THE LEGAL validity of the entire Galway City Development Plan is in doubt arising from what a High Court judge described yesterday as a “spat” between the mayor of Galway and Independent councillor Catherine Connolly during a council meeting last January which approved the plan.
Ms Connolly remained at the council meeting on January 24th last and seconded the resolution approving the City Development Plan 2011-2017 although the council had earlier passed a motion requiring her to leave the meeting arising from a dispute between her and the mayor, Councillor Michael Crowe (FF).
Michael O’Higgins, a local businessman, former Fianna Fáil councillor and former mayor of Galway, had opposed a material amendment of the plan which had the effect of rejecting the designation of lands owned by his company at Rahoon as a “district centre”.
The designation of the lands as a district centre would enhance its commercial value and facilitate the development of a Tesco foodstore, he said.
However, the council supported the material amendment by eight votes to seven and passed a resolution providing that any proposed development “shall maintain the existing Rahoon Road building line and include appropriate landscaping”.
Mr O’Higgins has brought proceedings seeking to quash that decision and his case raises issues about the validity of the entire development plan, it emerged yesterday.
In proceedings transferred by Mr Justice Peter Kelly to the Commercial Court yesterday, Mr O’Higgins claims the amendment sanctioned by the council resolution of January 24th last is invalid because Ms Connolly remained and voted at the meeting despite the earlier motion requiring her to leave the meeting.
Eamon Galligan SC, for Mr O’Higgins, said there was no dispute about what had occurred at the meeting but the consequences of that had to be teased out.
John Gallagher SC, for the council, said it was very anxious the case be quickly heard and determined as there was an issue of whether it affected the validity of the entire process.
Mr Justice Kelly noted there was no dispute about the facts, that Ms Connolly had voted at the meeting despite the fact she had an argument with the mayor as a result of which a resolution was passed for her removal. The issue was the legal consequences of that “spat”, he said, and fixed the case for hearing next month.
Mr O’Higgins, Ceann Boirne, Taylor’s Hill, Galway, and his company, T O’hUiginn and Comhlucht Teoranta, are seeking court orders overturning the council’s vote relating to his lands.
He wants an order providing for a district centre designation for the lands or, alternatively, an order requiring the council retake the vote in accordance with its standing orders.
Mr O’Higgins claims the presence of Ms Connolly at the council meeting, and her participation in the vote on the city development plan, breached the standing orders and also breached provisions of the Local Government Act 2001.
