Confusion still appears to reign regarding the planning exemptions for Citywest and other large asylum accommodation centres.
As we reported on Tuesday, Independent Ireland Councillor for Clondalkin, Linda de Courcy, was told in quite clear terms that South Dublin County Council had received no Section 5 – where formal clarification is sought from a local planning authority on whether a proposed development, or any part of it, is considered exempted development.
For asylum purposes, development can be exempted from ordinary planning processes. The County Council was clear – no Section 5 has been received for Citywest Hotel.
Even if the Council was referring to a different ‘Section 5’, as suggested by an online blogger, then it had not received any such notification either.
The response from the Council to the questions regarding Citywest and Crooksling was exactly the same and referenced SI 376/2023 which contains the Section 5 quoted by Councillor de Courcy regarding the obligation to notify the local authority:
So, it appears that there is no planning exemption for Citywest – and that seems to have been confirmed this morning by a response to a Freedom of Information request from a resident of Saggart.
The resident had requested that South Dublin County Council release a series of correspondence related to planning and other matters at Citywest.
Much of what was requested was refused on various grounds and the response to the request for “Copies of any temporary permission letters, exemptions, or planning condition waivers granted for the use of the premises as emergency accommodation” is quite vague. No documentation was made available to the person who submitted the request.
Even though the FOI request did not specifically refer to Section 5, the reply from SDCC states that “Section 5 ‘Exempted Development’ declarations are not mandatory under the Planning and Development Act, 2000. No application has been submitted to this Planning Authority regarding any change of use on the Citywest Hotel site since its recent acquisition.”
(Presumably the reference to the “recent acquisition” of Citywest concerns the State’s purchase of the centre which was approved on June 17. That is an Aunt Sally as the asylum accommodation has been there for several years now, and the State is buying the place solely to continue to use it for that purpose. So, there is no reason why anyone would be applying for another exemption.)
In reaction to the FOI response, said resident of Saggart told Gript that the nature of the reply from SDCC was that they were refusing the request for the simple fact that “there is no documentation. So they are confirming there was no written notice given, but trying to tell us it doesn’t matter, essentially.
“Contrary to what the Department of Justice Community Engagement team have claimed both verbally and in writing to Saggart residents, this confirms that no documentation has been sent to SDCC to give notice of change of use.
“SDCC says a Section 5 exemption application is not required, however the class 20F clearly states prior written notice to the local authority must be made.”
The FOI then appears to confirm what the Council told Councillor Linda de Courcy, that “No section 5 has been received for Citywest Hotel.”
Yet last night when Saggart residents again met with the Community Engagement Team of the Department of Integration they were again told that there is a Section 5 exemption.
Either they do or they do not. It is not a proposition from Wittgenstein.
This confusion has not been helped by a response to a PQ on Tuesday by the Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan. He had been asked about the ongoing accommodation of asylum seekers at Crooksling and claimed that “Accommodation for people seeking international protection is still being provided in the buildings at this site and this is covered by the appropriate planning exemption.”
Is it though? I contacted the Minister’s office this morning to ask “which planning exemption the Minister is referring to in relation to the ongoing use of Crooksling as accommodation for asylum seekers.” I referred both to the SDCC reply to Councillor de Courcy and to the fact that the High Court proceedings to which the Minister referred had concluded with the revoking of the Statutory Instrument which specifically authorised the use of Crooksling as emergency refugee accommodation.
I had received no response from the Minister’s office prior to publication.
All of this vagueness and refusal to state exactly what exemption, if any, there is for these places and why local authorities are not issuing enforcement orders where development is taking place without their being notified or approved stands in sharp contrast to how ordinary citizens have been treated.
There was the case of Breanndán Ó Beaglaoích in Kerry who was refused permission to build on his own land – and closer to home in the same South Dublin County Council authority as in the case of the McDonagh family. SDCC refused permission for a cabin built on land that had been in the family for several generations.
Yet asylum accommodation czars like Tetrarch, who own Citywest, and who channel Irish taxpayers money, often to shareholders with little or no connection to the island let alone south county Dublin, appear to suffer no such inconveniences.
Now, the State – that is you – has agreed to purchase Citywest at nearly five times its post-receivership acquisition price. Not only that but Citywest will still be an asylum accommodation centre and still be the conduit for tax funding of the contractors who manage the site. The State will own it but nothing else changes.
When the Minister was asked another rather more blunt question by Carol Nolan on Tuesday – about whether he was aware that “the people of Saggart County Dublin are completely opposed to permanent use of a hotel (details supplied) as an IPAS Centre,” Minister O’Callaghan assured her that there is “a strong commitment to engagement with the local community.” The local community might beg to differ.
Nor has any consideration or even heed been paid to other business people who have not only had to put up with the imposition of this place, but seem set to come off even worse once the State purchase is completed.
To paraphrase the Saggart resident: It doesn’t matter what you think really, or whether we have all our ducks in a row. These places are there and we have no intention of closing them.