Question raised by councillor leads to heated dispute at Kildare County Council meeting

placeholder image — Aras Chill Dara, Naas

A question put forward by an Independent councillor at the latest Kildare-Newbridge Municipal District (MD) meeting turned into a heated exchange of words.

Cllr Fiona McLoughlin-Healy asked Kildare County Council (KCC) to provide a list of all contracts agreed between the council and another party since 2014 regarding land within the MD area.

Specifically, her motion read as follows: "Can the council provide a list of all contracts agreed between the council and another party since 2014 regarding land within the MD area where it has included as a condition of the contract an option to dispose of land to the other party should the council dispose of the property at a future date (including but not limited to contracts relating to CPO’d land) to include a clarification as to whether all such contracts entered into by the council contain a condition that any subsequent disposal will be subject to a vote of the elected representatives?"

In response to her motion, KCC said in its report at the meeting: “The Transportation, Mobility and Open Spaces Directorate does not hold a definitive list of such contracts and the compilation of such a list would take a significant amount of time and resources.

"Where land is deemed surplus to the requirements, relevant agreements entered into with landowners are checked for special clauses to transfer the land back to the original owner.

Her sentiments were echoed by FF Cllr Anne Connolly, who said that she would prefer to see the assurances in writing first.

Independent councillor Fiona McLoughlin-Healy put the question forward to Kildare County Council.

KCC continued: "In order to definitively answer this question each contract would have to be reviewed requiring considerable time and resources, but it should be noted that all disposals are subject to Section 183 of the Local Government Act 2001."

The representative added that if she gives a particular case as an example, then the council can go through it with her, but she insisted that she did provide a particular case at the meeting.

When Cllr McLoughlin-Healy claimed that Section 183 actually stated something else, a number of other councillors present interjected, saying that her claim was incorrect, and that KCC was correct. She also urged Cathaoirleach Noel Heavey to enquire about the issue.

He said he would do so following the meeting.

The full details of Section 183 can be read here.

Speaking to the Leinster Leader following the meeting, Cllr McLoughlin-Healy said that the motion which was rejected was phrased as follows: "That KCC clarify the role, and authority and rationale of both the LGMA and the CCMA to reject requests for job evaluations in local government, which have resulted in staff refusing to respond to representations of its councillors."

She said that she was told by a representative of KCC that this motion did not relate to the function of the council or a MD, and that it was instead 'a human resources and industrial relations matter at national level, and is being dealt with through the normal industrial relations mechanisms on behalf on the Local Authority Sector not just an individual council.'

Re-iterating her stance, Cllr McLoughlin-Healy said: "It was disallowed on what I believe are spurious grounds."