25th October, 2001.
Dear Editor,
At Last Monday's Council Meeting 22nd November Cllr Paul Kelly stated "the Maynooth Draft Development Plan is before you (the Council) following the Area Committee Chairman's casting vote went in favour of it." Cllr Senan Griffin concurred with this view. I had interjected between the two contributions to say very clearly that was not the case. The above sets of minutes as you will see record no such decision.
The meeting of 5th October records the following: "On the proposal of Cllr Murphy and the seconding of Cllr McGinley the amended Draft Plan for Maynooth was agreed".
I do have a clear recollection of Cllr Griffin dissenting from that decision (which is not recorded). I also have a clear recollection of Cllr Paul Kelly sitting there with his mouth shut. It has been my experience that Minutes are often sketchy but when a vote is taken it is recorded as will be noted from the Minutes 4th Sept.
The Full County Council in the 1999 Development Plan adopted a Strategy for development in the County. It included 120-150 Acres for Maynooth. The Role of the Area Committee was to decide on the detail. In the previous plan I voted for 101 acres to be rezoned and felt that was more than enough. Clearly the adoption of the strategy meant that if the work was to be completed by the area committee we would have to zone 150 acres residential, which we did.
On two occasions at the final stage of the Area Committee's deliberations, because the committee were in a deadlock situation, I validly used the casting vote of the chair. It was my assessment that if we sat there for another 12 months we would not get agreement. Firstly, I used it to vote in favour of a parcel of land, 7.6 hectares at Meadowbrook. The second time I used it was to vote against zoning High Decree Lands at the rear of Rockfield. I make no apology for using this mechanism in those instances.
The casting vote was NOT used to decide the plan which is clearly another matter.
The row on this plan at the County Council meeting was clearly orchestrated by Cllr Senan Griffin who has been angling at doing this throughout the deliberations of the Maynooth Plan. He kept insisting on being recorded on various topics in the Minutes (as he is entitled to) but clearly he did this with an end in mind. The same Councillor votes regularly to refuse the Press/Public in to Area Meetings where the process can be documented for all to see. Press/Public attendance is an issue I have consistently raised for years and have failed to get council agreement on. Perhaps we can partially see why now.
In misrepresenting the way the business was done at the area meeting, both Cllr Kelly and Cllr Griffin were clearly playing a party political game which I greatly resent. I am ten years an elected member of Kildare County Council and throughout that time I have made a point of not playing games with the truth. I have found that approach is appreciated by most members of the Council and feel Monday’s representation by Cllr Kelly and Cllr Griffin of area committee deliberations as nothing short of shameful.
I am now calling on them to set the record straight and apologise for the lie, a lie that places a shadow on my personal integrity.
Last Monday reminded me of a similar day in 1994 when Deputy Bernard Durkan, who was then a member of the Council, used the full Council to intervene to zone lands at Lucan Demesne/St Catherine's Park for housing. The Leixlip public were strong in their rejection of this, and thankfully that decision was reversed and the land is now a public park. It is a bit like history repeating itself: if FG does not like the decision of the area Committee, get the full Council involved. Many Councillors in Kildare do not want to go down that road again, which was a divisive one on that previous occasion.
Cllr Griffin was quite explicit at last week’s meeting about the land he wanted included to the rear of Rockfield and Parklands off the Celbridge Road. He and Cllr Kelly were also quite explicit in being concerned that there was not enough land zoned and available for residential development, a point I feel is being missed in this debate.
Yours etc, Cllr Catherine Murphy.