8 October 2016
F
ormer County Manager of Donegal,
Michael McLoone, is continuing with
his High Court proceedings for defama-
tion against Village. In 2014 the
magazine printed allegations which it
claims were both true and contained in an affi
-
davit opened in court proceedings, by former
Donegal senior planner, Gerard Convie, an
employee of Donegal County Council for 24
years.
McLoone claims he has been massively
defamed.
Meanwhile Convie’s allegations are being
assessed by a senior counsel appointed by the
Department of the Environment.
Convie has consistently, in court and else-
where, claimed that during his tenure there was
bullying and intimidation within the council - of
planners who sought to make decisions based
exclusively on the planning merits of particular
applications. He claims one councillor constantly
referred to him as a "wee shit from the North".
In the opened affidavit, Convie alleges another
planner:
1.
Recommended permissions that breached the
Donegal County Development Plan to an
extent that was almost systemic
2.
Submitted planning applications to Donegal
County Council on behalf of friends and
associates
3.
Dealt with planning applications from submis-
sion to decision, including some from friends,
family and associates
4.
Ignored the recommendations of other
planners
5.
Destroyed the recommendations of other
planners
6. Submitted fraudulent correspondence to the
planning department
7. Forged signatures
8.
Improperly interfered as described in a
number of planning applications
9.
Was close to a number of leading architects
and developers in Donegal, including the head
of the largest ‘architectural’ practice in Done-
gal, with whom he holidayed but the
relationship with whom was undeclared.
Convie made a number of complaints dating
from 2006. He had a list of 20 "suspect cases"
in the County. As he later reverted to private
practice he claimed to have discovered many
more, perhaps hundreds, “a cesspit”.
In 2006 he complained to the Standards in
Public Office Commission (which ruled the com-
plaints out of time). That same year the Council
sued Convie for his allegations, but dropped the
proceedings after a fractious four years, without
any damages or costs award. In another case
McLoone won damages from a local newspaper
which had printed some of the allegations but
which did not fight the case in a full hearing.
Following complaints from Convie after the
Greens got into government Environment Minis-
ter, John Gormley, announced 'planning reviews'
in 2010, not of corruption but of bad practice - in
seven local authorities including Donegal. Con
-
vie’s case studies comprised all the material for
the review in Donegal. But when the new Fine
Gael and Labour government took over they very
quickly dropped the independent inquiries. A
lazy 2012 internal review by the Department of
the Environment stated of Donegal - according
to Minister Jan O’Sullivan in the Dáil, that: “… the
complainant [Convie] has failed at any stage to
produce evidence of wrong-doing in Donegal
Council’s planning department”.
Convie felt this left him in an invidious posi
-
tion and he successfully sued. In the High Court
Order, all the conclusions by the Minister were
withdrawn and an apology issued. Counsel on
behalf of the current Donegal County Manager,
Seamus Neeley, objected to the decision as it did
not know why the case had been settled, though
Convie's barrister noted that the Council was a
notice party that had played no active part in the
case.
There appear to have been no ramifications for
the civil servants who concluded that Convie’s
complaint did not constitute “evidence”, less
still for the ‘progressive’ Minister who accepted
the conclusions.
The government was forced to reinstate the
planning enquiries and found maladministration
but not any sort of corruption in the cases out-
side Donegal.
After the RTÉ 'Investigates' programme which
apparently uncovered examples of corruption in
planning last year, the government sheepishly
announced a package of ‘radical’ planning
Done gall
We’re still waiting for the official report
on dodgy planning in Donegal
by Michael Smith
NEWS
Convie made a number
of complaints to County
Manager, Michael
McLoone. He had a list
of 20 "suspect cases" in
the County. He claims
to have discovered
perhaps hundreds
more, “a cesspit”
October 2016 9
measures which included the belated publica-
tion of the independent review which
uncovered considerable evidence of malpractice
throughout the planning system and includes 29
recommendations to improve “standards of
transparency, consistency and accountability”
which the Department says it will implement.
The Convie file was referred to the Attorney
General for direction and in the end senior
counsel, Rory Mulcahy SC, was appointed to
look into it.
Convie by all accounts engaged with Mulcahy
over the issues which were the subject of the
complaints, but has now withdrawn from the
process. Mulcahy has spoken to the Council and
informed Convie that he would be seeking to
interview other relevant parties. He is around
half way through the exercise.
In February this year Alan Kelly, the then Min
-
ister for the Environment, claimed, “this
independent process underway remains the pri-
ority of the Minister, his Department and his
officials”.
