1. February 1991: The decision to built an Interpretative Centre at Mullaghmore had been under consideration by the OPW for several months/years prior to the announcement of its intention to do so in 1991. An Taisce sought a meeting in February 1991 to privately express its concern re the proposed development. A full-scale model was shown to an Taisce at that stage, indicating that the whole project had been fully decided on before consultation with anybody (L. Authority, National Heritage Council, NGOs or local communities). An Taisce made its opposition to the choice of location very clear and requested that, at the very least, an EIA should be carried out.
2. April 1991: The OPW was not required, in 1991, to apply to Local Authorities for planning permission for its proposed developments. Under the Planning Acts, consultation with the Local Authorities was requested but the OPW was not obliged to accept the advice/recommendations of the Local Authorities. In addition, it was not clear as to the obligations of the OPW under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive and its enabling Irish Legislation.
3. April 1991: Announcement by the then Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW, Mr. Vincent Brady, of the establishment of a National Park in the Burren and the proposed construction of an Interpretative Centre at Mullaghmore (cost £2.7 million, 75% E.U. funded). No Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS) had been commissioned by the Dept./OPW prior to this announcement.
4. May to Sept. 1991: The newly formed Burren Action Group (BAG), An Taisce, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-UK), etc. requested the E.U. Commission to insist on an EIA before sanctioning its 75% funding of the project. An official complaint was lodged to DGXI re the lack of an EIA by WWF; Plantlife; an Taisce, etc. The Director of the IUCN (the body responsible internationally for setting standards and criteria for National Parks) publicly recommended that an EIA be carried out. In August, Dr. Ludwig Kramer of DGXI stated that "an environmental impact assessment would be warranted and that assistance under Structural Funds should only be forthcoming if the EIA satisfactorily demonstrated that there would be no significant adverse environmental effects".
5. October 1991: Following further representations from Brussels, Minister Brady announced that the OPW would commission an EIS on the proposed Interpretative Centre.
6. Feb. 1992: The EIS was carried out by RPS Cairns over the winter months (Oct/Nov) and was essentially a desk study. It was published by the OPW in Feb. 1992. The independent UK Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA) graded it as E (poor/significant omissions/inadequacies). It was also strongly criticised by BAG, An Taisce, WWF, etc. and said to be inadequate by Dr. Ron Bissett, co-ordinator of the EIA service of the IUCN. In March 1992, Bord Failte also expressed reservations re the proposed development. In May 1992, the IUCN director, Dr. M. Holdgate, again expressed his concern re the location of the proposed development and highlighted the inadequacy of the EIS. The National Heritage Council, through its Chairman, Lord Killanin, also expressed its serious reservations re the site chosen for the proposed centre.
7. June 1992: Mr. Brinkhorst, the Director General of DGXI, informed the OPW that doubts re the proposed visitor centre were "so compelling" that he would be recommending the withdrawal of EU funding for the project.
8. Summer 1992: Because of the widespread criticism, both nationally and internationally, of the EIS and the reservations of DGXI, the OPW carried out its own environmental assessment of the proposed development and published this, together with a critique of the objections lodged against the EIS carried out by RPS Cairns. These were submitted to DGXI with a request for freeing of the Structural Funds.
9. Oct. 1992: Following intensive OPW and Government lobbying, the EU Commissioners finally agreed that the proposal did not infringe Community law. The Commission stressed that that its decision did not imply a viewpoint as to the desirability or otherwise of the chosen site.
10. Commissioner Ripo di Meana (DGXI-Environment) subsequently resigned his EU post to take up the position of Minister for the Environment in Italy. At a conference in the UK, Mr. di Meana subsequently stated that the Mullaghmore development was environmentally damaging and that funding for the development should not have been freed by the Commission.
11. October 22nd 1992: A contract was signed for Phase 1 of the proposed Visitor centre development and clearance work commenced on site.
12. 4th Nov. 1992: Seven members of the Burren Action Group initiated legal proceedings against the Commissioners of the OPW by seeking leave for a High Court Judicial Review and requesting an injunction against commencement of development on the site. The grounds for seeking a review were two-fold:- (a) that the OPW had no statutory power to construct a Visitor Centre and (b) that it was constitutionally invalid that the OPW was not subject to the Planning Acts in the same way as members of the general public (Case 1).
13. Dec. 3rd, 1992: The BAG plaintiffs were granted a judicial review with the hearing set for January 28th, 1993, but were refused an injunction. The Judge said that the questions raised by BAG deserved to be answered and, if proved to be correct, "raised an appalling vista for the OPW". The plaintiffs' solicitor wrote to the Minister requesting that development should not proceed pending the outcome of the Judicial Review.
14. Dec. 4th, 1992: Despite Justice O'Hanlon's comment and the BAG solicitor's request, the then Minister, Mr. Noel Treacy, signed the major contract for the Visitor Centre development. At the time, an election had been called and the decision to proceed was taken by the "caretaker Government". Following the election of the Fianna Fail/Labour coalition Government, Noel Dempsey became the new Junior Minister with responsibility for the OPW. It is also worth noting that Dr. M. Bhamjee, who was strongly opposed to the location of the Visitor Centre at Mullaghmore, was elected for Labour in Co. Clare.
15. Between Dec. 1992 and Feb. 1993, construction proceeded at a very rapid pace on site. The car parks were completed, a major part of the sewage treatment system was installed, the foundations of the Visitor Centre were laid and walls to first floor level were constructed.
16. Jan. 1993: WWF (UK) and An Taisce brought an action in the European Court of Justice against the European Commission with respect to its decision to release £2.7 million of Structural Funds for the proposed visitor centre. The Court of First Instance ruled the action inadmissible, declaring that technically no "decision" had actually been made. On the basis of this decision, WWF requested access to information held by the Commission on Mullaghmore.
17. Feb. 1993: In the High Court hearing of the Judicial Review, the 7 plaintiffs were represented by John Rogers (Senior Counsel). In a reserved judgement issued in Feb. '93, Justice Costello found in favour of the plaintiffs on the following grounds:-

1. The various statutes defining the authority of the OPW largely dated to the last century, were outdated and incomplete and did not give the OPW a statutory power to construct a Visitor Centre or many of the other buildings that had been built by the OPW in the past (including jails, courthouses, etc.). Consequently, the OPW construction work at Mullaghmore was ultra-vires and Justice Costello granted an injunction against any further development on site. This injunction is still valid and in place.
2. Justice Costello also accepted that it was unconstitutional for the OPW to be exempt from the Planning Acts. Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

18. Feb. 1993: The State Authorities (Development and Management) Bill was rapidly drawn up and passed by the Oireachtas. This legalised previous developments carried out by the OPW and provided a statutory basis for future developments by State Authorities.
19. Feb. 1993: The OPW appealed the 2nd part of Justice Costello's judgement to the Supreme Court.
20. May 1993: The Supreme Court rejected the OPW appeal, stating that it was unconstitutional that State Authorities were exempt from the Planning Acts and awarded costs to the BAG plaintiffs. The injunction against any further development on site was confirmed.
21. June 1993: The Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill 1993 was published and subsequently passed. This Act brought all State Agencies under the full remit of the Planning Laws.(Note: the action brought by the Mullaghmore plaintiffs resulted in the most fundamental change in Irish Planning Law for decades. The bringing of State Agencies under the remit of the planning acts meant that the general public had the right to object and/or appeal against State Agency development proposals and that these proposals would also be subject to the EIS process, when required under the Act).
22. June 1993: Minister Dempsey announced that the Government would seek planning permission for an Interpretative/Visitors' Centre at Mullaghmore and that a series of public consultations would be carried out prior to lodging the application. Drury Communications were engaged to promote the development proposed by the OPW.
23. November 1993: Minister Dempsey stated his intention to proceed with the development (subject to a 12.5% reduction in size) and commissioned a further EIS.
24. Jan. 1994: An application, accompanied by the EIS, was lodged with Clare Co. Council for the Interpretative/Visitors Centre at Mullaghmore (Clare Co. Council Planning Ref. No. P94.40).
25. Jan. 1994: The plaintiffs took a High Court action against the Attorney General and the OPW seeking to ensure that the 1993 State Authorities Development and Management Act would not apply retrospectively to the Mullaghmore development (Case 2).
26. Feb. 1994: The plaintiffs applied to the High Court for an order restraining Clare Co. Council from processing the application until the High Court decided whether the retrospective legislation of 1993 could be applied to the Mullaghmore project (Case 3).
27. June 1994: The High Court decided that the OPW was legally entitled to apply for planning permission for the Mullaghmore centre and awarded costs against the plaintiffs.
28. July 1994: The plaintiffs paid their own legal costs and appealed to the Supreme Court against the costs awarded against them.
29. June/July 1994: Since Case 2 had been lost, no restraining order was issued against Clare Co. Council (Case 3). Consequently, the Council commenced its consideration of the planning application and appointed CASS as external consultants to review the proposal.
30. Autumn 1994: Clare Co. Council twice requested additional information from the OPW.
31. Autumn 1994: An Bord Pleanala held an Oral Hearing re the application by the OPW to build a visitor centre at Luggala for Wicklow National Park.
32. November 1994: An Bord Pleanala refused permission for the proposed Interpretative Centre at Luggala for the Wicklow National Park.
33. December 1994: The Labour Party withdrew from Government on the appointment of Mr. Harry Whelehan as Attorney General.
34. Jan/Feb. 1995: A new Rainbow Coalition Government (Labour, Fine Gael and Democratic left) was formed from the existing Dail and Mr. Michael D. Higgins was appointed as Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. The Heritage sections of the OPW were brought under the remit of the Minister (Arts, Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht). It is worth noting that Minister Higgins spoke from the platform (while in opposition) at rallies organised by BAG during 1993 in opposition to the proposed Visitor/Interpretative Centre.
35. Feb. 1995: Minister Higgins announced that he was withdrawing the planning application for the proposed Visitor Centre and that the site would be rehabilitated.
36. March 1995: Minister Higgins commissioned Brady, Shipman and Martin (BSM) to prepare a draft Management Plan for the Burren National Park, draft Conservation Guidelines for the proposed National Heritage Areas (NHAs) and a draft Strategy for the North Clare area.
37. Summer/Autumn 1995: During the summer of 1995, BSM engaged in "consultation" with all groups that had objected to or supported the proposed visitor/interpretative centre. A brochure outlining the nature of the proposed development (and highlighting the potential benefits) was circulated to all North Clare households by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). BAG submitted its "Ring Plan" to the OPW - i.e. a document outlining the logic of providing visitor centres in the "gateway" villages of the Burren, rather than in the unspoiled and undeveloped interior.
38. Feb. 1996: The BMS Draft Plans were published by the NPWS. Although the Draft Plans focused very strongly on the need to locate visitor facilities in "gateway" villages, nevertheless it recommended the construction of an "entry point at Gortlecka". (Gortlecka is the name of the townland at Mullaghmore). The development proposed included provision of a ranger station, a visitor "waiting point"; car-parking for 72 cars and 4 mini-buses; retention of the primary and secondary sewage treatment systems; widening of access roads, etc. and anticipated visitor numbers of 60,000 per year.
39. May 1996: The Heritage Council made a detailed submission to the Minister, under Section 7 of the Heritage Act, re the B.S.M. Burren National Park, NHA and North Clare studies. The Council recommended that "any visitor/management facility for the Burren National Park should be avoided in the Park target area and in its immediate surroundings". The Council also forwarded, to the Minister, a copy of a study that it had commissioned from Maarten van Arkel, Chief Planning Officer for Recreation and Tourism of the Dutch National Forestry Service. The study was entitled "Recommendations for Optimising the Educational and Recreational Functions of the Burren National Park". The study recommended the siting of the National Park visitor centre in Corofin, where economic spin-offs to the local population could be maximised. Submissions were also lodged by WWF, An Taisce, BAG etc., highlighting the conflict between the proposal for a so-called "entry point at Gortlecka" and the clear overall emphasis in the reports on the need to locate visitor facilities in existing population centres.
40. June 1996: Since it was likely that a new planning application would issue for a development at Mullaghmore, the plaintiffs initiated a further High Court case (Case 4). This involved an application to the High Court for an order requiring the OPW to restore the Mullaghmore site to its original condition (the grounds were that the development carried out on site was illegal as per Justice Costello's decision in High Court Case 1 - confirmed by the Supreme Court judgement). This High Court action was heard by Justice Flood and has since been deferred on 6 separate occasions. The Justice appears to take the view that the considerable state and EU funds expended to date should not be wasted and that time should be provided for an "agreed resolution" of this problem.
41. July 1996: Minister Higgins announced that he would apply to Clare Co. Council for planning permission to construct a visitor facility at Gortlecka/Mullaghmore.
42. October 1996: The Commissioners of Public Works, on behalf of the Minister, lodged an application with Clare Co. Council for development of an "entry point at Gortlecka". The application involves a sizeable building, large car parks, toilets and a sewage treatment system (Clare Co. Council Planning Ref. No. P96/330).
43. 1997: Clare Co. Council sought further information re the proposed development on two occasions. The deadline for a decision, on receipt of the final further information, was July 14th, 1997.
44. July 11th, 1997: Clare Co. Council placed an advertisement in the Irish Independent giving notice of its intention to table a motion for a Material Contravention of the current Co. Development Plan in order to facilitate granting of permission for the Gortlecka "entry point". The advert explicitly stated that "such development would materially contravene the Clare Co. Development Plan".
45. (BAG and An Taisce had contended since 1991 that the proposed development would require a Material Contravention of the Co.Development Plan. However, in July 1992, at a special meeting of Clare County Council, the then Co. Manager (Mr. M. Nunan) and Co. Engineer (Mr. N. Sweeney) stated that the proposed Visitor/Interpretative Centre would not contravene the Co. Development Plan (I. Times: 29/7/92)).
46. July/August 1997: Submissions were lodged by many individuals and groups during the 21 day period allowed under the Planning Acts for representations to be made to Clare Co. Council re the Material Contravention. The hearing of the Material Contravention was tabled for the September meeting of Clare Co. Council.
47. Late Aug. 1997: Jim Shannon, solicitor for the Burren Action Group, wrote to the Clare Co. Manager advising that correct procedures under the Planning Acts had not been followed with respect to the Material Contravention and that copies of submissions made were not on file and available for perusal by the general public. A reply (1st Sept. 1997) was received from Clare Co. Council stating that the requirements of Section 39(d) of the 1976 Planning and Development Act would be fully complied with and that the consent of the OPW had been obtained for an extension of the decision period in order for this to be done.
48. Early Sept. 1997: The Co. Manager informed the Co. Councillors at the Sept. meeting that inappropriate notice had been given re the M.C. and that it would be illegal to proceed with the motion. He suggested deferring the M.C. hearing to the November 10th meeting of the Co. Council. This was agreed and, subsequently, further advertisements giving notice of the decision to table a Material Contravention were placed in national newspapers and all individuals and organisations who had commented on the previous application (P94/40) were notified by registered mail. A further 21 days were allowed from Sept. 12th, as required by the Planning Acts, for receipt of submissions.
49. November 5th, 1997: A 27 page report was submitted by Ciaran Lynch, Senior Executive Planner of Clare Co. Council, to the Clare Co. Councillors. This document outlined the proposal, summarised the issues raised in the submissions and commented on these. In conclusion, Mr. Lynch recommended that permission be granted for the Gortlecka development subject to the conditions summarised below and subject to the passing of the Material Contravention:-

