Monday, September 10, 2007
“It would not be a prudent use of taxpayers’ money to proceed further in the circumstances..”
The winning architectural design for the proposed Visitor’s Centre at the Giant’s Causeway was announced in October 2005 and, presumably, that’s what they still intend to build [Adds or perhaps not..]. But the question of who is to build it looks like being another battle-ground within the NI Executive.. and outside as well. On Saturday SF MLA Daithí McKay complained about the delay, today we have a quick one-two of statements from the DUP representatives in the Executive - firstly from the Environment Minister Arlene Foster, and then from DETI Minister Nigel Dodds. The upshot of which seems to be that their preferred choice is for a private development company, Seaport Investments Ltd, to take on the project.. and the costs involved in building it. BBC report here Update SF’s Daithí McKay wants clarification from the DUP.. and the BBC have just reported that Seymour Sweeney, of Seaport Investments Ltd, has confirmed he is a member of the DUP and signed nomination papers for a councillor in Moyle, but he also stated that he has not donated “a penny piece” to the party. [added link and photo of Mr Sweeney with Ian Paisley Snr and Jnr] And another link with this quote from Environment Minister Arlene Foster [statement here]
Updated From a 2003 UNESCO-IUCN report on the Giant’s Causeway [PDF file]“A minister, when making decisions, cannot and should not investigate party affiliations of applicants, and I did not do so in this case,” the minister said. “I do not know the applicant, have never met him, and know nothing about him. “If anyone impugns my integrity in this matter I will be seeking legal advice and will act accordingly.”
However, a number of potential threats exist, including development proposals, which could threaten the values and the integrity of the site. None of these proposals have been through the full planning process and have been approved. No approval should be given without reviewing a proposed development within the context of the protection and safeguarding of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the World Heritage site and its management.
From the Environment Minister Arlene Foster
The Minister said: “I have recently received a report from the Planning Service on a planning application by Seaport Investments Ltd for a new Visitor and Study Centre at the Giant’s Causeway World Heritage Site. I have given this report my fullest consideration and have also taken the opportunity to visit the site.
“Having done so, I have concluded that there is considerable merit in what is proposed and I am of a mind to approve it. I have asked my officials to engage with the developer and key local stakeholders on some aspects of the proposal so that I can make a formal decision on it at the earliest opportunity.”
The Minister added: “I am of course conscious that this announcement will have implications for the public sector proposal which has been under development by DETI and the NITB but which has not yet led to a planning application. I understand that my colleague, Nigel Dodds, will be making a separate statement on this issue.”
And from the Tourism Minister Nigel Dodds
The Minister went on to explain what this decision meant for the Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment and the Northern Ireland Tourist Boards’ proposals for developing a visitor centre; he said: “The Department and NITB became involved as a potential developer of last resort. This was at the request of the key stakeholders who were unable, over an extended period of time, to reach agreement.”
The Minister continued: “It would not be a prudent use of taxpayers’ money to proceed further in the circumstances, given Minister Foster’s position on the private sector planning application. The DETI/NITB project would cost in excess of £21million.
“The people of Northern Ireland will no doubt look to all local stakeholders to work constructively to deliver the facilities expected by visitors to this magnificent tourism asset.”
Pete Baker @ 03:03 PM
If there is even one decent investigative journalist in this place,, please step forward.
Anyone recall the name of the guy Sweeney uses to meet politicians on his behalf? For the life of me i wish i could remember.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 06:00 PMFrank, the judge decided in favour of the developer in the right-of-way dispute.
Perhaps the Ulster Way round the headland from Runkerry House to the Giant’s Causeway will be ‘rerouted’!!
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 06:10 PMSpiritof07
Now let us sing praises of the lord…
having no expertise as an investigative journalist, i have come across this from BBC NI in 2001 where the REVEREND WILLIAM McCREA expressed dismay,disappointment that Moyle council did not do the deal with Seaport on the Causeway (see below as I can’t get links to work when posting on slugger.
I think it is safe to conclude that the higest echelons of the DUP had a view on the preferred Causeway option for a while.
What does it all mean?
BBC NI Thursday, 6 December, 2001, 14:57 GMT
Concern has been expressed about the future of the visitors’ centre at the world famous Giant’s Causeway in Northern Ireland.
It comes after Moyle District Council scrapped plans to sell off the County Antrim centre in the face of two multi-million pound re-development projects.
The assembly’s environment committee is meeting at Stormont to discuss the situation at the World Heritage attraction.
