Menu
Ireland's political and cultural magazine
November/December 2020 27
C
ARRICK ON Shannon, Leitrim’s
larest town, is dealin with the
problems that beset much of rural
Ireland. The town has lost its soul to
its hinterland, and is cryin out for
animation and development. Proress is bein
made in movin away from car dependence, but
all its development proposals are unexcitin;
and visionaries are absent.
An artist’s impression of a new c€9.5m plan
from Leitrim County Council for Carrick (popu
-
lation 4000) shows a “concept proposal” for
a glass structure spread over three properties
that are on Main St opposite St Mary’s Catho
-
lic Church. A 3000 square-metre “destination
centre” for shopping which would be progres
-
sively run on a “social-enterprise basis”. Leitrim
Design House would relocate to the proposed
building and become the Flagship retailer.
The Council has said that as a centre for arti
-
san and originally-designed goods in the centre
by Michael Smith
Leitrim’s largest town is messing
up its urban renewal through
demolitions and legal laxity
of the town, it would be a significant draw,
that it would “arrest decline” and be “sus
-
tainable”.
The proposed scheme would be 100
metres from Flynn’s field, formerly back
gardens to the rear of Main St and Bridge
St, which are perpendicular, a site of two
- formerly derelict - acres of which three
quarters is a car-park.
That site could easily house a progres
-
sive 3000 square-metre “destination cen-
tre” but Flynn’s Field has become a hot-
bed for speculation and suspicion.
Until recently it was owned by about
nine dierent interests, with the fillet,
about an acre, owned by Lucy Donegan
and Sheila Deane who live in Mohill and
Naas, respectively. In 2006 their site got
permission for a huge development in
-
cluding cinemas, a shopping mall, 60 resi-
dential units and a 500-space car-park.
Last year the Field was taken by the
County Council by CPO, apparently on the basis
the owners did not have the wherewithal to carry
out the development. The Council believes the
site unsuitable for the residential development,
because of susceptibility to flooding. There has
been serious flooding recently but locals say
that this manageable susceptibility should not
be allowed to trump good planning.
The Council CPO’d seven of the nine inter
-
ests and transferred them to a Company that
strangely had already been liquidated, called
Sharpdale Carrick Ltd. This is said to be a sister
company of a financial management company,
through which private companies invest in some
big project and can reap tax advantages. It is not
clear why the Council has not kept ownership for
itself or how its due diligence allowed it to trans
-
Let’s talk about Carrick
NEWS
Min Street, Crrick undergoing Public Relm improvements
It is not clear why the Council has not kept ownership for
itself or how its due diligence allowed it to transfer valuable
assets to a liquidated Company which has no capacity to
take responsibility to manage them in any way that serves
the common good. This seems scandalous.
Ninteenth-Century houses
slted for demolition
28 November/December 2020
fer valuable assets to a Company which, since
liquidated, has no capacity to take responsibility
to manage them in any way that serves the com
-
mon good. Furthermore Village’s investigations
could not find any evidence that the contract to
run (or own!) the car-park had been put out to
tender. The ownership and tender issues seem
scandalous.
In replying to very detailed questions from
Village Leitrim County Council merely asserted
it had “observed all legal requirements”. It has
not.
The CPO chimed with the vision of the area
outlined in the Council’s first successful appli
-
cation to government for funding from national
government under the Urban and Regional
Development Fund (URDF) for a scheme to be
implemented under ‘Part 8’ of the Planning Act.
The scheme embraces all of Main St on towards
the Shannon including what is now the “destina
-
tion centre” site though without making specific
provision for it. It provides for Public Realm Im
-
provements mostly street furniture, landscaping
and minor pedestrian improvements around
Main St, a new floating boardwalk along the
Shannon, near theCounty Council Buildings and
an inevitable - now-constructed - new public car
park with 105 spaces.
Many on-street parking spaces on Main St are
to be lost and be replaced by trees. Independent
Councillor Des Guckian is concerned by this. The
scheme was supported by Carrick’s Councillors
though few drawings were made available. Prog
-
ress on the scheme, apart from the car-park,
has been very slow, apparently
due to Coronavirus, but there are
now signs of some energy with a
a contractor, Harrington’s, doing
the work for the Council.
The Council’s vision of the site
was the unfashionably limited
one of primarily a car-park, albeit
one with only 105 spaces. But this
is because the primary vision for
the area, with both the CPO and
the URDF funding, in accordance
with national policy, was about
improving the streets and heritage of the town
and its connectivity.
The backlands had to take, as it were, one for
the team.
Parking would be moved o the streets and
into the Field.
On this basis it was accepted that the CPO
served the common good though the site might
long-term be developed more intensively includ
-
ing perhaps with a multi-storey car-park
There is a depressing contrast between the
smooth professionalism of the ocial CPO pro
-
cess, approved by An Bord Pleanála, and the
tawdriness of the reality of what has been cre
-
ated of Flynn’s Field.
Less than a year after the CPO the Council
are saying that they now need to deliver an am
-
bitious development proposal, though not for
Flynn’s Field, in order to increase footfall to the
struggling “smaller retail units” that are “within
walking distance of this area” and get a “return
on investment” for the money that’s been in
-
vested in improving this area over the last num-
ber of years.