1. That the existing effluent treatment facility be retained and used in accordance with the proposals lodged with P94/40 (the Jan '94 application).
2. That the existing overflow car parking area be retained (as per P94/40).
3. That no work should proceed on site until an integrated programme for the provision of appropriate visitor facilities at Ballyvaughan, Kilfenora and Corofin had been agreed with the Planning Authority, planning permission had been obtained and money allocated for their provision.
4. That before development commenced on site, the developer should pay Clare Co. Council £450,000 towards the upgrading of the public road serving the site from its junction with the R476 to the site entrance.
5. That no work should commence until an integrated visitor management system for the area, including the proposed centres at Ballyvaughan, Kilfenora and Corofin had been developed, submitted to and agreed with the Planning Authority.
6. That remote-controlled signage capable of indicating that the National Park is closed and/or that the car-park is full should be provided at the junction of the Kilinaboy road and the R476.
7. That no signs or nameplates should be erected on site other than with the prior consent of the planning authority.

50. 7th November, 1997: The Minister, Sile de Valera, issued a press statement stating that "in order to help ensure continued transparency" she was publishing the response made by the OPW to the Planning Authority's notice of September 12th of the proposed Material Contravention. The response was signed by June Thompson of the Project Management Division and was dated November 6th, 1997 (clearly outside of the 21 day period allowed under the Planning Acts for submissions to be received). In its 4 page response, the OPW outlined in considerable detail why it considered that the proposed development did not materially contravene the Development Plan. The OPW stated, in conclusion, that "should the Planning Authority require further time to consider the issues raised in this letter, the OPW would be willing to consent to an extension of time for the determination of the Application."
51. 10th November, 1997: The Material Contravention was item 2 on the agenda of the monthly meeting of Clare Co. Council. The Co. Manager informed the Clare Co. Councillors: (i) that he was recommending planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in Ciaran Lynch's document of November 5th; (ii) that a letter had been received from the OPW outlining their reasons for contending that the proposed development was not a material contravention of the Development Plan; (iii) that he had responded to the OPW stating that the planning authority had fully considered the matter and was satisfied that it had taken the right decision and (iv) reminded the Co. Council members that 24 votes in favour were required to carry the Material Contravention motion which he was now putting before the Council.
52. Since the Fianna Fail Co. Councillors who supported the development knew that they would lose the Material Contravention vote, Michael Kelly (F.F.) proposed a deferral of the Material Contravention motion under Standing Order 29(d) for six months on the grounds that there were on-going discussions with regards to developments at Kilfenora, Corofin and Mullaghmore and that such "peace initiatives" should be given a chance to succeed. Tom Burke (F.F.) seconded the motion. After considerable objection by many members, the Chairman of the Co. Council (P.J. Kelly) put Michael Kelly's motion to the vote. It was passed by 19 votes (18 FF plus 1 Independent) to 11 (5 FG; 1 PD; 1 Labour and 4 Independents) with one abstention (F.G.). One F.F. Councillor was absent. The Co. Manager pointed out that, if the OPW did not consent to the 6 months deferral, the Material Contravention motion would have to come up for a vote at the Council meeting of November 19th. The OPW subsequently formally agreed to the 6 months extension.
