Cherrywood

From Mahon Tribunal

Opening statement

Cherrywood opening statement. Could I have page 7633 please.

Contents 1 Background 2 Transactions 3 Donations 4 Cherrywood Properties Limited and Cherrywood Developments Limited 5 Planning 6 January 1991

[edit] Background

The lands, the subject of this inquiry are outlined on a location map that's presently on screen. These lands amount to 236 acres approximately. These lands were originally owned as indeed was a much larger area of land by Mr. Sean Galvin who has already given evidence to the Tribunal in the course of the Carrick 1 Module.

These 236 acres were sold by Mr. Galvin to Perivale Limited for 9.93 million pounds. This at that time in 1989 was considered to be a high price. Perivale Limited was a Monarch controlled company which later changed its name to Cherrywood Developments Limited. Prior to this, Monarch had been involved in a joint venture development in the Square, Tallaght, with an English company, Guardian Assurance Plc, otherwise known as Guardian, as a development partner.

In this module, it is understood that Monarch and Guardian agreed to enter into a joint venture agreement in connection with the proposed development of the Cherrywood lands and entered into a series of complex legal transactions to give effect to that agreement.

[edit] Transactions

I propose to briefly summarise those transactions.

• On the 20th December 1990, Cherrywood Developments Limited granted a development lease to another Monarch controlled company, Cherrywood Properties Limited. Cherrywood Properties Limited agreed to carry out the development on the lands.

• On the 21st December 1990, the late Mr. Phillip Monaghan, now deceased and Monarch Properties Limited as the beneficial owners of the two issued shares in Cherrywood Developments Limited sold these shares to Guardian Assurance Plc subject to the lease to Cherrywood Properties Limited. It was agreed that 6 million new shares would issue to Guardian who later declared that it held those 3 million of those shares in trust for another English company, Aquis Estates Limited. From this time, GRE had the controlling interest in Cherrywood Developments Limited and Monarch effectively had the controlling interest in Cherrywood Properties Limited.

• On the 21st December also, Cherrywood Developments Limited and Cherrywood Properties Limited entered into an agreement to participate in the development of the site and to optimise its profitability. Under this agreement, Monarch Properties Services Limited, otherwise MPSL was required to be appointed project manager to the development. It appears to be the position that Guardian, Cherrywood Properties Limited, Cherrywood Developments Limited, all agreed with Monarch Property Services Limited, MPSL, that MPSL would be the project managers for the development of the Cherrywood site.

Guardian and Cherrywood Developments agreed to reimburse MPSL for the disbursements, in other words the expenses or costs properly incurred by MPSL in connection with the development.

I will later outline how certain political payments to county councillors and other politicians were treated by MPSL as payments in connection with the Cherrywood Development and reimbursement of same was sought from Guardian.

In January, 1991, Cherrywood Developments changed its name back to Perivale Limited.

In December 1992, Perivale Limited, now in liquidation, transferred its interest in the subject lands to Guardian and Aquis jointly subject only to the lease to Cherrywood Properties Limited.

On the 8th June 1994, Guardian, Aquis and Cherrywood Properties Limited agreed to sell 94 acres of residentially zoned lands to William Neville and Sons for 6.4 million pounds.

In August 1994, Guardian and Aquis were jointly known as GRE, Cherrywood Properties Limited, Monarch Property Services Limited, and Monarch Properties Limited entered into an agreement to regulate their relationship during the zoning, planning and development stages of the Cherrywood site. This was a joint venture agreement which in essence provided:

• A. Cherrywood Properties Limited had the primary function of obtaining zoning and planning permission.

• B. GRE, that is Guardian and Aquis, agreed to pay one half of all of the costs fees and expenses with appropriate invoices incurred by Cherrywood Properties Limited provided these were first approved in writing by GRE, were within approved budgets and that the prior written approval of GRE was obtained for the appointment of consultant and the payment of their fees.

• C. The agreement expressly provided unlike the 1990 agreement, that such costs and expenses did not include payments to connected third parties, except with the prior written approval of GRE, following full disclosure by Cherrywood Properties Limited of the relevant connection.

• D. The earlier project management agreement was to cease to be of effect.

Now, what does all of that mean, what all of that means in essence is that Monarch and Guardian were the owners of the land at Cherrywood at all material times the subject matter of this inquiry. There were effectively two owners was one was an English based company which we will call GRE or Guardian and the other were the Monarch interests and they owned and controlled the 236 acres for most of the period, the subject matter of the inquiry.

There were some sales of lands, there were two sales of a portion of the lands to Neville Builders, there was a sale of a portion of the lands which became zoned as a science and technology park to Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council in mid 1995. And in 1996, further lands were bought from Manor Park Homes.

These were part of the golf course lands that had been owned by Mr. Sean Galvin and which adjoined Monarch's lands at Cherrywood.

The day to day project management of the development was carried out by Monarch Property Services Limited, who charged a project management fee and who sought reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred by it in connection with the Cherrywood Development.

[edit] Donations

In the earlier years at least, included in the invoices submitted by Monarch Property Services Limited to Guardian were third party costs incurred by Monarch Properties Services Limited in connection with the Cherrywood Development.

Included in these third party costs were payments made to politicians, usually but not always Dublin county councillors and which were attributed by Monarch Property Services Limited as a cost or expense in connection with the Cherrywood Development.

There is no dispute that such payments were made and they are disclosed and described by Monarch as political donations. What is not understood is how they came to be considered as a cost or expense of the Cherrywood development.

Mr. Richard Lynn who was the project manager for the Cherrywood project on behalf of MPSL will say that he made recommendations for the payment of political donations from time to time and also that he had extensive contact with the councillors. Among the Monarch companies within the Monarch corporate structure to which reference may be made either in the evidence or the opening will be the following; Monarch Properties Limited, Monarch Property Services Limited, Dun Laoghaire Town Centre Limited, L & C Properties Limited,

[edit] Cherrywood Properties Limited and Cherrywood Developments Limited

The main people associated with the Monarch group who dealt with the Cherrywood Department were, the late Mr. Phillip Monaghan, chairman and managing director who founded the Monarch Group.

Mr. Paul Monaghan, who became managing director of Monarch after Mr. Phillip Monaghan's retirement in early 2001. Mr. Dominic Glennane, who was a chartered accountant and financial director of Monarch with overall responsibility for finance.

Mr. Phillip O'Reilly who was a senior property manager and one of the people in charge of Monarch Property Services Limited.

Mr. Richard Lynn, who between 1989 and 1997 was the project coordinator within Monarch Property Services Limited and whose primary function was to coordinate the team to develop the Cherrywood Development. Mr. Eddie Sweeney who was a development director who has been described as the team leader for the Cherrywood Development.

Mr. Noel Murray who was a marketing director in Monarch and Mr. Phillip Monaghan's private secretary, Ms. Ann Gosling. It should be noted that all of the applications that were made to Dublin County Council and subsequently to Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council for changes in the zoning status or density in connection with the Cherrywood lands were made in the name of Monarch or Monarch Properties Limited and on a few occasions, in the joint names of Monarch and GRE.

In motions submitted to the council, the lands are described as the Monarch lands. Whilst the legal ownership of the company vested in different corporate entities, it was Monarch who held itself out and indeed who agreed with the GRE to be the party whose personnel would interface with both the officials of Dublin County Council, Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council and the councillors of both of these local authorities.

I propose therefore for ease of reference to refer to these lands the subject of this inquiry, as the Monarch lands, although the module is the Cherrywood module.

[edit] Planning

I propose now to deal with the planning in connection with the Cherrywood development and I will then go on to deal with the payments and I should state at the outset the planning in this module is substantially more complex than the planning that has been outlined in previous modules. Just that people should bear that in mind.

The planning breaks itself down into three distinct portions, there is the review of the 1983 plan which takes the development as far as December 1993.

There is followed by in 1994 the variation of that Development Plan leading to a science and technology park on portion of the lands and following that, the review in 1996 of the 1993 Development Plan.

The first portion of the planning deals with Dublin County Council and the 78 councillors up to 1993. The second and third portions of the planning deal only with Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council councillors. So while there will be a significant number of councillor involvement in the earlier part of the planning, those numbers dwindle significantly when one comes to deal with the later part of the planning.

The planning history of the Monarch lands at Cherrywood: In the 1983 Development Plan for County Dublin, the subject lands were located on maps 20 and 21, if I could have 6877 please. 6875. Actually no, if you leave that map up, that's fine. Thank you.

And a reduced version of that can be seen at 6875. This is the outline of the Monarch lands.