Committee chairman the Reverend William McCrea said the present situation was “unacceptable” and action had to be taken.“We cannot instruct a council and tell them exactly how to handle their property,” he said.
“What I want to ensure is that the situation does not ride there, where we are left with a sub-standard facility in a world-standard amenity.”
Moyle Council met on Tuesday evening to consider two multi-million pound projects to redevelop the nine acre site.
They had been in a quandary over the centre, even before a fire destroyed the old permanent building at the site last April.
Though fully insured, a proper replacement building would have to be much bigger to cope with an estimated 500,000 visitors each year.
But the council decided financing such a scheme by itself was impossible and no grants were available.
In July, the council opted to put the site which is at the entrance to the Giant’s Causeway, on the market.
But behind closed doors in council chambers, bids from a private developer, Seaport Investments Ltd, and the National Trust failed to be considered.
In a statement on Thursday, Seaport said it was disappointed the council had “opted to stop the sale”.
“It would appear that Moyle have taken this decision against all professional advice,” the statement said.Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 06:52 PMWhat I can’t understand is;
1. If Sweeney is a millionaire and a member of the DUP his claim to never have donated money beggars belief, after all the Dupes are famous for the generosity of their members, what exactly does Sweeney understand by a donation?
2. This application has been on the table for some time, Sweeney with his profile must be well known yet we are told no-one mentioned to either Minister that he was a party member, sloppy or what?As for the response of Arlene Foster and her threat to sue, a little power has obviously made her arrogant, it’s as well she isn’t First minister with absolute power……….?
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 08:01 PMWow! Potentially Our new Executive/ Assembly’s first real life scandal!
Gonzo’s right: this one stinks. Just how the DUPers thought they’d go down this road without raising eyebrows beggars belief. From the simultaneous Siamese press releases from Dodds/ Foster to the revelations about Sweeney’s political affiliations (no more than that at this stage...) either the DUP are getting incredibly arrogant/ complacent or their political acumen has been significantly over-estimated.
btw Anyone know if a Ministerial decision to go with the Seymour option can be subject to the much vaunted cross-community Executive veto?
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 08:17 PMWill the new visitor’s centre also be encaged in metal bars and razor wire to complement the fishermen’s cottage adjacent to Runkerry House? What do our politicians and planners have to say about such a militaristic structure?
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 08:19 PMelsewhere in the news....the Nook Partnership
Has anyone ever heard of the ‘Nook Partnership’ (no obvious jokes please). it appears that industrious entrepreneur Mr Sweeney also has/had a company/consortium called the Nook Partnership which, after judicial tooing and frooing, constructed a pub (Sweeneys) next to… you guessed it, the Giants Causeway at Portballintrae. They take bookings and all major credit cards
Seemingly at that time the concerns of the National Trust regarding development were assuaged. anyway see below
BBCNI Wednesday, 19 December, 2001, 15:35 GMT
Causeway pub given green lightPlans to build a pub at Northern Ireland’s most popular tourist destination, the Giants Causeway, have been given the all clear following a decision by the National Trust to abandon a High Court action.
The pub will be built at the entrance to the world-famous heritage site in County Antrim.
The National Trust said on Wednesday that it withdrew from the case following assurance from the Department of Environment that the management plan for the Causeway area would be given full weight in assessing future planning applications in the local area.
Seymour Sweeney, managing director of the development company, The Nook Partnership welcomed the news.“It is regrettable the National Trust saw fit to hold up the provision of a much-needed tourist facility and the economic benefits and employment that will flow from this project,” he said.
Mr Sweeney said the £500,000 up-market pub-restaurant would befit its location immediately adjacent to the site and was targeted at the thousands of local and international visitors who come to the Giants Causeway annually.
Last September, the National Trust obtained leave to apply for a judicial review of planning permission on the grounds that the decision by the Planning Service had contravened planning laws.
Conservation
However, Mr Justice Kerr was informed on Wednesday that an injunction restraining the developers from continuing construction work was to be lifted forthwith.
The National Trust said they had been reassured that future protection of the site would be a priority.
“Given the widespread public concerns over potential development around the site, the trust is satisfied that the reassurances provided and the importance placed by the minister on the continued conservation of the Giant’s Causeway will significantly strengthen the protection of the area.”
A spokesman for the DoE said it was “always confident” that its planning decisions were properly taken in accordance with prevailing policies.
