An Taisce calls on Martin Cullen to explain his role in delivering access to Jackson

ONQ

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
476
Mods,

My first thread starter and a couple of comments must be made
I have checked the threads and cannot see this as having been posted previously - apologies if it has and please merge or delete as you feel appropriate.
I am also aware that a related subject has resulted in a closed thread but this is also current affairs and related to a hot topic - the appropriateness or otherwise of planning policy in Ireland during the celtic tiger.
I am equally aware that matters are seldom as clear cut as An Taisce would have us believe so this press release should be viewed in this light.
At a time when people are considering a heave against Biffo likely and when Cullen and others are waiting in the wings, it may be useful to review his role in at least one significant and controversial matter in the planning history of Dublin.
Finally, as this is apparently a press release, I don't think there is an issue with copyright arising in using the full text.

Thanks.

ONQ.

From:

An Taisce calls on Martin Cullen to explain his role in delivering access to Jackson Way lands - Indymedia Ireland

An Taisce calls on Martin Cullen to explain his role in delivering access to Jackson Way lands:-

An Taisce Press Release - 25 October 2010

Carrickmines Corruption Charges – An Taisce calls on former Minister Martin Cullen and others to answer for their role in delivering essential access to Jackson Way lands.

THE charges against four former Co Dublin Fianna Fail Councillors regarding rezonings are to be welcomed, as is the news that the Criminal Assets Bureau has also charged Jim Kennedy in relation to the Jackson Way offshore company holdings. Without wishing to prejudice the courts findings, An Taisce welcomes that these matters are finally coming before the courts and the Irish public.

As will be recalled, construction of the M50 Motorway was mired in controversy arising from the discovery of the extent of the immensely important archaeological site of Carrickmines Castle, a site subsequently recognized as a National Monument by the Supreme Court.

Much of the excavated castle site was in the path of a motorway junction, which was the fourth junction within five miles along a motorway, the primary purpose of which was supposed to be the bypassing of Dublin city. Notably this junction at Carrickmines was not connecting to any National Roads. As such it has long been questioned as to what the actual purpose of this junction was.

This key matter has been at the cockpit of the investigation into Jackson Way by the Flood Mahon Tribunal. According to the Irish Times report from the Tribunal, dated 28 March 2003, Mr. Willie Murray, the planning officer at Dublin County Council and then Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council during the 1990s, “told counsel he did not know who had decided in 1990 that there should be an interchange on the proposed South-Eastern Motorway at Glenamuck Road, which would service Mr Kennedy's land”. As also reported in The Irish Times on the following day, in reaction, the then Chairman of the Tribunal Mr. Justice Flood, stated “Mr Willie Murray had a capacity for saying he couldn't recall or remember what had happened during meetings he held with landowners seeking the rezoning of their land in Carrickmines. ‘Why didn't you take notes if you had such a poor memory?’ Mr Justice Flood asked.”

The issue of this junction is central to the Jackson Way controversy, as rezoned lands are of no use unless there is transport access.

Without the Carrickmines Junction, the Jackson Way lands would have remained inaccessible and be of very limited commercial use. It is therefore crucial that not only are the rezoning issues addressed before the courts, but also that those involved in the decision-making and the design process of the junction be identified and made to justify their actions.

When the substantial nature of the castle site was realized arising from the archaeological excavation, the then Minister for Environment and Heritage, Martin Cullen, had a variety of options open to him that would have saved at least most if not all of the National Monument.

Those options ranged from completing the motorway as planned but without an unnecessary junction, to curving the new road and saving the Monument in its entirety. However instead of adopting any such reasonable solution, the then Minister for the Environment (and heritage protection) Martin Cullen opted to allow completing the junction in its entirety, including developing the entrance to the Jackson Way lands, which involved building a roundabout that devastated the heart of the National Monument. Why such haste from a Minister charged with the protection and not the destruction of Ireland’s built heritage?

Although it is yet to be answered as to who was responsible for the original insertion and layout of the ‘Jackson Way Junction’, it is a matter of record that former Minister Martin Cullen ensured its completion by way of new legislation, which overturned the Supreme Court’s judgment. By that stage it was the Court’s verdict that there was a National Monument in situ, and equally, key questions raised in the Flood Tribunal were going unanswered. Land rezoning is one thing, but without transport access it is utterly useless – which is exactly what the controversial junction provided. Hence while there was system failure that led to the Carrickmines Castle / Jackson Way Junction fiasco, this could have been corrected except that Martin Cullen facilitated the development of an unnecessary junction that ultimately provides a glorified gateway to Jackson Way lands, at the cost of many millions to the Irish taxpayer.

As the most senior decision-maker involved in the finality of the outcome i.e., the destruction of the National Monument to allow the provision of access to the re-zoned land, it would now be timely that Mr. Cullen explains his role in relation to these key questions.