This is map 20 of the 1983 Development Plan and one should be able to see outlined in red on that, the outline of the substantial portion of the Monarch lands. Now that is then increased on the map at 6877 and this is the outline of the Monarch lands with which we will be dealing. The broken line going through the centre of those lands was the diagrammatic line for the Southeastern Motorway in the 1983 plan.

The lands, the subject of this inquiry, in 1983 were zoned AS1, that is residential, with one house to the acre on septic tank and B, agriculture, to the west of that motorway line and G, high amenity in the very northern portion of the site.

In July 1989, Mr. Feargal McCabe outlined Monarch's lands to Dublin County Council and suggested that these lands should be rezoned. In November 1989, he forwarded to Dublin County Council, a detailed representation on behalf of Monarch with rezoning suggested by him. Monarch owned 236 acres or 96 hectares and suggest the following break down on part of the lands: 42 hectares or 104 acres at residential normal density. 28.5 acres industrial. And 24.7 acres retail.

The report suggested making changes also to the proposed line of the Southeastern Motorway to best accommodate the proposed plan. Now on the map that's on screen, one can see the line of the Southeastern Motorway dissects the Monarch lands. It had always been the position in Dublin County Council that any residential development or development would be confined to looking at that map, the east of that line and west of that line would not be available for development.

It follows from that if that was the council position that moving the line west wards would increase the amount of land available for development. The converse is also true, if one were to move the line eastwards, there would be less land available for development.

By October 1990 the plans and report for the Carrickmines Valley had been prepared by the professional planners in Dublin County Council. It may very well be the case that many of the matters suggested by Mr. McCabe in his submission to the planners were adopted or accepted by them in their approach to the rezoning of the Carrickmines Valley in the review of the 1983 plan. And indeed, Mr. Richard Lynn, the Monarch project coordinator accepts in fact that this was so and in his statement to the Tribunal, accepts that the planners adopted the submissions that had been made to them by Mr. Feargall McCabe on behalf of Monarch in preparing the first plan that was given to the councillors.

That plan was a plan which has been referred to in the course of the Carrickmines 1 Module called DP 90/123. The first map prepared by the planners in relation to the review of zonings in the Carrickmines Valley was a map called DP 90/123, please.

Now, this is DP 90/123 and on that map, the Monarch lands should be outlined in red. If the Monarch area can be -- sorry 6937 and if we could just increase the area. Sir, I don't know whether anybody else's screens are working but our screens aren't working. It's all right. We will work off the big screen.

On that map, where the Monarch lands are outlined can be seen that DP 90/123 proposed a town centre on the lands and also proposed industrial zoning. And if we could just increase the Monarch portion of those lands please.

Now on that map, what can be seen is that the red portion that's on that map is a proposed town centre. The purple portion beside it is proposed industrial zoning an the blue line that bisects but goes beneath the Monarch lands is the proposed line of the Southeastern Motorway. That means that when this map was prepared the planners were suggesting to the councillors that the line of the Southeastern Motorway should be moved beneath the Monarch lands. The balance of the lands which are striped were to be zoned residential, subject to action area plan.

In the report of the manager which spoke to DP 90/123, the manager outlined his proposals for the entire of the Carrickmines Valley and he proposed the following, 1, industrial zoning. On DP 90/123 an additional 150 acres of industrial zoning was proposed of which a portion was on the Monarch lands and that's the portion coloured purple on the map.

The industrial development would be grouped around the motorway junctions and the Ballyogan Road was to be extended to Cherrywood where it would meet the link road extending the Wyattville Road through to the motorway.

The Wyattville Road is the line beside the town centre that comes down to join the Southeastern Motorway.

Residential: The manager proposed zoning a further 430 acres, including a large portion of the Monarch lands to accommodate a population of 30,000.

Retail: The manager proposed two district town centres, one at Ballyogan and one at Cherrywood. The council at this stage was already committed to the construction of the Carrickmines Valley sewer and the roads would have to be improved. DP 90/123 was the council planners propose as for the entire Carrickmines Valley and proposed following rezoning on the Monarch lands, a portion as district centre activities coloured red, a portion industrial coloured purple and the balance coloured residential in accordance with approved action area plan. A small portion near Tully Church was to be zoned green, open space. Sorry, high amenity.

Approval of DP 90/123 was recommended by the manager to the meeting of the councillors of Dublin County Council on the 18th October 1990. No decision was made and it was agreed to defer the map to the next meeting. It was agreed that the planning officer, Mr. Willie Murray, would prepare a supplementary report. The council came to further consider DP 90/123 on the 16th November 1993 at which time the supplementary report was read, this report pointed out that the introduction of the Carrickmines Valley sewer scheme would add pressure for development.

Other than the Carrickmines Valley, there were few options for industrial land in South Dublin. The south eastern motorway would be a significant factor for the implementation of the proposed zonings. The council however did not decide the matter on this date although the manager's supplementary reported recommended that the approach suggested in the structure plan and as shown on DP 90/123 be adopted. It was agreed to have a tour of the area and this took place on the 29th November 1990.

On the 6th December 1993, the council -- sorry on the 6th December 1990, the council came again to consider the Carrickmines Valley and DP 90/123. It was proposed by Councillor E McDonald and seconded by Councillor Betty Coffey that the draft plan for the Carrickmines Valley be prepared by limiting zoning to the east of the proposed southeastern motorway line. The draft should acknowledge developments approved in the Carrickmines Valley since 1983 and in so doing, reduce the area being proposed for industry.

The draft plan should indicate public parks and open spaces. The draft plan should indicate the nature of the proposed residential zoning. This motion was passed with 21 for, 8 against and 6 abstentions.

In effect, the passing of this motion meant:

1. The council rejected the draft structure plan and rejected DP 90/123.

2. A direction was given to prepare a new map confining proposed development to the east of the 1983 Southeastern Motorway line.

And 3. In indicating the nature of the proposed residential zoning, the new map would have to indicate density.

[edit] January 1991

In January 1991, the council came to consider maps 26 and 27 relating to the Carrickmines Valley. These were the new maps prepared by the planners following the rejection of DP 90/123 on the 6th December 1990. These maps were noted by the council on the 18th January 1991 and by this is meant the members agreed generally with the contents and moved on without a vote. Map 26 and 27, 6964 please, were the maps for the Carrickmines Valley and the Monarch lands are on map 27, they are outlined in red on the map at 6964. The zoning changes were indicated and road changes were indicated. The line of the Southeastern Motorway proposed on this map in January 1991 was further south than the line indicated in the 1983 Development Plan already seen. Other road changes were shown but development was confined to the east of the 1983 proposed line of the Southeastern Motorway.

If we could increase the size of that map just for a second please.

While it's quite hard to see, if one follows the kind of line of circles going down through the centre of that map, that is in effect the old line of the Southeastern Motorway, the 1983 line in the centre of the red. No. Sorry, just leave it back the way, the line going from north to south. If one sees the number 52 and a series of dots indicating a roadway, that's the old line of the 1983 Southeastern Motorway. And beneath that, off the Monarch lands completely, there is a line of square dots put together and that is the new line of the Southeastern Motorway but development on this map was to be confined to the east of the 1983 line.

DP 90/129 A: On the 24th May 1991 a further report by the manager was read.

This report reviewed the history of the rezoning of the Carrickmines Valley to date as already outlined and also commented on the difference in submissions made by the Carrickmines Valley Preservation Association and the draft plan presented to the council in January 1991.

The manager recommended that the council could adopt one of three options.

Option one: The 1983 plan unchanged except for developments to date and adjustment of objectives as outlined on DP 90/129 A.

Option 2: Accept DP 90/123 the original proposal by the planners.

Option 3. Adopt maps 26 and 27 as noted by the council in January 1991. The maps that had been prepared following the rejection of DP 90/123.

The councillors voted first on option 1. On map DP90/129 A and that was passed by the council with 21 for, 19 against and one abstention.

That meant that options 2 and 3 were not considered. Page 7018 please. This is the map for the Carrickmines Valley DP 90/129 A which was adopted or approved by the councillors at this meeting. On the 24th May 1991. The relevant extract which shows the Monarch lands are at 7019.

The black line that cuts through the centre of the Monarch lands is the 1983 line of the Southeastern Motorway. There is by way of a broken black line a revised line of the motorway indicated. The words AS/1 and SP appear at what, what that is suggesting or saying is that the density on these lands were to change from residential, one house on septic tank to residential on piped sewerage. Residential on piped sewerage had a minimum density of four houses to the acre. Zoning by way of septic tank, AS/1 had one house to the acre so the points of importance in relation to DP 90/129 A which was approved by the council are follows;

1. The 1983 Southeastern Motorway line is shown traversing the Monarch lands. Residential development is confined to the east of that line, shown by way of an unbroken heavy black line.

