getting that material to him where he was “presently confined”.
Declan McGrath, for JWP, said there was “a serious issue of principle” relating to the extent to which hearsay evidence is admissible under the 1996 Proceeds of Crime Act. It was his case the Act allowed only a very limited exception to the normal hearsay rule.
Mr Justice Feeney said he received some 13 affidavits, plus large quantities of exhibits, on Wednesday evening and this raised issues about how the case was to proceed.
After exchanges between the sides and the court, it was agreed JWP would not proceed with its motions but the sides would instead try to agree net issues in the case. Both sides also agreed on a timetable for the exchange of further affidavits with a view to the case going to full hearing some time in autumn 2010.
In the action, Cab claims a €53 million hike in the value of 17 acres of lands owned by JWP at Carrickmines after rezoning was a direct result of “corrupt conduct in procuring the rezoning decision” and amounted to “corrupt enrichment” of JWP under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
Cab, which obtained freezing orders over the land in 2005 pending the outcome of its action, believes the rezoning decision was procured by corrupt payments to councillors made by Mr Dunlop.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The action will be heard sometime after October next year and is likely to last up to 12 weeks.
JWP had applied last July to have the action dismissed on grounds a number of affidavits for Cab, including one from Mr Dunlop and another from Det Supt John O’Mahoney of Cab, contained inadmissible hearsay evidence. Cab opposed the motions, describing them as “one last desperate throw of the dice” by JWP to avoid the action.
Mr Justice Kevin Feeney adjourned the case to yesterday to allow JWP file replying affidavits in which the allegedly inadmissible evidence should be specifically identified.
Yesterday, the judge heard several affidavits filed for JWP, including one by Mr Kennedy, with an address in Gibraltar, which took issue with many of the claims made against the company.
The judge also heard JWP is subpoenaing 11 people, including councillors Liam Cosgrave and Tony Fox, for the trial of the action.
Cian Ferriter, for Cab, said it was neither tenable nor practical to determine the motions by JWP at this stage of the proceedings.
Mr Ferriter said JWP was making “a wholesale attack” on the claims by Mr Dunlop but should do that at the full hearing, not via a preliminary motion.
Mr Dunlop would have to examine enormous material given to Cab by the JWP side and there were “logistical difficulties” getting that material to him where he was “presently confined”.
Declan McGrath, for JWP, said there was “a serious issue of principle” relating to the extent to which hearsay evidence is admissible under the 1996 Proceeds of Crime Act. It was his case the Act allowed only a very limited exception to the normal hearsay rule.
Mr Justice Feeney said he received some 13 affidavits, plus large quantities of exhibits, on Wednesday evening and this raised issues about how the case was to proceed.
After exchanges between the sides and the court, it was agreed JWP would not proceed with its motions but the sides would instead try to agree net issues in the case. Both sides also agreed on a timetable for the exchange of further affidavits with a view to the case going to full hearing some time in autumn 2010.
In the action, Cab claims a €53 million hike in the value of 17 acres of lands owned by JWP at Carrickmines after rezoning was a direct result of “corrupt conduct in procuring the rezoning decision” and amounted to “corrupt enrichment” of JWP under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
Cab, which obtained freezing orders over the land in 2005 pending the outcome of its action, believes the rezoning decision was procured by corrupt payments to councillors made by Mr Dunlop.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Intimidation over rezoning claimed
A CLARE county councillor has said he will “name names” after claiming that he and other colleagues were intimidated by representatives of a company that had applied to the local authority to have an area of land in east Clare rezoned.
Meelick-based teacher and council member Cathal Crowe (FF) said he was warned that his “election campaign would be dismantled” if he did not support the company’s application to have land rezoned. Two other councillors also raised concerns about the excessive pressure they claim was brought to bear on them ahead of this month’s meeting of the local authority.
Mr Crowe made the claims during a debate to decide whether the South East Clare Local Area Plan (2009-2015) should be amended to include an application by Zinc Properties to rezone an area of land at the former Burlington plant at Gillogue near Clonlara in east Clare.
Zinc Properties, which owns and operates a “business park” at the site, had submitted an amendment to have a portion of a 28-acre site rezoned for heavy industrial use and 24-hour access. The property houses 12 small businesses, many of which are the subject of council enforcement orders.
At this month’s meeting of the county council, however, the local authority’s legal officer John Shaw said the amendment could not be considered part of the plan as it had not gone out for public consultation and so it was refused.