ENDS

Issued on behalf of An Taisce’s National Monuments and Antiquities Committee

Signed by:

Mr. Charles Stanley-Smith, Chair An Taisce The National Trust for Ireland

Dr Mark Clinton, Chair of An Taisce's National Monuments and former Site Director of the Carrickmines Archaeological Dig

Mr. Dominic Dunne, Carrickmines Supreme Court Plaintiff

Mr. Ruadhán MacEoin, former press advisor to the ‘Carrickminders’

Mr. Michael Smith, former Chairman of An Taisce

ENDS
 


gijoe

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
15,237
With Michael Smith putting his name to it they must be sure of their legal ground on this.
 

Chadster

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
333
let me guess his reply...." i can't remember"..... "my back is too sore to answer questions"..... " you're all only crusty tree huggers" ....." we have more pressing issues to worry about" ...." best advice available",,,,"this is a witch hunt" ...same ol bullsh*t.
 

stanley

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
10,403
If Kennedy as is highly likely going to lose out out a lot of money and maybe even lose some to the testimony of Dunlop, he will not be a happy bunny, lashing out at Martin Cullen could be his retaliation, will be a pleasure to watch.
 

cricket

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
13,786
I just wonder about the propriety of this , isn't it directly related to a forthcoming trial ?
 

QuizMaster

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
3,193
Website
www.quizmatic.com
My God this is all coming up again.
I literally stood on the street in Ballybrack with Michael Smith trying to explain to the locals why the Carrickmines development had to be opposed. But they were having none of it. Jobs you see.
I met the bould Richard Lynn at one of the public meetings. Some operator.
Monarch properties were buying drinks for everyone at these meetings, even us, the enemy.

This casts a whole new light on M. Cullen's retirement from politics.
 
Last edited:

ONQ

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
476
I think you may be mistaken if you think threads here influence public opinion to that degree.
Still, it must really be hitting near the bone for someone to suggest shutting down a thread which attracts comments as innocuous as these.
Are we going to lose the right to free speech as well, under the pretext that fair comment might prejudice an investigation into Cullen's role that hasn't yet even been formally proposed never mind taken place?
The circumstances as outlined by an Taisce [bearing the previous caveat in mind] suggest an investigation may be warranted.
 
Last edited:

ONQ

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
476

cyberianpan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
16,347
Website
www.google.com
Though, I'd hate to run even the slightest risk of prejudicing the trial.

Can we remove this thread, mods?

Just in case, like?
<Mod>
For now it is fine.... prejudicial comments will be removed, and sanction applied

I.e.: on this and similar threads, you had best be careful and be sure that you actually understand what might be prejudicial

</mod>
 

cricket

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
13,786
I think you may be mistaken if you think threads here influence public opinion to that degree.
Still, it must really be hitting near the bone for someone to suggest shutting down a thread which attracts comments as innocuous as these.
Are we going to lose the right to free speech as well, under the pretext that fair comment might prejudice an investigation into Cullen's role that hasn't yet even been formally proposed never mind taken place?
The circumstances as outlined by an Taisce [bearing the previous caveat in mind] suggest an investigation may be warranted.

Remember kerry north ?
 

cricket

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
13,786
What about it?
Kerry north was / is the name of a poster here. One contribution ended up with a High Court action just a few months ago. Can't remember the exact details , so don't want to speculate.
 

alonso

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2006
Messages
2,550
Interestingly phrased.

Repeated mention of the Minister's name seems pointed.

The emphasis on the utter uselessness of the Carrickmines junction also seems calculated not to please.

I wish them luck.
deleted... couldn't be ar5ed going into yet another planning thread.... on Bank Holiday weekend of all times
 

ONQ

Well-known member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
476
Well, there's not really a lot to say about it.

As for Cullen's input, there is a certain momentum built up in a department like the Roads section, where work has progressed in anticipation of moving ahead and an obstruction arises in the form of an historical site.

The argument comes down to what we are willing to pay to preserve our heritage and how much of it we need to bury in concrete and roads to develop as a nation.

Because every square foot of this country seem to be covered in historical artifects depending on the level you look at - all the city quays, sites existing town boundaries, you name it, bones, bodies and pottery everywhere.

Everyone puts historical review on a pedestal, but it costs money to properly investigate things and there are warehouses full of artifacts from the digs during the Celtic Tiger that will take ten years and more to properly investigate and evaluate.

We are not a country that ignores our heritage, but equally we need to define the cost of it, and people suggesting you can simply re-profile a road don't seem to understand the technical and legal complexities of the task.

By the way, its discussion like this above I wss hoping to see on politics.ie, not libellous exchange of political propaganda - a reasoned discussion in other words, putting forward both sides of the issues.

We live in hope.
 


Most Replies

Top