53. Nov '97 to May 1998: The Minister (Síle de Valera) met with the Kilfenora Visitor Centre Co-Op; the Corofin Development Association; the Kilinaboy Development Association and BAG (individually) in Nov./early Dec. '97. The purpose of the meeting with the first 3 groups was to discuss plans for the upgrading of the Kilfenora Visitor Centre and the provision of a visitor facility in Corofin (in addition to the "entry point"). The objective of the meeting with BAG was to persuade BAG to withdraw its opposition to the "entry point" application. BAG refused to do so. No further meetings took place; "peace initiatives" did not materialise and the "Burren Partnership Forum" promised by the Minister was not set up.
54. April 20th, 1998: The Minister wrote separately to both the Kilfenora Visitor Centre Co-Op and the Corofin Development Association, promising £0.5 M each for (i) upgrading of the Visitor Centre at Kilfenora and (ii) provision of a Visitor Centre at Corofin which would focus on the southern Burren wetlands. The letter stated that the OPW would not take responsibility for the future upkeep, management, etc., of these facilities. The latter was interpreted by BAG to mean that the "entry point at Gortlecka" was still being regarded by the OPW as its primary visitor focal point for the Burren National Park.
55. May 11th, 1998: The Material Contravention motion again came before Clare Co. Council. Knowing that there would be at least 11 votes against it (more than enough to refuse the motion), Tom Burke (F.F.), seconded by R. Nagle (F.F.), proposed a further deferral of the Material Contravention hearing, on the grounds that Councillors needed time to consider the Minister's offer re Kilfenora and Corofin. Despite angry objections by F.G., Labour and Independent Councillors, this proposal was put to the vote and passed by 17 votes to 11. The Co. Manager subsequently sought the agreement of the applicant (the OPW, on behalf of the Minister) to this further delay in processing the planning application (now before the planning authority since Oct. 1996).
56. May 1998: A letter was received by Clare Co. Council from the OPW agreeing to the deferral of the Material Contravention motion by Clare Co. Council.
57. June 8th, 1998: A motion was tabled by three Councillors for the June 8th meeting of Clare Co. Council. The motion (No. 13 on the agenda) proposed a variation on the Co. Development Plan. The wording was as follows:- '...that the Co. Development Plan be varied by adding the following words to section 2.3.9 of the plan:- Notwithstanding any other policy or objective of this plan, to permit the development of facilities for the management of, and provision of services to, day or other short-term tourists or visitors to an area, having regard to the capacity of the area to accommodate anticipated visitor numbers and the adequacy of the proposed road access and other infrastructure.
58. On the advice of the Co. Manager, this motion was withdrawn by the proposers. Instead, a motion to defer the hearing of the Material Contravention motion was again proposed and passed by a simple majority of the Co. Councillors
59. 11 Sept. 1998: Minister Síle De Valera commissioned a National Heritage Plan for Ireland. This is intended to involve a review of existing structures, administration, legislation and funding. The objective is to produce "an integrated heritage plan for the first time in the State's history". The terms of reference include "protection, conservation, management and presentation of the natural heritage, the archaeological and architectural heritage, the inland waterways of the State and documentary and archival heritage."
60. 14 Sept. 1998: The Material Contravention motion before Clare Co. Council was finally taken by the Council at its meeting of the 14th September. There was no request for a further deferral and the motion was taken with minimal discussion. The motion was lost, having failed to obtain the 3/4 majority required by the Planning Acts.