2. The nature of the residential zoning is shown as being changed from AS/1 residential one house to the acre on septic tank to AP, residential on pipe sewerage at not more than four houses to the acre or ten to the hectare.

3. A revised line of the motorway is indicated by a heavy broken black line and this line is west of the 1983 line.

It is important to remember that on the 6th December 1993, the council had been directed to limit zoning to the east of the Southeastern Motorway line which was the 1983 line. Any movement on the motorway line would bring or could bring more land into the take that could be considered for development.

Sorry the decision was on the 6th December 1990, not 1993.

In June, 1991, a new local authority was elected and the first statutory public display of the 1991 draft plan took place from the 2nd December 1991 to the 3rd December 1991. 7020 please. Map 27 of the Draft Development Plan 1991 showed the Monarch lands as zoned partially residential, at four houses to the acre on pipe sewerage and partially B, agriculture.

On the map at 7020, the residential portion is indicated yellow, that is to the east of the 1983 line, and the agriculture al portion is indicated blue, that's to the west of the 1983 line. The extent of the lands coloured, sorry the extent of the lands zoned residential in the Carrickmines Valley are coloured yellow on the map at 7021 please.

With the Monarch lands outlined in red. This is a map of the Carrickmines Valley, it shows all of the residential zonings. This had been changed from septic tank, one house to the acre to residential on piped sewerage, the Monarch lands are outlined in red.

So it will be seen on that map that there was a far greater residential lands in the Carrickmines Valley than those limited to the Monarch lands.

While the line of the Southeastern Motorway appears to have moved westwards, the division between the yellow lands and the blue lands on 7020 is attributable to the 1983 line of the Southeastern Motorway. In November, 1991, in the course of the display, Monarch made a submission to Dublin County Council which was allocated reference number 1117. Monarch accepted the basic principles of the zonings as put on display and the works objectives as outlined in the Draft Development Plan map.

However they sought certain changes in the submission and these included:

1. A change in the residential zoning density to ordinary development densities. This would apply only to the residentially zoned lands. Those coloured yellow on the map.

2. To zone some agricultural zoned land west of the 1983 line as residential.

3. Put a district or town centre zoning on a portion of the lands.

4. Make certain road changes. And

5. Zone certain lands open space.

The differences between the zoning proposed in the 1991 draft plan as displayed and the zonings proposed by Monarch in submissions were set out by Mr. McCabe in his document and if I could have page 7109 please.

In this document which was part of the submission, Mr. McCabe outlines the difference in the treatment of the land and in the first part it sees that the Monarch lands are zoned residential and agriculture and then it will be seen that they are suggesting changing that zoning and the acreage involved.

By the 10th April 1992, all oral hearings requested in connection with the review process had been completed and all objections and representations to maps 23 to 28 had been circulated to the members who had been informed that any further material alteration to the draft plan would require a further display period. Dublin County Council received 11 motions relevant to the subject lands. These were numbered motions 31 A1 through to motions 31 A11.

Motion summary:

Motion number 1. Signed by Councillors Lydon and Hand. In summary, this motion sought the rezoning of the lands in accordance with submission 1117 with the housing density not to exceed 12 houses per hectare. In other words, Councillor Lydon and Hand's motion was seeking to implement Mr. McCabe's submission to Dublin County Council but subject to some limitations.

Motion number 2. Signed by Councillor Gordon seeking that all lands zoned AP be rezoned to AS2, that is back to septic tank.

3. Councillor Eithne Fitzgerald's motion that the Monarch lands on the map at 7151 be zoned at one house per acre.

Motion 4: Signed by Councillor Niamh Breathnach, to retain low density housing on the Monarch lands at one house per acre.

5: Signed by Councillor Larry Lohan that the Monarch lands be zoned S2, two house to the acre on septic tank, to houses to the hectare on septic tank.

6. Councillor Frank Smyth and Niamh Breathnach seeking to extend the high amenity zoned south along the river to the Bray Road.

Number 7. Signed by Councillors Gilmore, O'Callaghan and Breathnach that all of the lands outlined in red, including the Monarch lands be the subject of a special area amenity order.

Motion number 8. Signed by Councillors Gilmore, O'Callaghan and Breathnach that the lands outlined in red being the Monarch lands be zoned AS/1 and

Motion 9. Signed by Councillors Gilmore, O'Callaghan and Breathnach that the lands outlined in red on the Monarch lands be zoned C, town centre and district centre.

Motion number 10. Signed by Councillors Gilmore, O'Callaghan and Breathnach to seek agreement with the owner or development of the land, that is Monarch, to confine residential development to a smaller area and.

Motion 11. Signed by Councillor Sean Barrett that the lands out signed in red which included the Monarch residentially zoned lands have a density of one house per acre.

Of all of these motions, only two were ultimately successful. That is the motion to put a town centre zoning on the lands and Councillor Barrett's motion reducing the density on all the residentially zoned lands in the Carrickmines Valley, including Monarch's lands.

In May 1992, the manager reported again on the Carrickmines Valley to the members. He identified the five main changes between the 1983 plan and the 1991 plan as being:

1. The line of the Southeastern Motorway had changed.

2. Residential low density had changed from one to the acre to four to the acre or ten per hectare on piped sewerage.

3. The IDA park had Leopardstown had changed from residential to industrial.

4. The zoning at Murphystown had changed from low density to normal density and;

5. The land along the Leopardstown Road at Leopardstown was rezoned from residential to industrial.

The only two of significance insofar as this module are concerned are the line of the Southeastern Motorway and the change in residential density.

The manager also reported on other matters, including;

1. The Southeastern Motorway. He informed the members that the line was not yet finalised and a study was being carried out the options available for alignment of the motorway, particularly in connection with the Southern Cross Route. The final line should away the outcome of the study.

The Wyattville junction: The extension of the Wyattville Road to the motorway was considered to be an important part of the distributor road network and on the maps this was to cut across the Monarch lands.

Harcout Street line: The transportation options for this was to be determined an the line was to be preserved.

Drainage: There was nothing further available in the Carrickmines Valley until the Carrickmines sewer was provided.

Subject to ministerial approval, the construction of the sewer would shortly commence. And in relation to the Cherrywood area, and the manager reported that due to the Carrickmines Valley sewer proposal, the zoning was changed from one house on septic tank to pipe drainage at low density, i.e. four houses per acre, the manager now outlined on a map DP 92/44, his proposed amendment for the draft map to the Cherrywood area. 7203 please.

Now, what this map in fact is in effect is the manager's proposed amendments to the plan that had been displayed in the course of the first public display. So the council were going to have to consider 11 motions in connection with the Monarch lands and before that, were going to have to consider the manager's proposals in relation to his changes to the plan that had been displayed. The manager produced his changes, not by way of a motion but effect by way of a map which is this map DP 92/44. And a report which spoke to the contents of the map. The manager outlined his position as being that the changes should be 1, from residential pipe sewerage low density, that is from AP to A1P residential 19 in accordance with area action plan on pipe sewerage for all of the residentially zoned lands east of the Southeastern Motorway line.

That in effect would have changed density had that happened because the density of AP is four houses to the acre, whereas there is no density on A1 zoning.

It's in accordance with area action plan. The second proposal from the manager on the map was to change from B agriculture to A1P. A portion of the lands west of the original 1983 motorway line and east of a new proposed line for the motorway.

He also indicated two possible alternative alignments of the Southeastern Motorway, one of which cut through the Monarch lands and one of which cut through the proposed golf course lands south of it. He also recommended the extension of the high amenity zoned to the Druid's Glen and that shopping be confined to neighbourhood proportions only.

If that had been adopted by the councillors, it would have significantly increased the density permitted on the residentially zoned lands of Monarch and would also have increased the acreage of residentially zoned lands available with the increased density. It would also have reduced the amount of agricultural zoned land held by Monarch.

DP 92/44 being the manager's proposals to the 1991 plan, the report of the manager also synopsise the Monarch proposals as being;

1. Seeking low density zoning to be changed to normal density.

2. That residential boundaries be extended southwards.

3. A district centre zoning be introduced on the lands, that the lands at Tully and Loughlinstown stream be zoned open space and that the proposed road linking Wyattville to the motorway be indicated as five year road objective and the objective of preserving views and prospects from Bray Road be deleted.

While these matters were discussed at that meeting, no decision was made at that meeting and the councillors came to consider the whole matter again on the 27th May 1992.

On this day the council came to consider DP 92/44, submission 1117 being the Monarch submission and the 11 motions in connection with the Monarch lands. It was agreed that the manager's report and his amendments to the draft plan as recommended by him and as set out on DP 92/44 and motions numbered 31/A1 through to 31/A11 relating to representation 117 would be discussed together but voted on separately.

Councillor Lydon proposed and Councillor McGrath seconded the proposal that the manager's report and the proposed amendments to the draft plan as shown on DP

3 92/44 be adopted and approved by the council.  This motion was put and lost 
4 with 33 votes for the motion, 35 against the motion and the record of the 
5 motion is at page 7207 of the brief but there's no need to open that page on 

11:19:42

6 screen. 
7  
8 The balance of the motions:  Motion 31/A1 which was Councillor Lydon and Hand's 
9 motions to rezone the Monarch lands according to the map attached to submission 

10 1117 was withdrawn and this was agreed. Motion 31/A2 and motion 31/A4 were 11:19:59 11 taken together because both were motions to zone the Monarch lands at one house 12 per acre or two per hectare, this was put and lost. 13 14 36 for, sorry, put and lost with 36 against the motion, 29 for the motion with 15 two abstentions. 11:20:24 16 17 Motion 31/A3 that the Monarch lands on the map be zoned at one house per acre 18 was put and lost. 19 Motion 31/A5 that the Monarch lands be zoned two to the acre on septic tank was 20 put and lost. 11:20:39 21 Motion 31/A6, that the high amenity zone be extended southwards along the river 22 to the Bray Road was put and lost. 23 Motion 31/A7, that a special area amenity order be made for the lands at 24 Shanganagh, Loughlinstown Valley to include the Druid's Glen and Brides Glen 25 was put and lost. 11:20:59 26 Motion 31/A8 was withdrawn. 27 Motion 31/A9 that part of the lands outlined on the map attached to the motion 28 be zoned C, town or district centre was put and passed, with 34 to 22 with 29 eight abstentions, 7169 please. 30 This is the motion map, this needs to be turned please. And outlined in red in 11:21:21 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   25 
1 the centre there are lands outlined in red, these lands are the Monarch lands 

11:21:29

2 in the centre of the Monarch proposed development and this motion which was a 
3 motion proposed by Councillor Gilmore, O'Callaghan and Breathnach, was put and 
4 passed that a town or district centre zoning be put on those lands at that 
5 location. 

11:21:51

6  
7 The next motion, 31/A10 agreement be sought with the landowner of the Monarch 
8 lands to confine residential construction to a smaller area was put and lost.  
9 And motion 31/A11, 7175 please, if that map to be turned.   

10 This is Councillor Barrett's motion. This motion proposed that the lands 11:22:15 11 outlined in red on the map at 7175, which included the Monarch residentially 12 zoned lands but include all the residentially zoned lands in the Carrickmines 13 Valley be zoned at a maximum density of one house per acre and this was put and 14 passed with 36 to 24. At this meeting, only two motions were successful. 15 That's motion 31/A9, putting a town or district centre zoning on a portion of 11:22:42 16 the Monarch lands and motion 31/A11 confining the residential density zoning in 17 the Carrickmines Valley, including the Monarch lands but not limited to the 18 Monarch lands to not more than one to the acre. 19 20 The effect of these successful motions was illustrated on map 27 of the 1993 11:23:00 21 amendments map as put on public display on the 1st July 1993. 7217 please. 22 23 The lands outlined in yellow on the map at 7217 are all of the residentially 24 zoned lands in the Carrickmines Valley that were affected by Councillor 25 Barrett's motion, the effect of councillor Barrett's motion was to reduce the 11:23:29 26 residential density on those yellow lands from four to the acre to one to the 27 acre. The Monarch take or portion of those residentially zoned lands are 28 outlined in red on that map. And the small box in the centre of the Monarch 29 lands is the new town centre zoning which was put on public display following 30 the successful Councillor Gilmore motion. 11:23:58 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   26 
1  

11:23:58

2 So that effectively what happened for the second public display following 
3 Councillor Barrett's motion is that the density on all of the residentially 
4 zoned lands was reduced from four to the acre to one to the acre and whilst a 
5 town centre zoning had been achieved for the lands, the reduction in density 

11:24:11

6 was in effect a disaster for Monarch because it would limit or restrict or 
7 indeed for any developer because it would limit or restrict the number of 
8 houses one could construct on the lands if that zoning was maintained. 
9  

10 The pink lands which are hard to see as pink but they are the small piece of 11:24:30 11 lands in the centre, they are the town centre lands. Now, Mr. Dunlop in 12 private interview with the Tribunal told the Tribunal that Mr. Barrett's motion 13 in his view saved the Monarch's position but it is difficult when one considers 14 the documentation to understand how that is so. 15 11:24:54 16 The Southeastern Motorway: As can be seen from the maps that have already been 17 outlined a vital determining factor in the zoning of these lands in the review 18 of the 1983 plan came to be the proposed line of the Southeastern Motorway. 19 20 According to Mr. Tony Fox, in earlier evidence given in the course of the 11:25:07 21 Carrickmines I Module on day 384, he signed a motion in connection with the 22 line of the Southeastern Motorway and he did so following an approach by 23 representatives of Monarch, with whom he walked the land. He identified those 24 representatives of Monarch as being Mr. Richard Lynn and Mr. Lafferty then a 25 senior engineer with Monarch. On the 5th June 1992 a motion to zoning 11:25:32 26 Mr. Galvin's lands which adjoined Monarch's lands for the development of a golf 27 course was passed unanimously. After this, and at the time same meeting, 28 Councillor Fox's motion proposing the movement of the Southeastern Motorway 29 line to 50 metres west of the 1991 line, came to be considered with two other 30 motions in connection with the line of the Southeastern Motorway. 11:25:52 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   27 
1  

11:25:55

2 The manager advised however that the finalisation of the alignment would depend 
3 on a feasibility study and an EIS, environment impact statement, and he advised 
4 that the line of the Southeastern Motorway should be diagrammatic only and this 
5 was agreed unanimously.  The motions in relation to the line of the motorway 

11:26:09

6 then fell.  The Tribunal will and indeed has already heard evidence in this 
7 regard. 
8  
9 The second public display:  The changes following the decision of the council 

10 were put on public display for one month from the 1st July 1993 to the 4th 11:26:27 11 August 1993 as illustrated on the map at 7217. And as explained in the list of 12 the 1993 amendments to map 27 at 7219 and 7220. This is the document that 13 speaks to the map and on this document, the council outline for the public the 14 changes that are proposed on the map that has been put on public display. 15 11:27:06 16 The relevant changes insofar as this portion of the inquiry is concerned were 17 changes 3 and 4 on map 27. Change 3, if I could have 7217 please -- change 3 18 related to Councillor Barrett's motion and the change in residential density 19 down to one house per acre which affected 178 acres in the Carrickmines Valley 20 and the Monarch portion out as outlined in red. The total lands affected by 11:27:41 21 councillor Barrett's motion was 178 acres and that's outlined in yellow and 22 within that, the Monarch lands are outlined in red. The second change that's 23 relevant for the purpose of this inquiry was change 4 and this was the 7 acres 24 outlined in pink which was the town centre zoning on the Monarch lands. 25 11:28:04 26 In the course of this display, Monarch objected to the proposed density 27 reduction but had no objection to the town centre zoning or other zonings. 28 Monarch also sought to move the boundary of the residentially zoned land to 29 include the land zoned B or agriculture immediately south of the proposed town 30 centre lands. 11:28:23 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   28 
1  

11:28:23

2 The second display motion:  Change 3 to map 27, the decrease in density in the 
3 residentially zoned lands in Carrickmines following Councillor Barrett's 
4 motion.  At the council meeting on the 11th December 1993, two motions one by 
5 Councillor Smyth and Buckley and one by Councillor Gilmore and Councillor 

11:28:40

6 O'Callaghan both effectively sought to confirm change 3 on map 27.  In other 
7 words to confirm the density at one house per acre on all of the lands, 
8 including the Monarch residentially zoned lands was put and lost as was a 
9 proposed amendment to one of these motions by Councillor Barrett. 

