Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

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

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member ONQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

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

    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

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member gijoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15,302
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    With Michael Smith putting his name to it they must be sure of their legal ground on this.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Somewhere between Akureyri and Ushuaia
    Posts
    8,999
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Well worth a thread in it's own right, but someone has also revived an old thread on the topic that gives some background. I hope Mr Cullen is enjoying his retirement.

    http://www.politics.ie/current-affai...ml#post3106136

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    351
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    8,723
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    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.

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    13,667
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I just wonder about the propriety of this , isn't it directly related to a forthcoming trial ?

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member QuizMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    North Inishowen
    Posts
    3,207
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    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 by QuizMaster; 25th October 2010 at 05:46 PM.

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member QuizMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    North Inishowen
    Posts
    3,207
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cricket View Post
    I just wonder about the propriety of this , isn't it directly related to a forthcoming trial ?
    You're right.
    Perhaps the whole thread should be deleted? Mods?

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member Toland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Foreign, for my mental as well as material well-being
    Posts
    63,401
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member Toland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Foreign, for my mental as well as material well-being
    Posts
    63,401
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Though, I'd hate to run even the slightest risk of prejudicing the trial.

    Can we remove this thread, mods?

    Just in case, like?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •