Sweeney: “…. In answer to your question, I have absolutely no compunction about saying that I was perfectly happy to sign his papers. He was suited to the job …”

Magee had earlier informed the Spotlight audience that McAllister was convicted of a £17,000+ benefit fraud (found guilty in 2006)

From the Moyle DC minutes of 26 March 2007 McAllister was still ‘lobbying’ for his DUP associate even though the Planning Service recommended refusal:

“E/2006/0304/F Mr S Sweeney C/O Studiorogers, The Egg Store, 1 Mountsandel Road, Coleraine, BT52 1JB. Location land adjacent to 82 Castlecat Road, Bushmills. Proposed erection of 2 no. infill semi-detached cottages.

Ms McMath stated that this application was recommended for refusal due to the proposed development being contrary to CTY1 and PPS 14 – No case for need, CTY11 – Erosion of Rural Character and CTY12 -Ribbon Development.

After discussion, Councillor McAllister requested that an office meeting be held, in relation to this application under criteria five, this is where the Council considered that all material planning considerations had not been assessed or where the opinion had been made contrary to, or departed from, prevailing planning policy.

This was agreed.”

As far as I know, there are now about seven dwellings on that site.

Any funding would likely to have been part of an overall bid by NITB which would have been agreed before the Departments proposal was withdrawn. Planning permission would be a condition of grant and due to N+2 stress the earlier a project can be started the better.

All of this were it to happen would suggest a far greater collaboration between Ministers and developers than suspected by some at the moment.

“If a public sector project were to proceed under the Territorial Co-operation Programme, it might be eligible for EU support of up to 75% of total project costs. A private sector project could apply to the NITB for up to 50% of total project costs, which might be eligible for 75% EU support under the Territorial Co-operation Programme (in effect, 37% % of total project costs).

Any EU funding, whether for a public or private project, would need to be found from within the total EU funding allocated to NI….”

And from Allister: “the best a private project could attract would be 37.5%”.

Would the developer seek EU funding – and would his DUP (and other political) associates support him?

Posted by Alex Swan on Oct 24, 2007 @ 10:53 PM

When I read this for some unaccountable reason there popped into my mind the title of the autobiography of the famous American brothel-keeper, Polly Adler :

A House is not a Home

Why, I wonder did make this Freudian connection in my unconcious mind between the matter of this thread and ahouse of prostitution?

Aren’t one’s unguarded thought patterns spooky?

David Ford, the Alliance Party leader, appears to be the one leading the charge in the Environment Committee, a committee that is chaired by the SDLP’s Patsy McGlone.

Surely this is one for Margaret Ritchie. Why doesn’t she raise the, er, possible breach of the Ministerial Code?

Sweeney [The 15:40 from Bushmills ]: “What tends to happen is this. We lodge planning applications and applications are going through the system. If we believe that obstacles that otherwise should otherwise not be put in our way are being put in our way through the general progress of his applications through the system we would then revert to our councillors, to our MLAs, to our MPs to explain why that perhaps we are not getting equitable treatment”

Let’s look briefly at Ballyallaght. Cllr McConaghy was amazed that planners should claim that there would only ever be planning permission for one replacement dwelling and maybe one additional dwelling and yet Sweeney/Seaport should be able to build fourteen. There are now seventeen. IMO that’s rather better than equitable treatment.

Sometimes more that one application appears to be entered for the same location. For example, the process associated with the old salmon fishery site off Beach Road, Portballintrae, was a bit odd to say the least.

The developer wanted to demolish the Ice House and then, when EHS stepped in to list the structure, the developer changed his tune and offered to protect it.

Not one but two applications were made for apartments on the site, apartments that would have partly blocked the beautiful view of Runkerry House and the headlands around the Giant’s Causeway as you turned the harbour corner.

The local residents association and their supporters opposed the applications and, eventually, when the matter went to appeal, the PACNI reluctantly agreed to consider all the applications together. Following the inquiry, the applications were rejected.

Paisley jnr: “I, I know of him. Yes”

Paisley jnr: “If I was asked that question again today, I’d give exactly the same answer” [6m 40s]

Perhaps he should speak the truth – as he may have done later on Spotlight:

Magee: “How many projects would you have supported of Mr Sweeney’s over the years?” [11m 10s]

Paisley: “Gosh. Ummm. I wouldn’t be surprised in the last ten years there was a dozen, a dozen projects”

Now what projects would have been on this list? The transfer of the Giant’s Causeway and Bushmills Railway Company? The drift net fishing licence that inter alia Paisley snr lobbied for? #111 Whitepark Road? The potential ‘village’ a short distance SE of Castlecatt? The development on the Salmon Fishery site in Portballintrae that was rejected by the PACNI? The development of an Arts and Crafts Centre (adjacent to the proposed Visitor’s Centre) that was also rejected by the PACNI?

Paisley: “I’ve been is his [Sweeney's] house with Government officials to discuss a policy issues (sic)” [11m 40s]

Now, what policy issues would these be?

Posted by Wee slabber on Oct 24, 2007 @ 01:35 PM

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j274/Lord_Pounder/PaisleyforFiannaFail.jpg

Well from the looks of the above picture it seems Senior is already well on the way. (Thanks to Mr Parsley for his keen photographic skills)

try this