10 11:29:02 11 The manager recommended that change 3 on map 27 be deleted. In other words, 12 the manager recommended that the density limitation be put back up to four to 13 the acre from the one to the acre that had been introduced as a result of 14 Councillor Barrett's motion. 15 11:29:18 16 Councillor Donal Marren proposed and Councillor Betty Coffey seconded a motion 17 to accept the manager's recommendation and to delete the 1993 amendment on the 18 lands outlined in red only on the motion map. And that the balance of the 19 lands stay at two to the acre. 20 11:29:34 21 The motion map at 7227 please. This is the map attached to Councillor Marren's 22 and Coffey's motion and what that motion sought was that the density on those 23 lands only be increased to four to the acre and that the balance of the lands 24 remain at one to the acre. If we go back to the map at 7217 please. 25 11:30:00 26 What Councillor Marren and Councillor Coffey's motion was proposing was that 27 the Monarch lands outlined in red on this map would be zoned at four houses to 28 the acre but the balance of the yellow lands outside the red would remain at 29 one house to the acre. And therefore that motion could only be said to have 30 been in aid of Monarch. That motion was put and passed by 44 votes to 27. The 11:30:23 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   29 
1 end result of that being that at the end of the plan when that was confirmed, 

11:30:30

2 the Monarch lands were zoned at four houses to the acre, but the balance of the 
3 residential lands in the Carrickmines Valley were one house to the acre. 
4  
5 Councillor Marren and Councillor Coffey's motion was put and passed.  Change 3 

11:30:43

6 was then declared deleted insofar as the Monarch lands were concerned but 
7 confirmed for the balance of the residentially zoned lands in the Carrickmines 
8 Valley. 
9  

10 The second change, change 4A and 4B to map 27, the change to introduce the town 11:31:03 11 centre zoning. At the meeting on the 11th November 1993, a motion to zone 12 change 4A back to B agriculture, was put by Councillors Misteil and Smyth and 13 lost with 50 against, 19 for and two abstentions. The manager in his report in 14 relation to this change whilst recommending that it be deleted, in other words 15 that the town centre zoning be removed, had said that the zoning objective C 11:31:31 16 would permit major shopping facilities which would be inappropriate at that 17 location. Councillor Marren proposed and Councillor Lohan seconded a motion 18 that Dublin County Council affirm changes 4A and 4B and then limit the retail 19 element to neighbourhood centre size only, having regard to the manager's 20 recommendation. This was put and passed with 46 for, 4 against and 12 11:31:56 21 abstentions. 22 23 Change 4A and 4B on map 27 was then declared confirmed. This in effect meant 24 that there was a cap on the permitted retail development at Cherrywood, in 25 other words, that retail would be confined to neighbourhood centre size only 11:32:12 26 and this would be reflected in the written statement. 27 28 At the commencement of the review process of the 1983 Development Plan, the 29 Monarch lands had been zoned partly residential, one house to the acre on 30 septic tank, partly G and partly agriculture. In the 1993 Dublin County 11:32:30 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   30 
1 Development Plan, as adopted on the 10th December 1993, the lands were zoned as 

11:32:36

2 follows:   
3 1.  Residential, AP/10.  That is 10 houses per hectare or four per acre on 
4 piped sewerage.  The lands outlined green on 7281 please.  Could I have the 
5 next map.  7278 please.  2720.   

11:33:04

6  
7 2.  The Monarch lands are outlined on this map as partly hatched, partly blue 
8 and partly pink and they are outlined in red.  At the end of the review 
9 process, the position was that the blue lands remained agriculture.  There was 

10 a town district centre with a retail element capped, coloured purple on the map 11:33:49 11 an the balance of the lands which would have been east of the old 1983 line and 12 which are striped red and yellow were zoned residential AP/10, 10 houses to the 13 hectare or four per acre. The written statement that related to map 27 14 confirmed an objective to limit the retail element of the lands at Carrickmines 15 to neighbourhood centre size. 11:34:14 16 17 That concluded the involvement of Dublin County Council in the rezoning of the 18 Monarch lands because on the 1st January 1994, Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County 19 Council was established and these lands are located within the functional area 20 of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council. The first matter that concerned the 11:34:31 21 council in connection with the Monarch lands was the development of a science 22 and technology park which became known as the variation to the 1993 Development 23 Plan for County Dublin which was made by Dublin, Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County 24 Council in 1995. 25 11:34:51 26 According to Mr. Richard Cremmins, in September 1993, a feasibility study 27 sponsored by various institutions was carried out into locating a science and 28 technology park in Dublin. The report identified 11 possible sites, one of 29 which was Cherrywood. Monarch Property Services, Monarch, were the technical 30 advisers to that project. 11:35:11 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   31 
1  

11:35:12

2 The 1994 draft action plan:  In April 1994, Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County 
3 Council prepared a draft action plan for the Carrickmines Valley and this was 
4 recorded on a map bearing reference number PL94/39.  This plan proposed by the 
5 officials outlined the land uses for the Carrickmines lands and the acreage 

11:35:27

6 involved.  Also outlined on this plan were the suggested densities.  The action 
7 plan illustrated in structure form the proposed land uses for the Carrickmines 
8 area.  The manager provided a report on the Cherrywood draft action plan and 
9 this report explained drawing PL94/39 and noted that the plan centred on the 

10 236 acres of land owned by Monarch. The report recorded the then zonings being 11:35:53 11 residential, district centre an the specific objective relevant to map 27 in 12 the 1993 plan. 13 14 The plan provided for a 12.2 acre site for non-retail commercial on the 15 district centre land and neighbourhood shops and on a 2.2 acre site. The plan 11:36:11 16 considered that 65.5 acres then zoned B, agriculture, and G, high amenity to be 17 somewhat anomalous as it was located between the proposed motorway and the 18 residentially zoned land. This anomaly had in fact been earlier referred to by 19 Mr. Willie Murray, planning officer at a meeting between Monarch 20 representatives and Mr. Murray in connection with the Cherrywood development. 11:36:33 21 22 The report recommended that these lands were further examined. The draft plan 23 also indicated the overall house numbers for each section of the area which can 24 be seen on the map. 7294 please. There was no suggestion of a science and 25 technology park in the draft plan. Again outlined on that map, the outline of 11:37:01 26 the Monarch lands. 27 28 On the 23rd May 1994, Councillor Eamonn Gilmore proposed to a meeting of Dun 29 Laoghaire/Rathdown Planning Development and Tourism Committee a motion seeking 30 the agreement of the council to review the zoning on Monarch's lands to 11:37:17 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   32 
1 encourage and facilitate the development of a science and technology park. 

11:37:20

2  
3 The Planning Development and Tourism Committee agreed on the 29th June 1994 to 
4 do the following:   
5 1.  Put the draft action plan on public display, although this appears never to 

11:37:30

6 have in fact to have occurred.   
7 B.  To pass Councillor Gilmore's motion to review the rezoning on Monarch's 
8 land to encourage a science and technology park.  And  
9 C.  Send a delegation to the two cabinet ministers for the administrative area.  

10 And D. Issue a letter to the chairman of the science and technology working 11:37:50 11 group recommending the Cherrywood area for the science and technology park. 12 13 The lands suggested for the science and technology park were Monarch's southern 14 most land below the proposed Wyattville junction. 7294 please, sorry that's 15 the same map. At the bottom portion of that, there is a road of that map, 11:38:11 16 there's a road reservation which is running diagonally across the map. If we 17 could have the cursor. The road reservation at the centre of that, what was 18 being suggested was that those lands, the bit below that, would be zoned for 19 the science and technology park. In other words, below that junction, that was 20 the proposed Wyattville junction that's traversing the Monarch lands, the 11:39:02 21 purpose of the Wyattville Road was to connect the N11 to the Southeastern 22 Motorway and it was going to cut through the Monarch lands. The lands to the 23 south of that, which are the bottom portion of the Monarch lands, were the 24 lands being proposed for the science and technology park. 25 11:39:22 26 On the 10th October 1994, a motion signed by Councillors Conroy, Lydon and L T 27 Cosgrave was received by Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council. This motion 28 sought the initiation of a draft variation to the 1993 Dublin County 29 Development Plan in order to achieve the following 30 11:39:39 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   33 
1 1.  66 acres of E zoning to assist a science and technology park.   

