Council CEO wrote to planning board in support of Páirc proposal rejected in vote

Councillors have raised concerns after Cork City Council’s chief executive Valerie O’Sullivan submitted a letter to An Comisiún Pleanála (ACP) in support of a controversial proposal they had already voted against.

Cork GAA has appealed the council’s recent rejection of their proposal for a vehicular set down and drop-off circulation area at Páirc Uí Chaoimh and Marina Park on Monahan Rd, which many residents objected to. A decision is due on October 12.

At the May council meeting the proposal narrowly failed to be approved.

It needed the support of 75% of councillors as it would materially contravene the Cork City Development Plan zoning the land as ‘public open space’.

A month later, a letter from Ms O’Sullivan, on council headed paper, was sent to ACP.

“I wish to confirm that from both a safety and operational point of view, the city council have no issue with the proposal in principle as it would improve safety and traffic management in the area,” she wrote.

The letter said the proposal would “enable orderly and safe management” of visitors, and remove travel movement along the Marina promenade and conflict with pedestrians.

“It should be noted that two thirds of the members of Cork City Council supported the material contravention to enable this development, but it failed to achieve the majority required.”

Independent councillor Kieran McCarthy and Fine Gael’s Des Cahill tabled questions about this letter ahead of the most recent council meeting, which Ms O’Sullivan was not present at.

Mr Cahill said “the language used is clearly bias against the decision of council”, while Mr McCarthy asked what statutory provision or power allowed the letter to be issued.

Assistant chief executive Brian Geaney, deputising for Ms O’Sullivan, said: “The outcome of this material contravention process was and is fully respected by the executive and the matter now rests with An Coimisiún Pleanála for decision.”

He explained that ACP seek the view of the council as the planning authority who refused permission.

“It was deemed important, given the nature and location of the application, to advise ACP that the substantive planning position … was broadly supportive of the development and that the decision to refuse rested on the matter of material contravention.”

He said that the letter was “factual” and did not seek to influence the outcome of ACP’s case, adding that the outcome will be fully respected.

Further questioned by Mr Cahill, Mr Geaney said “it was no secret” that council management “very strongly supported the planning application”.