However, though in general content with the
process – which being non-statutory is precari
-
ously ‘open-ended’, Convie has some particular
concerns. He considers the Minister changed the
terms of reference for Mulcahy by re-inserting a
confidentiality clause, which unlike an earlier
version omitted to state that the provision would
continue in force “notwithstanding the termina-
tion of this contract by either party for any
reason”.
In the end the Minister partially reinstated the
term relating to the confidentiality of his work.
Moreover Convie wants the process to
embrace An Bord Pleanála to which he claims
improper representations were made. He claims
that in the 1990s he bid on a site in Magher-
aroarty, Co Donegal, never trying to hide
anything. His bid was accepted by the owner but
on reflection Convie says he felt it was far too
much land which his family could not afford. He
was approached by a builder in Donegal, Patrick
J Doherty, and was delighted when he agreed to
take the land and Convie bought a site from him.
This posed potential conflicts of interest for
Convie. However at all stages of the multifarious
transactions, Convie made the necessary decla-
rations of involvement in the land. Doherty made
a pre-planning application to determine the atti-
tude of the planning office to the development
of the site. As the relevant planning official was
on leave [and Convie was dealing with his work
as well as his own] he says he asked another offi-
cial, Jim Harley, to deal with it, citing his
involvement but Harley stated that he didn’t
have the time and didn’t know where the site
was. Convie agreed to go to the site with him and
they met so that he could determine the devel-
opment of the site. He wrote to Doherty stating
that there was no objection in principle to hous
-
ing on the site. Convie claims he had advised
that he should not be determinate regarding the
number of houses but that that was information
that would have been available to anyone
acquainted with the policies and objectives in
the County Development Plan. Eventually
Doherty made a planning application for the
development of the site. The relevant planner
had now returned from leave and he dealt with
it recommending outline planning permission.
As well as declaring his interest on the 'Regis
-
ter of Interest', Convie notated the file
acknowledging his involvement in the lands and
the recommendation to grant went to Liam Kelly,
the assistant county manager with responsibil-
ity for planning matters. He asked Convie’s boss,
the County Engineer, to look at it given Convie’s
declarations and he obtained a further report
from the relevant planner, who again reiterated
his recommendation. A decision to grant outline
planning permission ensued from Donegal
County Council. The decision was appealed to
An Bord Pleanála by locals in Magheraroarty and
refused. Convie is still surprised by this as he
considers the application complied with the
Development Plan and had been approved by all
those involved in the planning process. Convie
claims the decision made him look bad as it
allowed the interpretation that the Council’s
decisions had improperly favoured him. Shortly
after the decision Convie was suspended by
Donegal County Council and dismissed at the
behest of the Minister though he later got this
overturned by the High Court.
Documents seen by Village (below and over-
leaf) show that there were discussions between
McLoone's Deputy County Manager, Liam Kelly,
and An Bord Pleanála about the appeal. An
agenda for a 1999 Council meeting shows
McLoone was kept abreast of these discussions.
Convie claims these were improper and, in his
view, unlawful under the 1983 Planning Act. He
told Village that The Bord has also confirmed to
him that any discussion between any parties to
an appeal may be unlawful. Convie believes Don
-
egal County Council’s decision was in compliance
with the County Development Plan and the Bord
Pleanála decision issued despite the application
having been recommended for permission by eve-
ryone involved in the Council planning process.
In a recent letter to Minister Coveney Convie
writes: “One of the issues raised [by me earlier],
Transcript of note by Mr Liam Kelly, Assistant
County Manager with responsibility for
planning, re. his telephone conversation with
Mr Diarmuid Collins, secretary of an Bord
Pleanála, dated 11/3/99:
Rang Bórd Pleanála and discussed file on appeal
with Mr. Diarmuid Collins, Secretary of an Bórd,
and made him [aware] of internal investigation
and issue – of [a] Declarations, [b] title issues
which may arise and legal name of applicant as
raised by the Co. Solicitor. He indicated that
appeal is unlikely to be determined in short term
due to backlog etc and that they had experienced
similar issues as ownership of this site by plan-
ning officials. I undertook to brief him of any
significant issue arising, including possible
media interest/stories.
But an attempt to inuence the outcome of an appeal is an offence
1 0 October 2016
was in respect of An Bord Pleanala and I had set
out why Mr Mulcahy must also investigate the
issue I reported to you involving An Bord
Pleanala and Donegal County Council insofar as
it relates to the administration of planning in Co.
Donegal and in respect of the particular planning
matter I referred to your Department [being one
of the number of irregularities I have reported].
Your predecessor [Alan Kelly] had decreed that
this matter would not be investigated by Mr.