Instead of an integrated multi-use develop
-
ment on Flynn’s Field the Council now wants
to retain the large car-park on Flynn’s Field and
build the destination cultural retail ‘concept’
nearby. Worse, the concept involves foolish and
unnecessary demolitions of very attractive hous
-
es. This is lipstick on a pig. Toxic lipstick.
So the Public Realm Improvements – pedes
-
trian improvements etc - are slowly getting un-
der way and the County Chief Executive Ocer,
Lar Power – emboldened by the limited success
of those Improvements under the URDF - decid
-
ed he’d pursue a scheme that undermines the
sense of place and heritage; and of sustainabili
-
ty that underpins them. The URDF was set up “to
enable a greater proportion of residential and
mixed-use development to be delivered within
the existing built-up footprints of our cities and
towns and to ensure that more parts of our urban
areas can become attractive and vibrant places
in which people choose to live and work, as well
as to invest and to visit”.
Lar Power told a recent meeting “Carrick on
Shannon is an exceptional town in terms of hos
-
pitality however it is not a great retail location.
We have looked at how to turn that around. The
secret to a great town is Presentation, Vibrancy
and Expertise available to the town”.
Like a lot of Council CEOs Lar Power has a lim
-
ited view of greatness.
He discussed it with many people, particu
-
larly business people in Carrick Town. But not
with the Geraghtys – remarkably one of only
five families in the town who live over their own
shop which has a vintage art deco style mosaic
mid-century-modernist face. At first he seems
to have not wanted to risk upsetting them at a
stage before it was clear what was happening;
but he changed his mind.
For nearly a hundred years the Geraghty family
has owned what is one of Carrick-on-Shannon’s
best-recognised businesses. They say they are
“disgusted and devastated” over plans to de
-
molish their building which is nineteenth cen-
tury but which they say dates back to the 16th
and 17th century town. Geraghty’s shop front
featured on the Council’s ‘Leitrim Heritage’ site
in March. A week later the Chief Executive was
planning to get rid of it.
The Geraghty family say they no longer have
“faith or trust” in the local authority as a result of
their proposed plans for their property. The fam
-
ily are getting support from the general public,
10,000 of whom have signed a petition opposed
to the demolition of the building in the centre of
the town.
Even some of the vested interests inevitably
pushing development to advance their own
property or retail interests seem to have rowed
back, in that Irish way, from proposals that
would take somebody’s house from them. Nev
-
ertheless the CEO had pointedly reminded them
that they would “piggyback” o the destination
proposal.
Power denies implying the Geraghtys did not
object to the scheme.
In a statement released by Leitrim County
Council, the authority said it regretted any mis
-
understanding that arose in submitting the
planning application, emphasising that any new
projects agreed for the town centre of Carrick-
on-Shannon would take some time before being
realised.
Local Fine Gael Councillor Finola Armstrong
Maguire, who owns another of the three build
-
ings facing the wrecking ball, operates The Mag-
net drapery. She has agreed to the ‘concept’.
She is a Director of the not-for-profit Leitrim De
-
signCentre which would become a tenant in the
new building. She said she had some concerns
about the proposed building but believed there
was “room for compromise”, such as having
parts of the existing buildings incorporated into
the new structure.
The third property to be taken is controlled by
Caroline McHugh. It was the Canon’s House and
is a protected structure.
However, even before the ‘concept’ goes
ahead there is a problem in terms of permission
for the recent demolition by the Council of part of
a protected structure that is not even in its own
-
The backlands had to take,
as it were, one for the team.
Parking would be moved
off the streets and into the
Field. On this basis it was
accepted that the CPO
served the common good
Historic wll hs been illeglly knocked
November/December 2020 29
ership. The Council has removed a substantial
and appealing high stone wall [pictured above]
at the back of the house adjoining the right of
way from Flynn’s Field to Main St. A solicitor is
investigating this.
Though the town is gritty and its develop
-
ments dull, much of its politics is colourful and
in a letter dated 16 September 2020 Councillor
Guckian wrote to the Chief Executive, “As a Mu
-
nicipal Cllr, I know you got Part 8 approval for
Flynn’s Field. You did not include the Canon’s
Wall. You made no attempt to get normal plan
-
ning permission, employ an architect to advise
ye etc etc. Ye cannot take the law into your own
hands - just because ye are in a hurry. Please,
pass this notice to your legal dept. Will see ye in
court”.
In reply the Council Chief Executive said the
demolition was: “part of the Carrick on Shannon
Public Realm Improvement Scheme under the
Urban Regeneration and Development Fund. The
works are therefore exempted development”.
He noted there had been a permission from An
Bord Pleanála for the Scheme, which permitted
realigning the wall. But in fact the Part 8 applica
-
tion and permission do not refer to the wall; still
less to its protected status or the procedures re
-
quired to demolish part of a protected structure.
There seems to have been some sort of inspec
-
tion by an architect but no indication of compli-
ance with the legal requirements for protected
structures under the Planning Acts, no reference
of the matter to prescribed bodies like An Taisce,
and no reference to the demolition in the Coun
-
cil’s EIA Screening Report for the Part 8.