11:39:39

2 2.  150 acres of residential zoning at A1 with maximum density 6 per acre and 
3 3.  Retaining 18 acres of C zoning town or district centre zoning with shopping 
4 confined to neighbourhood size. 
5  

11:40:00

6 On the 24th October 1994, in response to a written question from Councillor L T 
7 Cosgrave, the manager reported on the progress of the science and technology 
8 park.  The motion seeking the initiation of the variation was deferred and 
9 prior to this, it would appear that the manager and his officials had had a 

10 number of meetings with Monarch personnel leading to the agreement. 11:40:17 11 In the course of discussions, Monarch personnel appeared confident of 12 councillor support from their proposals but were apparently ultimately 13 persuaded to adopt the approach favoured by the manager and his staff which led 14 to the making of the variation. 15 11:40:36 16 In November 1994, the manager prepared and presented to the councillors a 17 proposed variation of the Dublin County Development Plan, 1993, to provide for 18 a science and technology park. Map 27 of the 1993 plan and the 1993 written 19 statement would have to be changed, the manager informed the members that 20 agreement in principle had been reached between GRE, Monarch and Dun 11:40:55 21 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council for the development of a science and 22 technology park. Under this agreement, the draft variation would provide for: 23 24 A. The rezoning of lands for a science and technology park. 25 B. Reciting or moving the existing town or district centre lands slightly 11:41:11 26 northwards, so that all seven hectares were located north of the proposed 27 Wyattville link road. 28 C. The lands zoned agriculture to the north of the link road would be rezoned 29 residential at 16 houses to the acre. 30 It was also agreed that Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council would acquire a 11:41:32 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   34 
1 one third interest in the science and technology park lands as part of the 

11:41:36

2 agreement between GRE and Monarch and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council. 
3  
4 7284 please.  This map, PL96/85 shows what was proposed and what was being 
5 proposed in relation to the variation was on the Monarch site south of the dots 

11:41:57

6 which represent the Wyattville Road.  All of that -- most of that land was 
7 going to be rezoned for a science and technology park.  The blue lands which 
8 are immediately northwest of the pink town centre lands were by way of a quid 
9 pro quo going to be rezoned residential density with a limitation of 16 houses 

10 to the acre. 11:42:27 11 12 The manager sought the approval of the members to the agreement with GRE and 13 Monarch and on a show of hands, this was passed. And this occurred on the 14th 14 November 1994. The members then considered the proposed variation to the 1993 15 plan and a new zoning objective would have to be introduced to permit the 11:42:46 16 development of a science and technology park, namely E1 to provide for the 17 development of a science and technology park. There was no zoning in the 1993 18 that would have permitted of a science and technology park. 19 20 There would have to be a number of consequential changes to the written 11:43:03 21 statement and to map 27. And those changes are the changes illustrated on the 22 map at 7284. And those changes are outlined in the small box in the corner if 23 that could be increased please. The small box in the left hand corner. 24 25 It says change 1, change 2, change 3, change 4. This is a summary of the 11:43:26 26 changes that were proposed and what was happening by way of agreement between 27 the parties is that 20 hectares was being changed from residential 10 house to 28 the hectare to E1 zoning, 4.5 acres was being changed from B agriculture to E1 29 zoning, one hectare was changing from C, that's town centre to E1. 0.3 30 hectares was changing from residential to C zoning and that was to take account 11:44:05 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   35 
1 of moving the town centre slightly northwards and 19.5 hectares was being 

11:44:15

2 changed from agriculture to residential 16 houses to the acre. 
3  
4 It was also proposed to replace the proposed Wyattville Road to the southeast 
5 of the motorway with a new line.  And that's, it was that new line that 

11:44:25

6 required a slight move northwards on the town centre lands.  If passed, the 
7 variation would be put on public display.  The variation was proposed by 
8 Councillor Coffey and seconded by Councillor Butler and agreed on a show of 
9 hands.  Prior to this vote, Councillor Lydon withdrew his motion which had 

10 originally been lodged original the 10th October 1994. 11:44:47 11 12 The variation map and the schedule of changes to map 27, 7464 please, was put 13 on public display from the 13th November 1994 to the 10th March 1995 as the 14 proposed variation to the Dublin County Development Plan. 21 objections and 15 representations were received and two oral hearings were requested and reports 11:45:08 16 circulated to the members as was the manager's report. The manager represented 17 that the proposed variation be made out amendment. On the 24th April 1995, a 18 resolution proposing the making of the variation was proposed by Councillor 19 Donal Marren and seconded by Councillor Butler and passed with 27 in favour and 20 one against 11:45:34 21 22 The variation was passed and map 27 at page 7283, includes variation number 11 23 being the variation made at Cherrywood. 24 25 This is the 1993 Development Plan map which has now been amended by the making 11:45:47 26 of the variation and the Monarch lands are outlined in red. The blue and grey 27 striped lands that are south of the proposed Wyattville link road are the 28 science and technology zoned lands. The pink or purple lands immediately 29 adjoining that are the town centre lands and immediately north of that, the 30 striped lands are the lands that are now zoned residential, 16 to the acre, 16 11:46:13 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   36 
1 to the hectare which had previously been zoned agriculture.  The series of dots 

11:46:19

2 immediately on top of the blue and grey zoned E1 science and technology lands 
3 is the diagrammatic line for the proposed Wyattville link road which would link 
4 the N11 to the Southeastern Motorway. 
5  

11:46:40

6 At the commencement of this portion of the process, the lands had been zoned as 
7 follows:   
8 A.  Residential, so houses to the hectare on piped sewerage.   
9 B.  Agriculture and;  

10 C. Town centre. 11:46:52 11 12 At the conclusion of this process, according to the map presently on screen, 13 the lands were zoned as A, residential, either ten to the hectare, being east 14 of the 1983 line, or 16 to the hectare being west of the 1983 line, and E1, 15 science and technology park and C, town centre zoning. 11:47:09 16 17 The formerly agricultural zoned lands were now zoned residential at a density 18 of 16 to the hectare. There was not now any agriculturally zoned land held by 19 Monarch. 20 11:47:24 21 The review of the 1993 Development Plan: 22 23 CHAIRMAN: Ms. Dillon, I just take a break for about ten minutes and come 24 back. Just before we break, I mistakenly referred to in the few words I said 25 at the opening to the module as being the Monarch Module, in fact it's the 11:47:38 26 Cherrywood Module. So, we will take a break for ten minutes. 27 28 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED FOR A SHORT BREAK 29 AND RESUMED AS FOLLOWS: 30 MS. DILLON: Continuation of the opening statement. The review of the 1993 11:48:03 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   37 
1 Development Plan: 

12:03:56

2  
3 In 1996, Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council commenced its review of two 
4 plans, namely the 1993 Dublin County Development Plan as amended by the 
5 variation and the 1991 Dun Laoghaire borough Development Plan.  In May 1996, a 

12:04:06

6 detailed position paper was prepared by the officials of DLRCC.  This detailed 
7 planning issues policies an objectives for the county.  On the 27th May 1996, 
8 the manager reported to the members on the position paper, the proposed review 
9 and the timescale for the making of a new plan. 

10 12:04:28 11 This report was noted by the members of the council following earlier 12 consideration by the Planning Development and Tourism Committee of the council. 13 By December 1996, the draft maps and draft written statement had been prepared 14 and were furnished to the members in anticipation of a meeting in January 1997. 15 At the meeting of the 29th January 1997, Mr. Richard Cremmins gave a broad 12:04:45 16 overview of the draft written statement and outlined the main changes proposed. 17 Maps 1 to 3 were presented and the main changes explained by Mr. Murray, the 18 planning officer. 19 20 On the 4th February 1997, maps 4 to 14 were presented and noted by the council. 12:04:59 21 The subject lands are on map 10 and on the 1996 changes map, the Monarch 22 residentially zoned lands and other Cherrywood lands similarly zoned had no 23 density limitations. It would appear from this that in the maps presented to 24 the meeting in January 1997, no zoning restrictions applied on the 25 residentially zoned lands at Cherrywood and Lehaunstown north of the proposed 12:05:24 26 Southeastern Motorway. 27 28 While maps 4 to 14 were noted on the 4th February 1997, a motion relating to 29 the zoning density changes was also proposed by Councillors Dillon-Byrne, 30 Buckley and Smyth. Namely that the density zoning of all the maps be restored 12:05:41 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   38 
1 to the designated density and in the same manner or format as the present 

12:05:46

2 Development Plan. 
3  
4 The manager provided a report in which he outlined the factors which were used 
5 to control density and expressed himself satisfied that these factors 

12:05:56

6 adequately controlled density and amenity rather than a numerical figure.  No 
7 vote was taken at the meeting but the matter resumed on the 2nd April 1997 by 
8 which date a further motion concerning density had been lodged with the 
9 council.   

