This article is from page 8 of the 2008-05-20 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 8 JPG
THE Ennis man who sought more than €500,000 from developers to withdraw his objection to a large- scale housing development had no desire to profit from the matter and was not motivated by the desire for personal gain.
That’s the view of Callinan & Co solicitors on behalf of Ennis man John Madden, of Glencairn House, Hermitage, in response to claims that he sought over €500,000 for the con- struction of flood defences at his land in return for withdrawing an objec- tion against the development.
In a rebuttal submission on behalf of John Madden, Callinan & Co say the proposed agreement to withdraw the appeal in return for payment was not “evidence of blackmail or extor- wloyn ae
The legal firm stated the proposed agreement was “no more than an
ordinary example of bona fides and reasonable negotiations as between adjoining landowners in matters of this nature”.
The legal firm continued, “Mr Mad- den takes grave exception to the ap- plicants’ submission that this appeal is motivated by a desire for personal gain. This is an insidious allegation made without foundation and it is re- jected in the strongest terms by Mr Madden.
“Mr Madden has at no stage sought to obstruct the planning process and in fact has agreed on several occa- sions to meet with the applicants with a view to reaching agreement.
‘Mr Madden wishes to point out that the circumstance that he was prepared to accept payment of a quite substantial sum in compensation for the interference with his property so as, in particular to enable him to carry out works to protect his prop- erty against flooding, was a measure of both the strength of his objection and his insistence that the works be carried out on his lands.
‘Mr Madden submits that the ex- istence of open negotiations in rela- tion to the sum properly payable by way of compensation is a matter that evidences the seriousness of his con- cerns and the fairness and reasonable
of his claim to compensation.”
‘The engineer for the developers claimed that proposal to run a foul water pipeline through the Madden lands was prepared as a response to a direct request from the Council. If that was so, why did the developers request in relation the previous appli-
cation that any issues with third party lands in relation to cross connection could be resolved by the Council un- der their compulsory wayleave/com- pulsory purchase powers’.