Co Council insists public got very good deal on Palace Road land swap

By TONY GALVIN IF other developers are to be treated in the same way Joe O'Toole has been in Tuam, there will be little chance of anyone coming forward to fund redevelopment in other towns around the county. This was stated by Cllr Tomas Mannion during a debate at County Hall on Monday on the handover of the disputed Palace Road between Bishop Street and the Palace Grounds park to developer Joe O'Toole in return for land he gave to the Co Council to built the town's new inner-relief road. The meeting was told by council management that the land swap was part of a legally binding deal they had reached with the developer. Earlier in the meeting the council voted to extinguish the public right of way through the O'Toole site. It was agreed that the right of way would be leased back to the council by the developer under licence until the site is developed. However, Cllr Shaun Cunniffe, one of the leaders of a campaign to restore the Palace Road and keep it in public ownership, objected to the land being transferred to Joe O'Toole. Cllr Cunniffe argued that he had previously agreed to support the plan, but on the understanding that the developer was going to meet all costs for the new road and also that it was part of a town development project. He said that Joe O'Toole had benefited from the new road because it increased the value of his site. He got the lion's share of the advantage as without the road his land could not be developed. Costs incurred Cllr Tom McHugh said that it was his understanding that Joe O'Toole provided the land for the road as well as donating €1.1 million towards the cost of building it. He had to purchase some of the land from the Presentation Sisters and incurred the cost of moving their tennis courts to a new site, the rest he donated from his own property. The project was carried out by Coffey's and was of enormous benefit to the town in accommodating the Big Dig project. Director of Services Jim Cullen said Cllr Cunniffe's comments regarding the costs to the council were misleading. The Co Council reached an agreement with the developer that he would provide €1.1 million. This was a legally binding agreement. What had to be taken into account was what it would have cost the council to acquire the necessary land from Joe O'Toole and the nuns and to then meet the additional cost of building the road. Referring to the land swap he said the council gave Joe O'Toole 0.22 hectare of land while he had given 0.4 hectare to the council in return, double the amount of land he received. Additional costs to the original estimate for the road were incurred because of additional OPW requirements and third party obstructions, particularly at Waterslade House. The final cost of the road was €1,665,000. This, he said, was exceptional value for the council and Cllr Cunniffe ignored the fact that this significant piece of infrastructure for Tuam had no chance of being build without the developer's input. However, Cllr Cunniffe insisted that Joe O'Toole would have built the road in any case. 'He got a very good deal. €1.1 million to open up his property. Why give him the Palace road as well?' he asked. Jim Cullen replied that the council would have had to acquire Joe O'Toole's 0.4 hectare in addition to the nuns' land to built the road themselves. The developer was getting the land from the council in return for the land he gave for the inner relief road. Cllr Tomas Mannion said Tuam was lucky to have someone willing to invest in the centre of the town. Ballinasloe was crying out for such a deal. 'If this is the way we are going to deal with people who want to fund development in the county who will bother? We have a hang-up about developers but if we treat other people in the same manner as this Tuam developer we won't see many bothering in future,' he said. â€ËœNever again' 'I hope we never have something like this again,' he added, before proposing the motion to hand over the 0.22 hectares of land which the old Palace road once ran along to the developer in accordance with the deal reached with the council. This proposal was seconded by Cllr Michael â€ËœMoggie' Maher. As Cllr Cunniffe objected to the proposal the matter had to go to a vote. 23 councillors voted for the handover, two abstained and Cllr Cunniffe voted against.