Mr Crowe claimed: “I was intimidated and got phone calls at all hours threatening to dismantle my election campaign. I got one call late at night warning me that they would tear me to shreds. This is nothing short of bullying and coercion and it is disgraceful.
“There has also been a clear breach of ethics here. We had a meeting in camera some weeks ago where we discussed this matter, but within hours of that meeting taking place people knew who voted and how they voted, and that is a breach of a clear code of conduct. Somebody in our midst is quick to run with stories from meetings. I am taking this matter very seriously and I am considering whether I will make a formal complaint to gardaí.
“I challenge everyone who was at that meeting to name who it was that put the voting record in the public domain. I will name names,” Mr Crowe said.
Brian Whelan, a spokesman for owners Zinc Properties, said: “Nobody associated with this company intimidated or threatened any councillor and no calls were made to anyone at inappropriate times. This is not the decision we wanted, but there is planning on site since 1974 and some land is zoned for light industrial and we will utilise that and consider our position in relation to the refusal to allow our amendment at a later date.”
Meanwhile, residents living close to the plant at Gillogue have welcomed news that the council rejected the amendment.
A spokesperson for the Gillogue Residents’ Association said: “As residents, we all fully support development within our community. Our only condition has been that this should be done ethically, democratically and within the formal planning process.”
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Meelick-based teacher and council member Cathal Crowe (FF) said he was warned that his “election campaign would be dismantled” if he did not support the company’s application to have land rezoned. Two other councillors also raised concerns about the excessive pressure they claim was brought to bear on them ahead of this month’s meeting of the local authority.
Mr Crowe made the claims during a debate to decide whether the South East Clare Local Area Plan (2009-2015) should be amended to include an application by Zinc Properties to rezone an area of land at the former Burlington plant at Gillogue near Clonlara in east Clare.
Zinc Properties, which owns and operates a “business park” at the site, had submitted an amendment to have a portion of a 28-acre site rezoned for heavy industrial use and 24-hour access. The property houses 12 small businesses, many of which are the subject of council enforcement orders.
At this month’s meeting of the county council, however, the local authority’s legal officer John Shaw said the amendment could not be considered part of the plan as it had not gone out for public consultation and so it was refused.
Mr Crowe claimed: “I was intimidated and got phone calls at all hours threatening to dismantle my election campaign. I got one call late at night warning me that they would tear me to shreds. This is nothing short of bullying and coercion and it is disgraceful.
“There has also been a clear breach of ethics here. We had a meeting in camera some weeks ago where we discussed this matter, but within hours of that meeting taking place people knew who voted and how they voted, and that is a breach of a clear code of conduct. Somebody in our midst is quick to run with stories from meetings. I am taking this matter very seriously and I am considering whether I will make a formal complaint to gardaí.
“I challenge everyone who was at that meeting to name who it was that put the voting record in the public domain. I will name names,” Mr Crowe said.
Brian Whelan, a spokesman for owners Zinc Properties, said: “Nobody associated with this company intimidated or threatened any councillor and no calls were made to anyone at inappropriate times. This is not the decision we wanted, but there is planning on site since 1974 and some land is zoned for light industrial and we will utilise that and consider our position in relation to the refusal to allow our amendment at a later date.”
Meanwhile, residents living close to the plant at Gillogue have welcomed news that the council rejected the amendment.
A spokesperson for the Gillogue Residents’ Association said: “As residents, we all fully support development within our community. Our only condition has been that this should be done ethically, democratically and within the formal planning process.”
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
Quashing of council's ruling sought
A GREEN Party councillor has asked the High Court to overturn a decision that a Wicklow Fianna Fáil councillor and solicitor had not breached ethics legislation in proposing and voting for a quarry rezoning motion without disclosing that his law firm was acting for the quarry owner in legal proceedings.
The action by Deirdre de Búrca centres on the construction of certain provisions of the Local Government Act 2001, enacted to provide an ethical framework for local government.
The conclusion by Wicklow County Council’s ethics committee in its June 15th, 2005, report that Fachtna Whittle had acted unwisely but not in breach of the ethics legislation, was fundamentally flawed, Gerard Hogan SC, for Ms de Búrca, argued yesterday. The decision set an ethical standard for county councils which the Oireachtas could not have intended, he added.