61. 15th Sept. 1998: Clare Co. Council refused planning permission for the proposed "entry point at Gortlecka for the Burren National Park." The reason for refusal was as follows:- Having regard to its location within an area of outstanding amenity as defined at Section 2.3.10 of the County Development Plan and also having regard to its nature and scale, the proposed development would contravene materially the policies of the Council as set out in Section 2.3.10 of the County Development Plan regarding the location of development within areas of outstanding amenity.
62. October 1998: The Minister, Sile de Valera, lodged an appeal to Bord Pleanala against the decision to refuse planning permission for the Gortlecka/Mullaghmore "entry point".
63. October 1998: BAG and An Taisce also lodged appeals to Bord Pleanala. Although the Clare Co. Council decision was in BAG's favour, the decision to lodge an appeal was taken on the grounds that Clare Co. Council's reasons for refusing the development were insufficiently strong and in order to ensure that BAG and An Taisce would have full rights at any subsequent Oral Hearing. The Board accepted the BAG and An Taisce appeals as valid.
64. October/November 1998: Many other national & UK environmental organisations and individuals sent observations (against the development) to the Board. The Heritage Council also made an observation recommending refusal, as did Dr. Adrian Phillips of the IUCN (The World Conservation Union; World Commission on Protected Areas Division).
65. No submission or observation was received by the Board from any organisation or individual in favour of the proposed development.
66. February 1999: the Board notified appellants and observers that it was requesting an EIS for the proposed development; that an Oral Hearing would be carried out, and that a decision on the development would issue by October 13th, 1999.
67. Feb-May 1999: The EIS was carried out by RPS Cairns.
68. May 10th, 1999: The 1999 Draft Development Plan for Clare Co. Council was published - since this is in draft form, it has no legal standing vis-a-vis the application under consideration by Bord Pleanala.
69. May 28th, 1999: Bord Pleanala sent copies of the RPS Cairns EIS (3 volumes) to the appellants/observers, requesting comments by June 24th, 1999.
70. June 1st, 1999: Bord Pleanala notified the appellants/observers that the Oral Hearing of the Appeal would commence in Ennis, Co. Clare on July 6th.
71. July 6th, 1999: The Oral Hearing commenced in Ennis, Co. Clare. The Bord Pleanala Inspector was Tom O'Connor, the Bord's most senior planner. The OPW were represented by Eamon Galligan, Junior Counsel, and a team of internal Dúchas staff, supported by consultants from RPS Cairns, Ove-Arup, Brady Shipman & Martin, Enterprise Ireland and other consultancies. The hearing continued for 9 days, ending on July 16th.
72. October 13th, 1999: The deadline set for a decision by Bord Pleanala could not be met by the Board because of the illness of Tom O'Connor.
73. February 2000: An Bord Pleanala indicated that a decision on the Mullaghmore application would be made before the end of February.
74. February 28th, 2000: The Supreme Court heard the appeal by the plaintiffs against the decision of the High Court to award costs against them in Case No. 3 (1993) - see No. 28 above. The judgement of the Supreme Court was to reinforce the High Court decision re costs and also to award costs for the Supreme Court hearing against the plaintiffs. The total amount of costs that the Plaintiffs will have to pay to cover the OPW legal fees will have to be decided over the next few months by the Chief State Solicitor's Office and the Taxing Master but are liable to be between £100,000 and £150,000.
75. March 3rd, 2000: Bord Pleanala decided to refuse permission for an "entry point" at Gortlecka/Mullaghmore (inclusive of the carparks on site). The decision has been hailed as a landmark decision of the Board in that the reasons given were:-