When asked about this in detailed questions,
the Chief Executive told Village through the
Council’s Media Liaison Ocer that “It is satis
-
fied that it is in compliance with all legal require-
ments and procedures in regard to the matters
raised and has no further comment’. It is ex
-
traordinary that the Council would describe the
demolition as “exempted development” rather
than development permitted by the Part 8. And
the Improvement Scheme and URDF have noth
-
ing to do with planning permission.
It seems the Council have illegally demolished
a protected wall: and no amount of wae or ob
-
fuscation can alter that.
They may plead that it was dangerous or that
it was outside the curtilage of the house and
therefore not covered by the protection but that
would be clutching at straws.
The Chief Executive advised Guckian: “As an
elected member of this Council, I think it only fair
to advise you, in my opinion, in the event that
legal proceedings are taken and the Council are
successful, it is likely that you could be held per
-
sonally accountable for the costs to the public
purse of your proceedings and for the cost of any
delays incurred (including significant Contractor
contractual delay costs) as a result of your ac
-
tions and threatened actions”.
For the moment the Chief Executive is merely
sourcing funds for the demolitions and Concept
Centre. If successful he will need to eect anoth
-
er compulsory order and then apply for planning
permission. This is likely to take several years.
The Chief Executive submitted an application
for funding for the Concept under the URDF in
May.
Councillor Guckian asked a question of Shay
O’Connor, Project Manager and Senior Engineer
for Leitrim County Council, at the 13 July Carrick
Municipal Meeting. Guckian is scandalised in
particular by the lack of consultation and the fact
that the business community such as the Cham
-
ber of Commerce were consulted ahead of the
decent house-owners aected. He has less to
say about the quality of the scheme. He believes
the “National Plan 2040 [sic] favours urban hi
-
erarchy…and will finish o rural Leitrim and the
West”. He has not considered what the ‘National
Plan’ or its oshoots like the URDF envision for
a town like Carrick. For good or bad it involves
curtailing cars in the interests of a particular type
of fashionable permeability.
Guckian, an energetic but unorthodox Coun
-
cillor who on one occasion used the ‘N’ word in
the Council chamber, proposed withdrawal of
the funding application. In calling for this, his
motion intemperately characterised Mr Power
as a “modern-day Lord Leitrim, the exterminat
-
ing landlord who callously took whatever he
wanted and used British law to give him a fig-
leaf”. He made utterly unsustainable allega
-
tions against Power: “This action by Mr Power
is a great example of CHICANERY (twisting the
law)”. He accused Power of being “secretive
and untruthful” though there is no evidence of
dishonesty. He said, without any evidence that
the Chief Executive was doing this for the “ben
-
efit of investors, speculators and other carpet-
baggers”. Councillors were horrified and refused
to support Guckian’s motion. He explains his
obscurantist thinking: “What annoys us all is
the dark methods used by Mr Power. He is guilty,
by sins of omission and commission, of not in
-
forming those who are to suer most from his
actions, but he did go and discuss it with many
other people in the town. Especially, he got let
-
ters of approval from 14 influential people. Sev-
eral of these have since stated that they thought
everyone was on board”. Guckian is seeking an
apology from Power.
In reply to Guckian’s motion a report by the
Director of Services said “in the first instance the
reference to a secretive and untruthful approach
by the executive in relation to this matter is cat
-
egorically refuted, and we take exception to it”.
The Council outlined how it sees its relation
-
ship with national funding: “The position is that
it is the remit of the executive to make funding
bids under the various funding streams as they
arise and to seek to secure as much funding
as possible for the county with the objective of
making Leitrim the best possible place to live,
work, invest and visit…The executive of this
Council would deal with over 100 applications
for funding in a year. The Council executive will
endeavour to brief pertinent aected parties
on project concepts that may ultimately involve
the acquisition of their home or business before
any external party discussions take place. Town
centres throughout Ireland are under immense
pressure from a retail perspective and are in de
-
cline and the position is the Carrick on Shannon
is no dierent these pressures include inter alia
pressure from out of town retail a the transition
to trading online”.
The Council added that if approved for fund
-
ing under the URDF, “full public consultation and
engagement will take place to shape and evolve
what is presently a concept into a full design
brief”. The Council would purchase, compulsori
-
ly or otherwise, the properties and apply to itself
for planning permission for the second phase
under the URDF.
Flynn’s Field: Crrick’s bcklnds
hd to tke one for the tem
The question is not just if this proposed
development is lawful and if Leitrim County
Council has observed all legal require
-
ments especially for demolition of a pro-
tected wall, but whether the second phase
of the developments is well-conceived.
What is the unique selling point of Carrick
and is it best served with a destination
centre on the sensitive site of three of the
town’s most characteristic historic houses,
or somewhere else nearby?
It is extraordinary that the Council would describe
the demolition as “exempted development” rather
than development permitted by the Part 8. And the
Improvement Scheme and URDF have to do with
planning permission. It seems the Council have
illegally demolished a protected wall’.