Officials at the department are continuing their scrutiny of development proposals within a four-kilometre radius of the Causeway.Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 08:19 PMWhatever this amounts to it’s a massive PR cock-up by the DUP.
All they had to do yesterday after Dodds and Foster’s synchronised statements was to get Sweeney’s PR reps (http://www.jlprni.com/) to stick out a statement welcoming the move with an advisory note detailing his DUP links.
Instead all the detail dribbled out through Radio Ulster today with one ad-hoc statement around midday being followed up by a more comprehensive one hours later. It all gave the impression of people with something to hide being caught on the hop.
The subsequent reaction by the DUP-ers has been risible, it’s largely amounted to ‘how dare anyone point out that two of our ministers cooked up a plan that will benefit one of our members. We’ll sue, you know.’
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 08:22 PMGuys, I have to remind people to stay within the bounds of reasonable discussion. I see a lot of frenzied speculation and few facts being bandied around.
There is a boundary between reasonable speculation and constructively fitting up a case that cannot, yet at least, be proven.
I’ve already closed one such flagrant attempt, and I’d rather not have to sit up another late night policing what people should be able to decently work out for themselves.
I would also remind people that all our major political parties have some very close contacts to wealthy property developers and large scale entrepreneurs.
If we were to run the same speculative rule over those other relationships, no one would be able do, build, or develop anything in this country.
Till someone provides some tangible evidence of impropriety, this looks more like an argument over whether private or public money should be spent on this new heritage centre.
Wrightbus anyone?
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 08:32 PM““A minister, when making decisions, cannot and should not investigate party affiliations of applicants, and I did not do so in this case,” the minister said.” .. Foster quote
She cannot be serious. Surely a minister is duty bound to prevent potential slease, or at least reduce the risk?
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 08:46 PMThe whole thing stinks of “brown envolopes”.
A public site is being squandered for the sake of private enterprize. The stones themselves belong to the National Trust, but the money end, ie car parking catering merchandising etc will belong to Sweeney. Its like stealing from the public purse.
The rate payers in Moyle must be pissed off. He of course does not have to buy the site from Moyle Council. He bought a few acers closer to the stones themselves and plans to develope this instead, puting under threat the Causeways world heritage status.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 08:51 PMThe new site is on Sweeney’s land. Development on the NT/Moyle Council site ended up in disagreement between them. Portacabins are all that we’ve been offering tourists since the fire five years ago.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 08:58 PMI heard Og on Nolan this morning, he was on the run. Nolan is really annoying but I think he’s actually quite good at haranguing the politicians.
One caller rang in to Nolan to ask why the matter had not gone before the assembly. Ian Og correctly explained that this was because ministers had the power to take these decisions by themselves. It’s a shame nobody phoned in to point out that this was a far cry from the DUP’s election manifesto, which decried the “old” executive which could do what it liked without referring to the assembly. It hasn’t taken long for the hypocrisy to start.
With each passing week I’m becoming more and more convinced that powersharing government in the current format is looking like a bad idea. Thanks to the stupid d’Hondt system, it’s not possible for the other parties to get together to exclude a party from the system if they feel that it is engaging in misconduct.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 08:59 PMMoyle District Council are in session on Friday morning to discuss recent developments. Not sure if they can do much now that the horse has bolted so to speak.
If someone could enlighten me, please do so....Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 09:00 PMTiny:
As for the response of Arlene Foster and her threat to sue, a little power has obviously made her arrogant, it’s as well she isn’t First minister with absolute power……….?
I saw that. How can it be the case that she could sue for claims of corruption in her role as a minister ?
Chris D:
Wow! Potentially Our new Executive/ Assembly’s first real life scandal!
Yes, and the first question the Shinners have to answer is why they support a system that prevents the exclusion of parties if they are found to be engaged in impropriety…
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 09:05 PMmsa,
Moyle is powerless to do much (it only has a tiny stake in the land), but in five years it hadn’t been able to draw down a workable solution with their ‘senior’ partners in the National Trust.
CS,
“...it’s not possible for the other parties to get together to exclude a party from the system if they feel that it is engaging in misconduct.”
Indeed this was strongly resisted in the negotiations towards the SAA. Though I also take it that you are speaking speculatively.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 09:09 PMCS,
I agreed with the comments in the newsletter yesterday that this farce at stormont is ‘crippled’ by jointism. This isn’t real politics with everybody singing from the same page. There should at least be some sort of public consultation process with the rate payers over this decision.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 09:10 PMMick, the fire was in 2000, seven years ago.