1. that the site in question was a "core area" of the Burren National Park requiring protection under the Habitats Directive;
2. that the Burren is of international botanical importance;
3. that the Management Plan for the Burren National Park indicates that nature conservation takes precedence when conflicts arise between different objectives for the management of the N. Park;
4. that the proposed development of the entry point and ancillary facilities would generate significant concentrations of visitors and traffic that would seriously injure the amenities of the area (i.e. degradation of an area of outstanding landscape quality; impoact on the remote quality of the area; road-widening that would alter the rural quality of the area);
5. that the proposed development would not be in accordance with the principles of sustainable development, as enunciated in the Government's 1997 "Strategy for Sustainable Development";
6. that the precautionary principle should be applied in this instance since the proposed development would constitute an unacceptable risk to the conservation of natural habitats and species.

Emer Colleran

13th March, 2000

Final entries to complete the Mullaghmore Saga!

May 3^rd, 2000

Minster Síle de Valera issued a statement announcing that she would not seek a Judicial Review of the Bord Pleanala decision re the Gortlecka entry point application on the grounds that the legal advice she had sought stated that there were no tenable grounds for a Judicial Review. Consequently, the Minister accepted that the partially completed development on site was illegal and that the site must be restored its previous condition. She announced that she had asked the Commissioners of the Office of Public Works to prepare a plan for the restoration of the site and that she would also carry out an environmental impact appraisal of the plan in order to ensure that the environmental sensitivity of the site was respected. This, she said, would take considerable time.

1. The Minister's statement brings the Mullaghmore marathon to an end - after 9 long years. Hopefully, no further planning applications for retention of car-parks or for a new entry-point/visitor centre will be submitted. Given the clarity of the Bord Pleanala decision it would be very foolish to go down the same road again. However, a very limited number of locals have put up signs recently at Mullaghmore - "Save our carpark" and "the Heresy Council wants to take our land". So, restoration of the site may cause some local problems in the future.
2. However, the bottom line is that we have won this critical environmental issue - because of lack of media interest, the Minister's decision will probably go down "not with a bang, but a whimper"! But all of us involved in the campaign to protect and conserve Mullaghmore will appreciate this final, successful outcome.

Heartfelt thanks from the Burren Action Group members to all who have supported BAG, in so many ways, over the past 9 years. We can never repay our debt to you - but Mullaghmore can!

Beir bua!

Emer Colleran

3^rd May, 2000