Councillors vote in secret to take no action against CEO over £1 deal

Councillors have voted in secret to take no action against the Causeway Coast and Glens Council CEO after his role in granting land rights to a property developer for just £1 was exposed in a leaked report.
Causeway Coast and Glens council chamberCauseway Coast and Glens council chamber
Causeway Coast and Glens council chamber

The decision was taken following a majority vote during a full meeting of the council on Tuesday.

The vote happened while the council was ‘in committee’, meaning press and members of the public were excluded.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The proposer of the motion to take no action against the council chief, DUP councillor Michelle Knight-McQuillan, refused to comment when invited to do so by the News Letter yesterday.

Padraig McShane. Copyright Kevin McAuley.Padraig McShane. Copyright Kevin McAuley.
Padraig McShane. Copyright Kevin McAuley.

A report leaked to the News Letter in early September concluded that the council’s chief executive officer (CEO), David Jackson, had “ultimate responsibility” for the granting of an easement over lands necessary for access to a proposed luxury hotel near Portstewart for just £1.

The easement was granted without a valuation first having been carried out.

That was one of the findings from an investigation by a private consultancy firm into a series of complaints lodged by TUV MLA Jim Allister following a judicial review of a planning decision last year.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Mr Allister lodged the complaints after winning a legal challenge against planning permission for the proposed hotel development.

Following the judicial review, a judge said “certain irregularities on the part of the council” had been “exposed” during the case.

In his complaint, Mr Allister said the council chief had “ultimate responsibility” for the granting of the easement for £1 without any valuation having first been secured.

This complaint was one of 15 upheld by investigators.

The easement over the land in question was independently valued at around £420,000 by a professional employed by Mr Allister.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

A valuation carried out by a professional employed by the council – after the easement had already been granted for £1 – found that it was of minimal value.

Mr Allister had also complained that elected councillors hadn’t been given the full information prior to approving the deal, along with several other complaints around Mr Jackson’s role in the planning process.

Mr Allister had initially complained to the public services ombudsman following the judicial review. His complaint to the ombudsman was lodged after the judge in the case, Lord Justice McCloskey, made it clear the judicial review did not “possess the “powers or jurisdiction” of an auditor or ombudsman.

Mr Allister was asked by the ombudsman to lodge his complaints directly with the council in order to “first exhaust” its own complaints procedures.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

A private consultancy firm was subsequently employed by the council to investigate the complaints and the firm, Happy Raspberry, upheld 15 of the 18 allegations made by Mr Allister following an investigation. The investigation relied on the outcome of the judicial review, interviews with those involved, and tape recordings of conversations made by independent councillor Padraig McShane to produce its findings.

The contents of the Happy Raspberry report were first made public by the BBC on Monday.

TUV leader Jim Allister said: “To refuse to even investigate is a shocking commentary on this council.

“I would be most interested to read the legal advice which caused councillors to think this was a lawful and sustainable response to the serious situation they faced.”

CALL IN

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Independent councillor Padraig McShane said the decision taken by the council will now be ‘called in’.

A call-in is a legal mechanism – similar to the petition of concern at Stormont – available to councillors to try and block a majority decision.

“The decision not to proceed with further investigation will be called in by a number of parties and independents,” Mr McShane said in a statement yesterday.

“No relevant legal opinion was available and the issue was bullied through council behind closed doors.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“Nothing in the process or behaviour of certain individuals lends confidence to the community in Causeway Coast and Glens.”

The leader of the Sinn Fein Causeway Coast and Glens grouping, councillor Leanne Peacock, also confirmed the intention to call-in the decision taken by councillors in a statement.

“I was shocked that councillors from the DUP, UUP and PUP have united to vote against even hearing the presentation of a complaint report that had been progressing through full council,” she said.

“This investigation has been halted in its tracks before even reaching the full council chamber for presentation and discussion.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“This not only erodes the public confidence in this council to fully investigate their complaints but circumvents the council’s own complaints policy.

“There are serious questions to be answered over why such a vote was taken and our own complaints policy not followed.

“Sinn Fein will be moving to immediately call in this decision which was taken outside of process and without legal advice and proper debate.”

REDACTIONS

The elected councillors in the Causeway Coast and Glens have not yet had access to the full, unredacted version of the report into the complaints lodged by TUV MLA Jim Allister, the News Letter can reveal.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Only a redacted version of the report was made available, with councillors asked to make an appointment and view it.

Only council officers, who are not elected, had access to the full, unredacted version.

A spokesperson for the council said: “All elected members were given access to inspect the redacted copy of the Happy Raspberry investigation report in a controlled manner within council headquarters.”

The council also confirmed that it has no intention of making the report public.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The News Letter asked the council if it intends to “make the contents of the report” public.

The spokesperson said: “No. It currently remains an internal confidential report.”

The council spokesperson added: “All council decisions are subject to the call-in process. If a call-in is not received in respect of a decision of council within the period specified in council’s standing orders the decisions may be implemented after that period expires. In relation to this matter the council’s c omplaints process will be concluded at the end of that period.”

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this story on our website. While I have your attention, I also have an important request to make of you.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

With the coronavirus lockdown having a major impact on many of our advertisers - and consequently the revenue we receive - we are more reliant than ever on you taking out a digital subscription.

Subscribe to newsletter.co.uk and enjoy unlimited access to the best Northern Ireland and UK news and information online and on our app. With a digital subscription, you can read more than 5 articles, see fewer ads, enjoy faster load times, and get access to exclusive newsletters and content. Visit https://www.newsletter.co.uk/subscriptions now to sign up.

Our journalism costs money and we rely on advertising, print and digital revenues to help to support them. By supporting us, we are able to support you in providing trusted, fact-checked content for this website.

Alistair Bushe

Editor