Planning officer contests dismissal

The senior executive planning officer of Donegal County Council, Mr Gerard Convie, has been granted High Court leave to challenge…

The senior executive planning officer of Donegal County Council, Mr Gerard Convie, has been granted High Court leave to challenge the legality of a ministerial decision consenting to his dismissal from the post. Mr Eoin McGonigal SC told Mr Justice Murphy that Mr Convie was currently suspended from the position.

He said that on August 14th the Minister for Environment and Local Government had consented to his removal as planning officer for the county. Mr McGonigal, with Mr Conleth Bradley, for Mr Convie, said the Minister had failed to safeguard Mr Convie's rights to fair procedures and natural and constitutional justice by having refused to grant him an oral hearing.

He said the Minister had failed to comply with a duty to furnish proper and detailed reasons for his decision after Mr Convie had opposed and refuted the conclusions of the county manager, who had sought ministerial consent to Mr Convie's dismissal.

The court was told that Mr Convie had been suspended on grounds of alleged breach of legal requirements relating to lands in which he may have had an interest and a planning permission associated with the lands.

READ MORE

He was granted leave for a judicial review seeking to quash the Minister's decision consenting to his removal as chief planning officer. He was also granted an injunction restraining the county manager from acting on the Minister's consent to dismiss him.

Mr Convie, of Glen Road, Curlyhill, Strabane, Co Tyrone, said he believed the county manager intended sacking him yesterday evening. He said that in July last year the county manager, having told him of his intention to suspend him, had sought ministerial consent for his removal.

He said the manager had concluded he had misconducted himself and had been in serious breach of duty in that he might have had an interest in land at Magheroarty which had been the subject of an application for planning permission and that he might have sought to influence the decision on permission to develop.

The manager had concluded there was prima facie evidence that his conduct had been in serious breach of the legal requirements relating to disclosure and the use of influence. "I do not accept and totally refute the county manager's conclusions," Mr Convie said.

He said the matter concerned 16.5 acres of land in four plots at Magheroarty. He had entered into an agreement to buy in trust the overall lands and subsequently agreed with a local developer, Mr Patrick Doherty, that he would take over the purchase of 11.5 acres of the lands while he, Mr Convie, would retain the other five acres.

He said the 11.5 acres taken over by Mr Doherty were in two plots on one side of a public road and his five acres was on the other side of the road. "At all material times I acted with probity with regard to all the relevant planning applications concerning the subject property and made the required statutory declarations," Mr Convie said.