10 12:06:14 11 This second motion was in the name of Councillors Dillon-Byrne, Breathnach, 12 Connolly and Fitzgerald and this motion requested that density be specified on 13 all areas zoned residential on all maps. It was agreed at the meeting on the 14 2nd April 1997 to take both motions together. The manager provided a further 15 report and recommended that the Draft Development Plan be put on public display 12:06:34 16 in its present format, i.e. with no zoning density limitation on these lands. 17 The motion that density be specified in all areas zoned residential on all maps 18 was put and lost with 11 against the motion and 4 for with 2 abstentions. 19 20 The manager, however agreed to make available to members a written list 12:06:53 21 together with maps showing the changes proposed in the draft plan, which had 22 been presented at previous meetings. There would also be some minor amendments 23 before the public display. This map, the Draft Development Plan 1996 changes 24 map, page 7465 please, shows the changes that were proposed by the manager from 25 the 1993 plan as amend the by the variation. 12:07:17 26 27 The major changes proposed was the absence of any residential density 28 limitation in the areas marked 1, 13 and 14 on the map. These are the yellow 29 lands, if, including the Monarch lands and immediately north of that, the other 30 yellow lands. These are the residentially zoned lands in the Carrickmines 12:07:37 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   39 
1 Valley.  Change number 13 and 14 relate to the Monarch lands, one north of the 

12:07:40

2 old Southeastern Motorway line, one south.  And the other yellow lands outside 
3 the Monarch area. 
4  
5 Changes 4 and 5, proposed the extension of the science and technology park 

12:07:53

6 zoning southwards to the line of the south eastern motorway.  And that is the 
7 striped portion outside the Monarch lands that can be seen on the map.  The Dun 
8 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council Draft Development Plan 1997 was put on public 
9 display from the 21st May 1997 to the 22nd August 1997.  The map as put on 

10 public display is at 7470. Sorry, if we could have 7471 please. 12:08:19 11 12 Now, the Monarch lands are outlined in that map and the proposed zoning of the 13 Monarch lands was science and technology park, the town centre zoning which is 14 beige or brown and residential without any limitation which in fact should be 15 cream coloured but in fact is white on that map. During the course of the 12:08:43 16 public display, a number of relevant representations or objections were 17 received. And they were representation 359 from Monarch seeking that the lands 18 marked 3 on the map at 2563 be zoned E1, science and technology park. 19 20 Now, this map needs to be, that's correct. The existing striped portion on 12:09:09 21 that map is the science and technology zoning and the number 3 appears on lands 22 immediately across the roadway. They were lands that were described in the 23 1993 plan as the golf course lands which had been owned by Mr. Sean Galvin and 24 which were sold to Manor Park Homes and had been acquired by Monarch/GRE and 25 what Monarch were seeking was to extend the science and technology zoning 12:09:37 26 across the Wyattville Road extension into the area marked 3. 27 28 The second representation made by Monarch was at 2566 please. And on this map, 29 if we could just turn the map again, on this map, we are looking at the area 30 marked 2. And the area marked 2 on this map is the area adjoining the existing 12:10:00 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   40 
1 town centre zoning and what representation 360 was seeking was that that area 

12:10:06

2 be rezoned from residential to district centre.  The third representation by 
3 Monarch was representation 362 objecting to local objective 6 and local 
4 objective 6 was the limitation on the retail element from the 1993 plan and 
5 representation 362 sought the removal of this retail cap. 

12:10:29

6  
7 The last relevant representation was not from Monarch but from Councillor 
8 Connolly expressing concern about the changes in density, including changes 13 
9 and 14 on map 10.  Dublin County Council -- Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County 

10 Council also received the following motions: 12:10:49 11 12 There was motion 10.6A, 10.6B, 10.6C, 10.6D and 10.7 all related to density and 13 were motions brought by Councillor Connolly and Councillor Smyth seeking to 14 reinstate the density limitations that had been in existence. 15 12:11:12 16 Then there was motion 10.13A, this sought the rezoning of 40 acres from B 17 agriculture to E1, science and technology. This motion was signed by 18 Councillors Lowry, Matthews, LT Cosgrave and Conroy. And these are the lands 19 that were the subject of representation 359 by Monarch. An amendment to this 20 motion was submitted by Councillors Coffey and Butler and Misteil that the 12:11:36 21 motion should be without prejudice to the council's objective to develop the 22 golf course. 23 24 Motion 10.14A sought the rezoning of 11 acres from A residential to district 25 centre signed by Councillor Lowry, Matthews, LT Cosgrave and Conroy. These 12:11:51 26 left-hand side had been the subject of Monarch representation through 360 and 27 motion 10.15A seeking to delete local object 6 on map 10, i.e. remove the 28 retail cap on Cherrywood. This motion was signed by Councillor Matthews and LT 29 Cosgrave and had been the subject of Monarch representation 362. 30 These representations and motions came to be considered by Dun 12:12:17 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   41 
1 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council on the 21st January 1998.   

12:12:21

2  
3 Representation 384:  This representation by Councillor Connolly referred to the 
4 lifting of the zoning restrictions at Cherrywood and Lahaunstown.  The manager 
5 had recommended no change, in other words not to impose density restrictions.  

12:12:37

6 The following motions all effectively sought to impose density limitations on 
7 the Monarch lands as changes 13 and 14, and on other lands as change 1, were 
8 all taken together.  Namely motions 10.6A, 10.6B, 10.6C, 10.6D and 10.7.  The 
9 manager recommended no change for the reasons set out in his report but 

10 following discussion, agreed to include the following local objective for the 12:13:04 11 area. 12 13 That the Cherrywood area, between the proposed motorway and the N11 and between 14 Carrickmines an the Brides Glen shall be the subject of an area action plan 15 wish be presented to the council for approval. This was agreed and motions 12:13:19 16 10.6A, 6B, 6C, 6D and 10.7 were withdrawn. 17 18 Representations 359 and motion 10.13A. Representation 359 where Monarch sought 19 the rezoning of lands to E1 science and technology. The manager recommended no 20 change as this would prejudice the council's already existing objective to 12:13:41 21 develop a public golf course on the lands. This report was noted. 22 23 Motion 10.13A proposed by Councillor L T Cosgrave and seconded by Councillor T 24 Matthews sought to rezone 40 acres from B, agriculture, to E1. This motion was 25 amended by adding that the rezoning would be without prejudicial to the 12:14:02 26 council's objective to develop a public golf course on the lands. The motion 27 as amended was put and passed on a show of hands. The manager had recommended 28 no change. 29 30 Representation 360 and motion 10.14A: In representation 360, Monarch sought to 12:14:16 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   42 
1 extend the district centre lands into adjoining residentially zoned lands.  The 

12:14:27

2 manager had no objection provided the limitation on retail to neighbourhood 
3 size remained.  This report was noted. 
4  
5 Motion 10.14A sought to rezone 11 acres from A to district town centre as an 

12:14:35

6 extension of the existing district/town centre lands proposed by Councillor 
7 Lowry and seconded by Councillor Conroy.  The manager held the same view as for 
8 representation 360, i.e. he had no objection provided the limitation to 
9 neighbourhood size on the retail element remained.  This motion was passed on a 

10 show of hands. 12:15:03 11 12 Representation 362 and motion 10.15A: Representation 362, Monarch sought the 13 removal of the limitation on retail size on the existing district centre lands. 14 They sought the removal of local objective 6 on map 10. The manager was not in 15 favour of this submission and recommended no change. The manager's report was 12:15:21 16 noted. 17 18 Motion 10.15A signed by Councillor Matthews and Liam T Cosgrave sought to 19 delete local objective 6 on map 10 which limited the retail size. The manager 20 accepted it was unlikely that shopping of traditional neighbourhood size would 12:15:38 21 be adequate to service the day to day needs of the local residential and 22 business community but it would be difficult to forecast the type, the size of 23 the retail centre required. He recommended the following specific objective to 24 replace the existing local on objective 6, namely the retail element on the 25 lands zoned DC at Cherrywood shall compliment adjoining land uses. As such, 12:15:59 26 it shall be of a size which will provide for the local needs of the proposed 27 science and technology park, the proposed business park and the adjoining 28 residential neighbourhoods. 29 Following discussion it was agreed to accept the manager's recommendation. 30 The second public display: These things were put on public display for one 12:16:17 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   43 
1 month from the 7th April to the 15th May 1998 as the 1998 amendments to the 

12:16:22

2 Development Plan 1997.  2790 please, apart from motorway and roadway proposal 
3 changes, the relevant changes on map 10 were:   
4  
5 1.  Change 5 and changes are indicated by numbers so if we could increase the 

12:16:38

6 Monarch area on that map which is, if you look for the number 15 at the top of 
7 the map, yes, that area, go up further to the top of the map. yes.  Just the 
8 top quarter.  Yes.  These are the Monarch lands.  The number 15, where the 
9 number 15 relates to the change for the provision of an action area plan as a 