Mr Hogan argued that the report failed to address the central question, whether Mr Whittle had a beneficial or declarable interest in the lands within the meaning of the relevant ethics legislation.
The report had fundamentally misconstrued the law in that it applied the normal meaning of “beneficial interest”, not its meaning within the terms of the relevant provisions of the 2001 Act, he submitted.
Mr Whittle was a solicitor acting for the landowner and it was impossible to see how this could not be material to the rezoning motion, Mr Hogan argued.
In proceedings before Mr Justice John Hedigan, Ms de Búrca wants an order quashing the June 2005 report. The action is against the Wicklow county manager and the chair of Wicklow County Council, with Mr Whittle as notice party.
The report was compiled after Ms de Búrca formally complained to the ethics registrar of the council about Mr Whittle’s conduct during a council meeting on the county development plan on July 12th, 2004.
Mr Whittle had proposed the rezoning of lands at Ballylusk, Ashford, to extend an existing quarry there. Ms de Búrca claimed he breached the ethics provisions because he failed to disclose that the solicitors’ firm of which he is principal was acting for the quarry owner in legal proceedings concerning the site’s planning status.
Ms de Búrca claims Mr Whittle should not have proposed the motion or voted for it. However, the report of the ethics registrar concluded, while it was “unwise” and an “error of judgment” for Mr Whittle to have proposed the rezoning motion because of his firm’s involvement in legal proceedings regarding the lands, he had no beneficial or pecuniary interest in the lands and no declarable interest in the lands for the purpose of the legislation.
Ms de Búrca said the report was also critical of her in that it noted she had not attended the inquiry. She said she did not do so because she had made a formal complaint and it was for the respondents to construe the legislation on the basis of uncontradicted facts.
In submissions yesterday, Mr Hogan argued that section 176 of the Local Government Act 2001 converted the professional involvement of Mr Whittle with regard to the quarry lands into a “beneficial interest” within the meaning of the Act, as Mr Whittle had actual knowledge that he had a declarable interest in relation to the rezoning resolution proposed.
The Act imposed an obligation on professional persons to disclose that beneficial interest in respect of discrete motions or resolutions before the council, Mr Hogan added.
The case continues today.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
The action by Deirdre de Búrca centres on the construction of certain provisions of the Local Government Act 2001, enacted to provide an ethical framework for local government.
The conclusion by Wicklow County Council’s ethics committee in its June 15th, 2005, report that Fachtna Whittle had acted unwisely but not in breach of the ethics legislation, was fundamentally flawed, Gerard Hogan SC, for Ms de Búrca, argued yesterday. The decision set an ethical standard for county councils which the Oireachtas could not have intended, he added.
Mr Hogan argued that the report failed to address the central question, whether Mr Whittle had a beneficial or declarable interest in the lands within the meaning of the relevant ethics legislation.
The report had fundamentally misconstrued the law in that it applied the normal meaning of “beneficial interest”, not its meaning within the terms of the relevant provisions of the 2001 Act, he submitted.
Mr Whittle was a solicitor acting for the landowner and it was impossible to see how this could not be material to the rezoning motion, Mr Hogan argued.
In proceedings before Mr Justice John Hedigan, Ms de Búrca wants an order quashing the June 2005 report. The action is against the Wicklow county manager and the chair of Wicklow County Council, with Mr Whittle as notice party.
The report was compiled after Ms de Búrca formally complained to the ethics registrar of the council about Mr Whittle’s conduct during a council meeting on the county development plan on July 12th, 2004.
Mr Whittle had proposed the rezoning of lands at Ballylusk, Ashford, to extend an existing quarry there. Ms de Búrca claimed he breached the ethics provisions because he failed to disclose that the solicitors’ firm of which he is principal was acting for the quarry owner in legal proceedings concerning the site’s planning status.
Ms de Búrca claims Mr Whittle should not have proposed the motion or voted for it. However, the report of the ethics registrar concluded, while it was “unwise” and an “error of judgment” for Mr Whittle to have proposed the rezoning motion because of his firm’s involvement in legal proceedings regarding the lands, he had no beneficial or pecuniary interest in the lands and no declarable interest in the lands for the purpose of the legislation.
Ms de Búrca said the report was also critical of her in that it noted she had not attended the inquiry. She said she did not do so because she had made a formal complaint and it was for the respondents to construe the legislation on the basis of uncontradicted facts.
