Demands for inquiry over bungled €4m land deal

Meath County Council officials are coming under increasing pressure to explain the sequence of events leading to a court case in which an award of €4 million was made against it following the sale to a developer of a two-acre site in Ashbourne. Two Meath TDs and a number of councillors have expressed serious concern about the council's role in the case, described by a High Court judge as "bungling and ineptitude of a high order". Judge Peter Kelly found that Darlington Properties Ltd bought the site in Ashbourne from the council in 2006 for €4.5m after being told that a new road linking the land to the new town centre was to be built on it. However, the company later found that the council had already granted planning permission (in 2005) on another site which made the building of the road impossible. The judge said this was an extraordinary tale of error after error being made by the council. He said that if the council had dealt honourably with the case, it might not have resulted in litigation at all. Instead, he said, the indefensible was sought to be defended, giving rise to a large judgment and the costs of a three-day trial, all to be borne by the public purse. After being told that the council is not appealing his findings that it is liable to Darlington but is appealing to the Supreme Court against the size of the €4 million damages award, contending it should be some €2.2 million, Mr Justice Kelly directed the council to pay the company €2.2 million within seven days. While the council expressed acknowledgement and regretted mistakes had been made which led to the case was being taken, it said that the award would not impact on the delivery of services. County manager Tom Dowling told councillors at a briefing last Friday that the €4.51 million was paid into the council's capital account, had not been spent and was still available. He also pointed out that the council made financial provision every year for legal cases and this could also be used to meet any costs associated with the case. However, the council has not explained the series of events which led to it selling a property on a promise that a new road would be provided to facilitate access from the site in question to the centre of Ashbourne, knowing that it had already granted planning permission for a separate development on the route of that proposed road. It said that, as the matter was still before the courts, it would not be making any further comments until the legal proceedings were concluded. While a statement from the county manager was read at Friday's meeting of the council, his refusal to answer questions from councillors led to a walkout by Sinn Fein councillor Joe Reilly and independent councillor Brian Fitzgerald. Cllr Reilly has called for an independent investigation into the affair, while Cllr Fitzgerald, who claimed the councillors were not informed of the pending court case by the council, has put down a motion for the next meeting of the council seeking all council files and documentation in the case. Labour TD Dominic Hannigan said he was sure the county manager would be reflecting on his position "as he knows how serious this is". Deputy Hannigan said that lessons need to be learned from the case. "The planning section and the section dealing with land sales were clearly not aware of what the other was doing. Effectively, they didn't appear to know what was going on next door. Now we have to establish what procedures are being put in place to ensure something like this doesn't happen again," the Labour TD said. Labour Cllr Niamh McGowan said she had felt very uncomfortable at the words used by the judge to describe the council's actions. "We need to get to the bottom of this, one way or the other," she said. Deputy Regina Doherty said she hoped the management team treats this with the seriousness it deserves. "It is the taxpayers of Meath who will be paying, after all," she said. "Measures should be put in place so that no one person in any department can have the sole responsibility for a €4m parcel of land." Cllr Reilly said the strong remarks and judgment by Judge Kelly had to be of serious concern to the executive of Meath County Council, public representatives and taxpayers in Meath. "The refusal of the executive of Meath County Council to inform and to answer questions arising from the High Court decision by the elected members is unacceptable in a democratic forum. "The High Court case raises a number of very serious questions that Meath County Council, as the guardians of the public purse, must answer," he said. "Judge Kelly's remarks reflect badly on all those working for Meath County Council. "As elected members, we were not informed regarding the High Court case and the possible serious financial and reputational damage that could have been done to the council and its members," he added. He said that the judge's findings left many unanswered questions as to how the management of the council carried out its responsibilities from the time of the agreed sale of lands to the decision by the council to go into court to defend its actions. He called on the council or the minister for the environment to appoint an independent investigator to provide a report on all the issues surrounding the sale of the land. Cllr Fitzgerald is tabling a motion for the next meeting of the council calling on the manager to supply all information in his possession, including statement of claim, all documents pertaining to the council's defence, planning files, all emails, internal memos of meetings of council officials, all documents pertaining to the sale of the site to Darlington, and all legal advice obtained during these legal proceedings.