Consultant apologises for text message mistake

A TIPPERARY agricultural consultant has apologised for inadvertently outlining aggressive tactics in a text message to a Clare County Council valuer, concerning landowners involved in a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to facilitate the proposed €40 million Shannon Bridge Crossing in Killaloe.

 

Richard Rea, of Martin and Rea Agricultural Consultants, Tipperary, issued his apology at the oral hearing concerning the CPO and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) relating to the Shannon Bridge Crossing, Killaloe bypass and upgrading of the regional road linking Ballina and Birdhill.

The text, which was sent to Liam Browne, son of Paddy Browne of Paddy Browne and Co Property, Ennis, stated Clare County Council had decided to refuse to give an indemnity clause, which landowners received on all previous National Roads Authority (NRA) road projects.

It included the instruction, “Give them hell. Get aggressive and act the b****x” and warned that very few, if any, objections would be withdrawn.

Clare County Council declined to comment on this incident.

There have been a number of heated exchanges at the oral hearing between Clare County Council’s legal representative, Dermot Flanagan and agents representing objectors who are subject to the CPO order in Ballina and Killaloe.

Clare County Council representatives have been conducting separate negotiations with landowners and their agents behind closed doors for the last two weeks.

In his statement to the oral hearing on Tuesday afternoon, Richard Rea apologised for sending the text message to Mr Browne in error and stressed he didn’t intend to obstruct or hinder the oral hearing.
However, Mr Rea also stressed he would not be forced into acting against the best interests of his clients in relation to their concerns.

“I was under a lot of pressure this morning, having received 38 responses from Clare County Council yesterday. I was also trying to make appointments for my clients,” he explained.

Barrister Dermot Flanagan, who represents Clare County Council, stated there is an obligation on all parties not to hinder or obstruct the completion of the oral hearing.

Mr Flanagan told the senior planning inspector, Stephen Fay that he felt it was important that he brought this serious matter to the attention of the hearing and noted he would be gravely concerned if this message had been sent deliberately. He expressed his dissatisfaction that this message was sent to a council representative, which could adversely impact on the efficient operation of the oral hearing.

Stating he was deeply concerned on behalf of the council, he pointed out Mr Browne, the council valuer, was engaging in discussions with Mr Rea without prejudice.

Commenting on the use of the words “give them hell and act aggressively”, he expressed concern if an attempt was made to intimidate a county council representative. He pointed out it is a criminal offence for anyone to obstruct an oral hearing.

Mr Fay said he had noted what Mr Flanagan and Mr Rea had stated, which now form part of the official record. He stressed there is an onus on him to run the oral hearing as expeditiously as possible and he has to be mindful of this requirement. While Mr Fay opted not to make any ruling on this issue at that stage, he reserved the right to deal with it at a later stage, if necessary.

Peter Sweetman, who is representing some of the objectors and is part of Mr Rea’s team, insisted the message hadn’t any adverse material impact on the running of the hearing, as he hadn’t read it.

Stressing it is impossible to determine the exact length of time it took to deal with any issue concerning the scheme, he claimed that cross-examination on issues could have finished earlier if they had received proper information and not “glib” answers.

Another member of Mr Rea’s team, David Browne, said he was sure that this message was sent in error and insisted it didn’t have any impact on the proceedings earlier that morning. In fact, Mr Browne said he felt they were “railroaded” into trying to finish the agenda and wondered if the council is trying to create confusion to block any genuine concerns of objectors.

He stressed that he was in no way trying to delay the proceedings and noted at one stage he had to ask a question six times before he got an answer.