CAMPAIGNERS have criticised the National Asset
Management Agency (NAMA) after it sold a parcel of environmentally sensitive
land to private business interests rather than two local authorities that
wanted to preserve it for public use.
Representatives of An Taisce and local councillors were
hoping the 4.86-acre Ashcastle site would be bought by Dun Laoghaire Rathdown
County Council and Dublin City Council in a bid to protect the nearby
Booterstown Nature Reserve.
The tract of land straddles the border of the
administrative areas of both local authorities.
Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Manager, Owen Keegan,
said they intended to develop the site as a recreational/public amenity space
in conjunction with the city council.
The site would act as a buffer zone to protect the
nature reserve at the Booterstown Marsh, which is also designated as a Special
Area of Conservation under the EU Birds Directive.
At the auction recently it is understood that bidding
began at
?¬180,000. However, there was more interest in the site than originally
envisaged and the land was eventually sold to what is believed to be two
private business interests for a total of
?¬400,000.
NAMA said that by selling the land at public auction,
it was trying to maximise the return on the site for taxpayers.
It is understood that the local authorities put in a
bid of around
?¬130,000 in total for the site. However, it was hoped that NAMA
would have sold it to them directly rather than proceeding with the auction.
Rebecca Jeffares of An Taisce noted that under Section
12 of the NAMA Act, there was a provision that allows the agency to retain land
or other assets for the benefit of the public rather than selling it to the
highest bidder.
“We are very disappointed,
? she said.
“Planning
applications went in on that site before and my fear would be that it will be
bartered for other sites in the future.
“We are also concerned about drainage into the nearby
Booterstown Nature Reserve because there is an old compound on the NAMA land
and we are worried that anything could leak from there.
“There are other issues involved here, not just
financial ones,
? she added.
“There is the public good that is enshrined in
section 12 of the NAMA Act that relates to social and community development.
?
Cllr Barry Ward (FG) also believes the land should
have been sold by NAMA to both councils so it could have been preserved for
public use.
“I think it is a really short-sighted decision by
NAMA,
? he said.
“I think they have entirely failed to take into account their
public service obligation and their duty to the citizens of Ireland.
?
Cllr Victor Boyhan (Ind) said he intended to protect
the site further from any future development.
“This site is totally unsuitable for building
development,
? he stated.
“It is my intention to seek through the County
Development Plan process further restrictions on the site in order to protect
the bio-diversity of the area.
?
County Manager Owen Keegan told councillors recently
that NAMA had advised him that if the councils matched the bid of
?¬400,000 a
recommendation would have been made to the board of NAMA to dispose of the site
to them.
At the full monthly meeting of the council on March
12, Mr Keegan said:
“We have refused to match the
?¬400,000 bid and expressed
our disappointment that NAMA seem unable to take any account of the broader
public interest.
?
A spokesman for NAMA said:
“The receiver, RSM Farrell
Grant Sparks, who was in control of this process, had a duty to achieve the
best price for the lands and maximise the amount of money recovered for the
taxpayer.
“We understand from the receiver that auctioneers
Jones Lang Lasalle kept all interested parties fully up-to-date throughout the
process and all bidders, as is customary, were given an opportunity to submit a
final offer.
?