NAAS 04 April 2003: Naas Town Council is seeking legal advice over its decision to close two walkways following claims that the action was illegal because proper procedures had not been followed.
Councillors have now agreed to wait for that legal advice before making any further decisions regarding the closures. The walkways in question connect Roselawn and Woodlands estates and Roselawn with the Blessington Road (at Tesco).
Prior to last Wednesday’s Town Council meeting, a deputation of anti closure residents (pictured above) handed in copies of 90 letters from residents (from a possible 100 houses) to each councillor demanding that the decision to close be rescinded and the process be restarted.
According to Mayor Timmy Conway, former county manager and Woodlands resident Gerry Ward (pictured left) has written about his concern that the decision to close ‘had been carried out in an illegal manner’.
Mayor Conway has asked for legal advice on the situation. “If we acted in an illegal manner, we cannot in law put a resolution to close the walkways,” he told the meeting.
John Walsh, chairman of Woodlands Res Assoc told KNN ‘our objection is based on the site planning notice being taken down after only two days and not being replaced’. “If the planning notice was up for the statutory full month, we could have read it and sought an oral hearing.”
Mr Walsh said they want the decision reversed and to be allowed put their views at an oral hearing.
Roselawn residents Michael and Mairead D’Arcy have also strongly objected to the planned closures. Michael told KNN he ‘only found out about it by accident the previous week when he was a member of another deputation to a Council meeting at the time the decision was made’.
He said the link had been in place for more than 20 years and people had been aware of this amenity when they had bought their houses.
During the ensuing debate, Cllr Seamie Moore said ‘there are no winners in the decision we made last week’. He felt the Council should be ‘very careful not to set one group against another’. “There was a feeling that all the information wasn’t made available to the chairman of that oral hearing on 13 February. Also, it appears he was not aware of the policies of this Town Council about walkways and the linking of areas, and sufficient correspondence was not exchanged to people who originally put in submissions against the closure.” He said the Council should aim to get a wider view of what was examined and what was heard at that hearing.
Town clerk Declan Kirrane (pictured right) then stated that ‘copies of all documents were made available to all’.
Cllr Mary Glennon said site notices disappeared and people are not lying about that. “We didn’t carry it out in the statutory way and didn’t give these people the opportunity to have their say.” She said the council has ‘to pre-empt any possible legal action over the closures’.
Cllr Pat McCarthy said he had received phone calls from people who had requested an oral hearing but who were not informed of it in advance. “If a former county manager questions the legality of the decision, we have to wonder about it,” he said. He believed the impression was given that 'only people who wanted it closed had gone to the effort of getting an oral hearing’.
Cllr Charlie Byrne was amazed there were so many ‘anti closure’ people who hadn’t known about the oral hearing and he asked if it could be re-opened to hear their views. He, too, wanted legal advice on the matter.
Cllr Moore then suggested they suspend any movement towards closing the walkway on the night but was advised by the town clerk: “That doesn’t arise. You have made a decision to close it. If somebody was denied an oral hearing, I will have a look at it and see. There is no initial correspondence before the Council as was before.”
“People I spoke to are more annoyed at not getting an oral hearing than having the walkway closed, and I think we should look at it again,” suggested Cllr Willie Callaghan.
All agreed to wait for that crucial legal advice from the Council’s solicitors.
