Yesterday evening’s meeting of the Blanchardstown-Mulhuddart/Castleknock/Ongar area committee might not quite merit the cliché ‘Kafkaesque’ but it was in the same ball park.
As I set out yesterday, the Corporate Services section of Fingal County Council had attempted to remove from the agenda of the meeting Councillor Patrick Quinlan’s motion to delete a significant part of the Dunsink Urban Area Plan.
The Councillor’s motion proposed that, given the submissions made by residents of Valley Park and Scribblestown and community groups in Finglas, the County Council should amended the draft Dunsink plan to retain the lands in the east of the development area as “undeveloped open ground and habitat”.
Correspondence Councillor Quinlan had received regarding the attempt to remove his motion from yesterday’s agenda referred to “the special meeting on the Dunsink area plan, which is currently in the process of being scheduled”.
Councillor Quinlan pointed out that this was the first he had heard of such a meeting – and yesterday’s meeting confirmed that there had been no meeting planned before yesterday. There was therefore some back and forth before one of the planning officers present, Deirdre Fallon, told Councillors that the special meeting would be held on October 14.
Other than the response of Corporate Services to Councillor Quinlan when he insisted that they had no power to remove his motion – a point that he clearly won – the first written notification of such a meeting was contained in a series of replies to Councillor Quinlan from the Chief Executive, Anne-Marie Farrelly.
In the responses to four of the questions that were tabled by Councillor Quinlan and circulated just prior to the meeting Farrelly states that: “This issue related to the plan making process associated with the Dunsink Urban Area Plan and should be addressed during an additional council meeting which will be held for the Plan in October 2026.”
So that was the first that any of the Councillors knew about any such additional or special meeting. Yet Labour Councillor John Walsh intervened during the discussion on Quinlan’s motion to state that the reason he was opposing the motion was that he was happy to wait until the meeting in October. Others took the same general line.
RARE SPECIAL MEETING FOLLOWS OBJECTIONS RAISED
So, the other Councillors were happy to wait until a meeting that they knew nothing about until yesterday, and which one might reasonably surmise would never have been planned to be held had it not been for Councillor Quinlan’s motion. One that was defeated by 13 votes to one.
As noted previously, the plan was overwhelmingly approved with little enough discussion or opposition on March 30. After that the Chief Executive promised to prepare a report which will now be published next Friday, September 11.
Under Section 75(11) of the 2004 Planning and Development Act the elected Council has six weeks from the publication of the Chief Executive’s report to either completely accept the Plan, as they already effectively did on March 30, to suggest minor changes or to completely reject the plan.
There is no statutory obligation for any local authority to submit the Chief Executive’s report to a special meeting of the Council and normally such a report would be considered at a regular Council meeting which in Fingal’s case the next one scheduled after September 11 is for October 12.
Such special meetings are rare but not unprecedented. Since 2017 there are records of just five local authorities; Sligo County Council, Westmeath County Council, Roscommon County Council, Limerick City and County Council and Meath County Council holding such meetings.
The only obligation set out in the Act is that “The members of the planning authority shall consider a report of the chief executive.” Any opposition would require a resolution of the full Council. All the indications were before yesterday that the vast majority of the Councillors would have been happy enough to have accepted it without another meeting.
Proof of that was amply provided at the March 30 meeting. The overall plan was carried by 25 votes to 8 with one abstention. As were all of the other four recommendations from the chief Executive. The specific Dunsink section which Councillor Quinlan is seeking to have taken out of the development was approved by 32 votes to his sole dissenting vote.
So it would appear that were it not for Councillor Quinlan’s persistent questioning that this massive Dunsink development, with a projected population of up to 60,000, would go through on a nod basically.
All of the Councillors who were present at yesterday’s meetings and their parties – Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Sinn Féin, Labour, Aontú, and Solidarity – seem happy to take the ‘Don’t Hit Me (or the CEO) with the Housing Crisis in my Hands’ line.
That is despite the consequences that such a project will have on the existing communities and habitats, let alone the rationale for the manic drive to build housing nationally which, according to projections, will accommodate hundreds of thousands of immigrants who will make up the bulk of those living there. It seems to have been decided that aspect is, of course, is beyond the pale of discussion.
There was clear annoyance on the part of yesterday’s chairperson – Councillor Eimear Carbone-Mangan of Fianna Fáil – when Councillor Quinlan insisted on his motion being read before it was put to a vote.
The defeated motion read “That this Area Committee, having regard to the submissions on the Draft Dunsink Urban Area Plan made by residents of Valley Park and Scribblestown and by community organisations across Finglas, calls on Fingal County Council to amend the Draft Plan to delete the Dunsink East development area in its entirety and to retain the lands concerned as undeveloped open ground and habitat.”
Quinlan stated that the reason he wanted the motion to be read was to indicate that the objections of the Finglas communities as evidenced by their submissions were not supported by parties who have posed as being on their side.
We must now await next Friday’s publication of the Chief Executive’s report and response to various issues and seeming contradictions and omissions in and between various reports that have been questioned by others in their submissions to the public consultation.