Mulcahy and stated that the matter was one for
An Bord Pleanala. So, I wrote a number of times
to Dr Kelly, Chairperson of An Bord Pleanala,
requesting her to contact your Department and
setting out that I had sent your Department doc
-
umentary evidence which I believe may
demonstrate unlawful activity in the dealing with
a particular planning application which was cen-
tral to my leaving my job in Donegal County
Council”.
Convie claimed that:
“By her responses, Dr. Kelly appears to be
unconcerned about the matter and has indicated
that any further correspondence to her about the
matter will not be answered”.
More generally, Convie wants the review to be
as wide-ranging as possible and considers that
his Case Studies are merely used as illustrations
of what has been going on: “It is not the Case
Studies per se which must be examined, but the
entire administration of planning in the county
[as illustrated by the Case Studies.] In my opin
-
ion, the actions and acts of every officer and
official who have played
any part in the irregulari-
ties complained of, and
who may have played any
part in any cover-up, must
be examined by Mr
Mulcahy in this current
process. Otherwise, you
will never have a complete
picture”.
In March Convie sought
further clarification from
the Minister. This letter
was not acknowledged or answered.
He wrote again to the new Minister [Simon
Coveney TD] on 20th. May 2016 and, again, his
letter was not even acknowledged and no
response given.
He lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman
and, again, has not received an acknowledge-
ment to his letter dated 30 June 2016.
Meanwhile Convie has written to Shane Ross
making further allegations - in particular that the
way he handled a valuable procurement process
suggests he is unfit to be chair of Donegal
Airport:
“The facts of the matter are that the then
County Manager, Mr Michael McLoone, awarded
a multi-million pound contract to an associate of
his to carry out administrative work for Donegal
[County Council] without any proper procure-
ment procedures being applied. That person
who was awarded the contract, a Mr. Cang, even
had to set up a company to carry out the work
and it seems that the only company asset was
himself. It is not known who else benefited from
the award of this multi-million pound
contract”.
Convie notes that Mr McLoone is the current
chair of Donegal Airport and that Ross is the Min-
ister responsible for giving it hundreds of
thousands of euro of public money under the
Regional Airports Programme. “I believe there
are very serious questions to be asked about the
governance of Mr McLoone and his adherence to
strict corporate codes of conduct given his
record in Donegal County Council”.
Convie has been writing to Ross about Done
-
gal since 2010. With no response. He has
received no reply from the Minister about the
airport.
It is not the only issue awaiting explanation in
Donegal.
NEWS
Convie, right, with Michael Smith, left, and An Taisce's
Ian Lumley at a 2015 press conference
Convie’s case studies
comprised all the material
for the review in Donegal.
But when the new Fine Gael
and Labour government
took over it dropped the
independent inquiries,
though they were reinstated
following litigation by Convie
"attempting to inuence the outcome
of an appeal... is an offence"
October 2016 1 1
We wroe o he soliciors for Michel McLoone, copying hem wih he bove ricle.
We sid: “In he ineress of firness nd ccurcy we re seeking  response nd
commens from your clien, Mr Michel McLoone, nd re willing o prin such response
nd commens, comprehensively - wihin he resonble consrins of spce
limiions”.
This is he emiled reply.
Dear Mr Smith,
I refer to your email enclosing an article which you say you apparently propose to publish
concerning my client.
You are well aware as a qualified lawyer that there is absolutely no basis for you as a journalist
to "bounce any article off" me simply because I have been retained as a solicitor by my client to
act in defamation proceedings against you in relation to a different publication.
My retainer as a solicitor does not involve acting as a "go between" between my client and you
in your journalism, as you well know.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I also regard your proposed article as defamatory of my
client in its content and innuendo.
I would also observe that your suggestion that it be considered and responded to within 48
hours is utterly unreasonable, prejudiced and unjust, given that the proposed article clearly has
been long in preparation and has already been page-proofed and laid out.
It also seems to be written in an attempt to cloud issues which are now before the High Court.
It seems to be tinged with desperation.
I am of the view that your article is, and is intended to be, a further serious defamation of my
client calculated to compound and aggravate the defamations already published by you.
I am not prepared to act in any way as a conduit for any attempts to further defame or to
intimidate or inhibit my client from bringing his High Court proceedings to an early conclusion.
I suggest that no other publication would attempt to use a litigant's solicitor in this way. I would
also suggest that you should follow conventional standards and practices of professional
journalism.
Regards,
Ward McEllin
Patrick J. McEllin & Son
Solicitors
Courthouse Road
Claremorris
Co. Mayo
Ireland
Tel: 353 94 937 1042
Fax 353 94 937 1539

Loading

© 2015 Village Magazine

Back to Top