I wonder if the DUP ministers have read the 2003 UNESCO report. Here’s a snippet:
“XII.37 In early 2001, the Moyle Distric (sic) Council had offered the site for development. The State Party report noted that a number of planning applications had recently been lodged relating to the area immediately adjacent to the World Heritage site. These applications will be determined under the Northern Ireland planning process. IUCN received some reports expressing concern with threats to the integrity of the site, and more specifically on the following issues: ongoing piecemeal development/applications and poor control on development; absence of an integrated management plan; lack of a statutory development plan which recognises the unique nature of the World Heritage site; concern that the current planning system only considers each application on its own merit, but does not consider cumulative impacts.
XII.38 One of these reports noted that the bid for tender for the visitor centre is the same developer who is already undertaking development in the land adjacent to the site (conversion of a listed building to a public house), and has three other applications pending (Arts, Crafts and Cultural Centre; 60-room hotel and separate tea room). The Bureau noted that the State Party letter of 11 February stated that the decision to sell the land was again reversed by the Moyle District Council on 6 February 2002, and that the Council intended to take the lead in redeveloping the visitor facilities.
XII.39 The Bureau reiterated its concerns about piecemeal development and the absence of a clear buffer zone with special planning provisions that would prevent such development occurring. There is potential for cumulative impacts which could cause irreversible damage to the setting and environmental context of the site. The Bureau noted that the State Party report in December mentioned that the DOENI “has commenced preparation of the Northern Area Plan which will provide the statutory planning framework for development in the area up to 2016. The plan will formulate local planning policies accordingly. As an interim measure, and in advance of the planned adoption of this plan in 2003, the current policy provides for a 4-km radius around the World Heritage site within which all development proposals will be subject to particular scrutiny.”
If I remember correctly, these applications were for the same site as the proposed new Visitor’s Centre.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 09:11 PMMick,
I think you are being a bit oversensitive:
Centre burns down
Council opens the rebuild to tender
Seaport and Charity/Heritage sector submit plans.
Both rejected.
Government steps in and launches competition.
Preferred project selected.
DUP take control
Preferred project dumped
DUP member’s project accepted.
Coordinated press releases issued by two DUP ministers and developer.
If questioning this cesspit isn’t part of Slugger, what’s the point?
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 09:19 PM“Moyle is powerless to do much (it only has a tiny stake in the land), but in five years it hadn’t been able to draw down a workable solution with their ‘senior’ partners in the National Trust.”
Mick, Angela Smith announced the international design competition in April 2003 so Moyle DC and the National Trust have been out of the loop since then ie Moyle DC was struggling to find a solution for less than three years.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 09:21 PMComrade Stalin,
“Yes, and the first question the Shinners have to answer is why they support a system that prevents the exclusion of parties if they are found to be engaged in impropriety…”
I’ve difficulty with this; it doesn’t strike me as being all that democratic. Unless it’s shown that the rot permeates the entire DUP (which I doubt) we should only go after those members who’ve been naughty boys and girls. I don’t think we can apportion blame to an entire party if one or more of its members misbehaves.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 09:24 PMA little more research has revealed that the Planning Appeals Commission considered and then rejected the proposals for the development of the site that is the projected location for the new Visitor’s Centre et al - 11 July 2002
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 09:37 PMCan someone PLEASE explain to me why a govt cutting spending and getting increased development is a bad thing? There’s £20m saved plus a visitor’s centre is still going to built quicker and run with a greater efficiency. People on this site need to move away from the socialist controlled economy that they are all imagining and realise that this system of government is ensuring that more resources are being plowed into the NI economy with less central govt investment.
As for shady dealings, i believe the press are trying to stir up a story here. Ur man may know the Paisley’s but it is unclear whether Dodds in particular would be swayed in this regard, given the fact that he spoke out against DCAL and OFMDFM over the Maze Stadium, methinks Dodds is his own man where his dept is concerned. Just on the Maze that’s another £500m saved!
So really we have freed up all this extra revenue, the real debate should be how it is spent, not why is it not being squandered on pointless projects that the private sector are happy to invest in.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 09:46 PMFS,
I’m up for shining the light, but, as you know, I favour telling detail over easy rhetoric.
Good work Nevin.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 09:46 PMRemember that the National Trust proposal has been held held up by planning permission issues. That comes under guess who’s remit?
Hint: He’s a member of the DUP!Posted by on Sep 11, 2007 @ 09:50 PM