In submissions yesterday, Mr Hogan argued that section 176 of the Local Government Act 2001 converted the professional involvement of Mr Whittle with regard to the quarry lands into a “beneficial interest” within the meaning of the Act, as Mr Whittle had actual knowledge that he had a declarable interest in relation to the rezoning resolution proposed.
The Act imposed an obligation on professional persons to disclose that beneficial interest in respect of discrete motions or resolutions before the council, Mr Hogan added.
The case continues today.
Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
Department warns against further zoning of land in Moate
THE Department of the Environment has warned Westmeath County Council not to zone any more land in Moate, saying that too much zoning has taken place in the town of late.
In addition, an objective stating that only 50% of the existing land zoned residential should be released before 2014, with the remainder to be developed after that year.
Moate is one of four Westmeath towns - along with Kilbeggan, Delvin and Castlepollard - which were singled out by the Department of the Environment for having too much re-zoning take place in recent years.
In county manager Danny McLoughlin's report on public submissions relating to the Moate Town Plan, he stated that sufficient lands are currently available to provide for any population increase in Moate "until 2014 and beyond."
The county manager stated that no more zoning would take place in Moate or the other three towns mentioned by the Department for the foreseeable future, except in cases where a particular retail, commercial Or educational shortfall was identified.
The Department has expressed its wish to see the existing zoned land developed on a carefully managed basis before any further development takes place.
In his report on Moate, Mr McLoughlin said that the town's population rose by 24.2% between 2002 and 2006. The town's population stood at 1,888 in 2006 and, the report stated, "there are sufficient lands zoned in the draft town plan to provide a further population increase of 7,056 people, which is adequate to provide for the planned growth of the town to 2014 and beyond."
The report added: "In response to the Department's submission, it is accepted that such a growth needs to be managed carefully to ensure Moate can achieve a critical mass to support its growing urban and extensive rural hinterland but also that such a growth would not compete with the accelerated growth of the nearby linked gateway towns of Athlone and Tullamore."
Additional lands "remote from the town" should not be zoned in order to "ensure a proper consolidated and concentric sustainable growth of the town," the report stated.
In response to requests for land to be re-zoned for enterprise and employment, the county manager's report stated that 13.5ha is presently available in Moate for this purpose, however it did consent to land to the north and north west of the town's business park being re-zoned for the same purpose.
In total, over 400 submissions relating to the draft County Development Plan for 2008-14 were received by the Council.
Adrian Cusack
Westmeath Independent
Posted by bps planning consultants - www.buckplanning.ie
In addition, an objective stating that only 50% of the existing land zoned residential should be released before 2014, with the remainder to be developed after that year.
Moate is one of four Westmeath towns - along with Kilbeggan, Delvin and Castlepollard - which were singled out by the Department of the Environment for having too much re-zoning take place in recent years.
In county manager Danny McLoughlin's report on public submissions relating to the Moate Town Plan, he stated that sufficient lands are currently available to provide for any population increase in Moate "until 2014 and beyond."
The county manager stated that no more zoning would take place in Moate or the other three towns mentioned by the Department for the foreseeable future, except in cases where a particular retail, commercial Or educational shortfall was identified.
The Department has expressed its wish to see the existing zoned land developed on a carefully managed basis before any further development takes place.
In his report on Moate, Mr McLoughlin said that the town's population rose by 24.2% between 2002 and 2006. The town's population stood at 1,888 in 2006 and, the report stated, "there are sufficient lands zoned in the draft town plan to provide a further population increase of 7,056 people, which is adequate to provide for the planned growth of the town to 2014 and beyond."
The report added: "In response to the Department's submission, it is accepted that such a growth needs to be managed carefully to ensure Moate can achieve a critical mass to support its growing urban and extensive rural hinterland but also that such a growth would not compete with the accelerated growth of the nearby linked gateway towns of Athlone and Tullamore."
Additional lands "remote from the town" should not be zoned in order to "ensure a proper consolidated and concentric sustainable growth of the town," the report stated.
In response to requests for land to be re-zoned for enterprise and employment, the county manager's report stated that 13.5ha is presently available in Moate for this purpose, however it did consent to land to the north and north west of the town's business park being re-zoned for the same purpose.
In total, over 400 submissions relating to the draft County Development Plan for 2008-14 were received by the Council.
Adrian Cusack
Westmeath Independent
Posted by bps planning consultants - www.buckplanning.ie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)