Developer in court over dangerous electricity poles

A District Court Judge has called for works to be carried out immediately to make two electricity poles – located off the footpath on the actual road – outside a housing estate safer for road users.

The two poles, which are part of a public lighting system on a road in Loughrea, are the cause of contention between the Local Authority and a developer who is no longer in the construction business.

The Local Authority brought a planning enforcement case against Joe McGrath, c/o Ignatius T Greaney & Associates, “Clarig”, Kilcolgan, for failing to complete works at the Tí na Rí estate in Loughrea.

Loughrea District Court was told by the Council’s solicitor, Robert Meehan that part of McGrath’s planning conditions was that he would relocate the ESB poles that were on the original boundary of the site.

The poles are now about two feet away from the edge of the estate’s footpath and apart from each having one reflective sign on them, there are no bollards around them to make them safer to road users.

McGrath paid a €48,000 bond as part of his planning permission and it was estimated in Court that it would cost about €22,000 to relocate the poles.

Karen Quinn from the Council’s planning office, told the Court that there were other outstanding works including the provision of CCTV. She added that the relocation of the poles were a specific condition of his planning permission.

Correspondence between the Council and McGrath on this issue dates back to 2011. The Council were informed that the developer had issues with the ESB. McGrath had done the preparatory work and he thought they were going to finish the job.

A decision was take in October 2014 to issue an enforcement notice on McGrath but no action had been taken to date.

The matter has been before the Courts on previous occasions but had been adjourned.

Dan Shields, acting for McGrath, said there had been a letter from the ESB in June 2008 outlining that the relocation work would be carried out ‘in due course’. His client had done all he could so that the ESB could finish it.

He said the circumstances of the country had substantially changed since his client was in business as a developer whose capacity to relocate the poles was significantly lower.

A receiver had been appointed by NAMA for all of McGrath’s properties.

He asked if the Council had given any consideration that his client had made every effort to complete this work and was now not in a position to do so.

Ms Quinn said that there had been other issues relating to the bond.

Mr Shields said the estate looked very well finished to him and that instead of chasing the ESB, the Council had issued proceedings against the ‘low hanging fruit’.

Matthew Cunningham, a manager with the ESB, told the Court that he was only aware of this situation earlier this year.

Mr Meehan, for the Council, pointed out that the prosecution was against McGrath who had agreed to the planning conditions and not the ESB as there was no onus on them at all in this case.

Mr Meehan said the Council was not responsible for what happened in the country and that it had been McGrath alone who had been asked to carry out the works.

Mr Cunningham said they would carry out the works but they had to be done properly and he needed to know who was going to fund the work.

Judge James Faughnan, after seeing photographs taken of the position of the poles on the main road away from the estate boundary, declared them a safety hazard and ordered that interim works be carried out immediately to make them safer and visible at nighttime.

He said he would put the case back for four weeks to allow proper negotiations to take place so that the relocation of the poles be undertaken as a matter of public safety.

“This man (McGrath) faces a criminal prosecution if the work is not done and you (ESB) have known about this for years,” he said.

The case will come before the Court again on October 5.