LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Cllr Shaun Cunniffe replies to Tony Galvin Dear Editor, Anybody who read Tony Galvin's Opinion piece in last week's edition of The Tuam Herald, July 19, 2012, could only conclude that I am a hypocrite and my lack of integrity embodies all that is worst in local Irish politics. I know it is an opinion piece and there is leeway for comment but this was beyond opinion it was designed to damage my credibility and frustrate my efforts in relation to the Palace Road right of way. Of course, Tony should be happy to know that he threw sufficient muck to achieve this in some quarters. I am very grateful to The Tuam Herald for the right of reply. One of the main planks of Tony's argument against me is that I sleepwalked through the entire urban development project centred on O'Tooles. I say to Tony that despite the plans, there is no urban development project centred on O'Tooles. I hope you don't mind if I repeat that, we did not get an urban development project centred on O'Tooles. Instead, we got a car park that would grace any international airport. As you'd say yourself 'Strange, that.' The minutes of the meeting, that Tony so jubilantly refers to, record that Joe O'Toole had to build the inner relief road, as a service road, to comply with his planning permission for the significant retail development and that it was proposed to dispose of lands including the Palace Road so the development could go ahead. This was an agreement, the disposal of the road (and the right of way at a later date) and the planned development were totally linked and contingent on each other. Tony talks about what happened (ie the council vote) but not why it happened which is the important thing. Major point here is that the right of way has not been extinguished, that will be down to a vote of Galway County Council in the near future, it had already signaled its willingness to do so if the development was going ahead. Demolishing the Palace Road and building a car park was premature as the public had not been informed of the intention to remove the right of way and could not comment. Incidentally, those minutes Tony refers to, were already highlighted on â€ËœThe Restore our Palace Road' facebook page together with a detailed explanation from me in the files section explaining all the surrounding facts and aspects of this agreement. The answers to Tony's allegations were all there if he had looked. The proposed development would have allowed Tuam to retain a lot of the retail spend that is being lost from Tuam (estimated at €34 million per annum) as the retail selection in other towns such as Castlebar, Claremorris and Galway entices many away. Tuam doesn't have any national clothing stores (Next, River Island, etc) or national department stores (Dunnes, Marks & Spencers, Penney's) so these would have been an enormous addition and all shops throughout Tuam town would have benefitted greatly from the increased footfall. This would have meant jobs (200-300 at least) and also made the town more attractive for businesses thinking of locating in the west of Ireland. There are 35,000 people within a half an hour's drive of Tuam, so the customers are there if the shopping experience is on offer. The development was also to deliver a very high quality civic space, pedestrianised shopping streets, a large public plaza incorporating parkland trees, out-door dining areas, market trading areas, trees, extensive landscaping, public seating and play areas. There was also a pedestrian route down to the palace grounds, schools and leisure centre. I was more than impressed by the plans. I believed the people of Tuam should have access to local retail employment opportunities as do the citizens of other towns. I believed it would boost the town from the centre out which is the ideal approach as per all Town Planning and National Retail Guidelines and that it was badly needed. The crux of the problem is that we did not get what we voted for. Hence the difficulties. Mr O'Toole had planning permission to build this development, if he decided not to go ahead or wished to develop the site in any other way, he was obliged under our planning laws to apply for fresh planning permission which is a public process open for all to comment and agree or object to. Only when a new planning permission was sought by Joe O'Toole would any public representative or anybody know that anything other than the original plans were to be carried out. That is the protection the planning laws are supposed to afford the public. How could anybody protest when it was done without public knowledge? It is clearly unfair to to blame the public for not protesting when they had no idea about what was happening. I didn't know Joe O'Toole had changed his mind until I witnessed the construction of a large car park over the site, it was then questions began to be asked and it became clear that something was out of kilter. Having asked questions, the first real chance to discuss this formally for me was at a Tuam Area Council Meeting on March 30. I expressed my huge disappointment at what had transpired and refused to let a proposal to 'Extinguish the Palace Road Right of Way' go forward to the main County Council Meeting. At the area meeting, I formally asked the council to arrange a meeting with Joe O'Toole, the Council, local councillors and all the school principals, who were astonished at what had happened, and the Chamber of Commerce. It took six weeks to get this meeting, it took place in mid April 2012. Joe O'Toole was unable to attend. It was explained to his representative and professional advisor that the car park was dangerously unsafe and requests were made for the Palace Road to be put back. Four weeks later they came back with a plan that involved a railing at the corner of the Gael Scoil and new directional white lines. I rejected this plan at the Tuam Area Council Meeting on June 15, 2012. This plan was carried in the Herald of July 12, 2012 and presented by Mr O'Toole as an agreed resolution by all who attended that meeting, the opposite of this, I am afraid, was the case. He further stated that based on professional advice it wouldn't be possible or safe to put a road through a car park. It isn't lost on people that as our campaign mushroomed and pressure grew this professional advice seemed to change and a road appeared and raised pavements and railings were instated just before the date of our protest. Things that previously were not even entertained as possible, just happened. However, just as fast as the road, raised pavements and railings were erected they could be taken down and the road returned to car parking spaces. Furthermore, if this land changes hands in coming years and our right of way has not been maintained we will be using Bishop Street and Shop Street to access the Palace Grounds. Remember, with the proposed development access to the palace grounds remained. Think of the inconvenience, the elderly and the young in this scenario. So why, Tony, are you so surprised that I dare to express an opinion or object to this removal of a right of way with no public benefit for Tuam amazes me. I believe what has happened is a very bad deal for Tuam, it had no planning permission, and should be rectified and I will do all I can to achieve this and I am certain we can do it Tony's accusation that I am engaged in a bile-infused campaign against Super Valu employees' jobs is unreal. He chose one comment on a facebook site, which interacts with close on 3,000 people, a comment that received many rebukes from participants and which was taken down, and uses this comment to portray what we are about. We have gone out of our way over and over again to explain this but, I suppose, where is the scandal factor in that? I think he justified his conclusion by saying you can't un-ring a bell. True, but you can look at things in a balanced way. I ask everybody who instinctively believes that the right of way should be maintained to take heart and keep up the great work, don't be told you can't make your voice heard or express your wishes. I believe that the balance between business interests and community interests must be maintained, I felt the proposed development offering substantial jobs, keeping the retail spend locally and growing the town from the centre out kept this balance, that is where my vote went. The current situation in my opinion has significantly lost this balance and needs to be rectified. To conclude, all the jibes about political expenses, the annual Mayor's lunch, stabbing the town in the heart, SuperValu staff doing overtime for me and my Alice in Wonderland residency, in my opinion, doesn't deserve comment. Many thanks again for the right of reply. Yours, Cllr Shaun Cunniffe Tuam