10 result of Councillor Connolly's motion. 12:17:16 11 12 Change 5 which can be seen is the change extending the district centre zoning 13 from the original lands into the adjoining lands and change 4 which is 14 immediately south of that, extends the science and technology park across the 15 proposed Wyattville Road into the lands immediately south of the district 12:17:34 16 centre lands. 17 18 The 1998 amendments to the 1997 Draft Development Plan written statement 19 included a change at local objective 6. The limitation on retail element was 20 removed and in substitute, the written statement provided the retail element on 12:17:49 21 the district centre lands at Cherrywood would complement adjoining land uses. 22 In other words, the wording proposed by the manager. 23 24 In the course of the second public display, two motions were received, one from 25 Councillor Fitzgerald and from Councillor Connolly seeking to rescind change 4 12:18:05 26 on map 10, ie the extension of the science and technology zoning across the 27 proposed Wyattville link road into the golf course lands. 28 29 On the 16th June 1998, the council came to consider map 10 and amendments 30 again, the manager informed the meeting that the developer had confirmed that 12:18:22 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   44 
1 the golf course was still viable on the lands.  The motion seeking to rescind 

12:18:26

2 change 4 on map 10, ie the science and technology extension was put and lost.  
3 The record of those voting is set out in the minutes of the meeting. 
4  
5 Changes 4, 5, and 15 on map 10 were confirmed and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown 

12:18:40

6 Development Plan 1998 was adopted on the 13th July 1998.  Specific local 
7 objective 6 in relation to retail on the district centre lands was also 
8 adopted. 
9  

10 The end result: At the end of the process, the position in relation to the 12:18:56 11 Cherrywood lands was as follows: 12 13 1. The density limitation on the residentially zoned lands was removed. 14 2. 40 additional acres had been zoned from B, agriculture, to E1 science and 15 technology. These were the golf course lands. 12:19:12 16 3. 11 additional acres had been rezoned from A residential to DC, district 17 centre and; 18 4. The cap on retail development at neighbourhood level on the Cherrywood 19 lands was removed and replaced with an objective that the retail element be of 20 such a size as would provide for the local needs. 12:19:33 21 22 The lands when purchased in 1989 were zoned agriculture and low density 23 residential on septic tanks. At the conclusion of the process in 1998, the 24 lands were zoned entirely residential, A1, district town centre and E1, science 25 and technology park. 12:19:52 26 27 The payments: Payments under inquiry, the total amount of payments under 28 inquiry in this module amounts to 508,430 pounds or 645,572 euro, it will 29 necessary to enquire into the designation and accounting treatment of these 30 payments in the relevant books, records and correspondence of the various 12:20:12 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   45 
1 companies and parties.  It should, however, be noted that full books and 

12:20:15

2 records are no longer available for all of the years under inquiry. 
3  
4 Mr. Dominic Glennane accepts he had overall responsibility for the financial 
5 affairs of the Monarch Group and that cheques would be drawn to make payments 

12:20:26

6 on foot of invoices authorised by the relevant person.  Any non-recurring 
7 payment, in other words a one off payment, would have been supported by a 
8 document. 
9  

10 He would have countersigned most of the cheques being issued and was involved 12:20:41 11 in the Cherrywood lands between 1989 and 1997. He will tell the Tribunal that 12 he himself had no dealings with elected representatives other than meeting them 13 at social functions. It is not being suggested that the full sum of 508,430 14 pounds amount to corrupt payments but rather by reason of the matters that are 15 set out in this opening and are set out here after, they have become the 12:21:08 16 subject of inquiry. The figure of 508,430 pounds fall into one of the 17 following categories. 18 1. Payments by Monarch to Mr. Frank Dunlop. 19 2. Payments by Monarch to the late Mr. Liam Lawlor and/or Comex. 20 3. Payments described by Monarch as political payments. 12:21:28 21 4. Payments or expenses characterised by Monarch as general promotion or 22 sponsorship, which in the main amount to cash sums or debits or unexplained 23 payments but which are attributed to expenditure in connection with the 24 Cherrywood development. 25 5. Miscellaneous payments by Monarch and/or Monarch related companies. 12:21:48 26 27 1. Payments by Monarch Properties to Mr. Frank Dunlop. On day 148 Mr. Dunlop 28 entitled a list entitled 1991 to 1993 inclusive. This list numbered 1 through 29 to 13 the developers who he said paid money to him in the course of the 30 Development Plan. At number 13 on that list was Monarch and Mr. Dunlop 12:22:12 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   46 
1 identified a sum of 25,000 thousand pounds has having been paid to him by 

12:22:17

2 Monarch by two cheques, one of 10,000 and one of 15,000.  At that time 
3 Mr. Dunlop identified the persons in Monarch with whom he had dealings as being 
4 Mr. Richard Lynn and Mr. Eddie Sweeney.  He also identified the late Mr. Liam 
5 Lawlor as being involved. 

12:22:37

6  
7 In private interviews in May 2000, Mr. Dunlop confirmed that he had received 
8 25,000 pounds with, he described, difficulty from Monarch.  He also intimated 
9 that in the context of Cherrywood, "Other people were dispensing as well", 

10 although he had no direct evidence of same. 12:22:52 11 12 According to Mr. Dunlop, when he was brought into Monarch, the late Mr. Liam 13 Lawlor was in the room with Mr. Eddie Sweeney. Mr. Dunlop was certain that the 14 late Mr. Lawlor was doing something for Monarch in relation to Cherrywood and 15 that the late Mr. Lawlor was in receipt of monies. 12:23:08 16 17 Mr. Dunlop believes that the late Mr. Lawlor to have been a strategic adviser 18 who may have prepared the Monarch motions. Mr. Dunlop was brought into the 19 Cherrywood development in late 1992 or early 1993, he said, to try and sort out 20 Monarch's planning problems. He said that the late Mr. Lawlor had set up the 12:23:27 21 first meeting between himself and Monarch. Mr. Phillip Monahan, now deceased, 22 told the Tribunal in a draft statement that Mr. Dunlop was engaged to assist in 23 getting the vision of their proposal of Cherrywood out to the council, the 24 councillors and other interested bodies and also to get some common sense in 25 ascertaining the line of the Southeastern Motorway. Payments he said in the 12:23:51 26 draft statement to Mr. Dunlop were on foot of Mr. Dunlop's proposals and 27 invoices. 28 29 At these interviews, Mr. Dunlop confirmed set receipt of a sum of 25,000 pounds 30 being 10,000 pounds and 15,000 pounds paid by cheque in March 1993 on foot of 12:24:06 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   47 
1 invoices.  Mr. Dunlop denied any success fee arrangement for Monarch and he 

12:24:12

2 said the sum of 25,000 pounds being his fee was agreed after negotiation. 
3 In Mr. Dunlop's first statement to the Tribunal in October 2000, he reiterated 
4 that he was paid 25,000 pounds by Monarch in two payments and he provided two 
5 remittance advices.  Namely 11 March 1993, 15,000 pounds, page 398 please.  And 

12:24:31

6 two, the 12th March 1993, for 10,000 pounds.  397.  Mr. Dunlop provided these 
7 remittance advices with his statement as evidence of the fact that he had been 
8 paid 25,000 pounds. 
9  

10 On the 4th December 2002, the Tribunal informed Mr. Dunlop that notwithstanding 12:24:57 11 his statement to the Tribunal in October 2000, about receiving 25,000 pounds, 12 that the cash receipts book of Frank Dunlop & Associates showed three other 13 payments from Monarch amounting to 30,000 pounds on the following additional 14 dates, namely the 6th July 1993, 17th September 1993, and 20th December 1993. 15 12:25:21 16 These payments were attributed in the books to Monarch. In addition, the 17 Tribunal identified for Mr. Dunlop that Mr. Dunlop's own auditors had 18 identified six payments from Monarch totalling 70,000 pounds. On the 13th 19 December 2002, the Tribunal wrote to Mr. Dunlop seeking an extended narrative 20 about the Monarch development at Cherrywood and pointing out the discrepancies 12:25:40 21 and requesting Mr. Dunlop to deal with the issues identified. 22 23 The information was not provided by Mr. Dunlop to the Tribunal until September 24 2003. And whilst providing more details about Monarch and his retention by it 25 in connection with Cherrywood, he now indicated to the Tribunal that he had in 12:25:58 26 fact been paid 65,000 pounds by Monarch. 27 28 However, in further public evidence in the Carrickmines 1 Module, on the 4th 29 February 2003, Mr. Dunlop identified the amount paid by Monarch to him as 30 60,000 pounds. According to Monarch, the amount paid to Frank Dunlop & 12:26:15 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   48 
1 Associates was 47,500 pounds in 1993 and 5,000 pounds in August 1995, totalling 

12:26:20

2 52,500 pounds.  It would appear, however, from the documents examined by the 
3 Tribunal that the minimum amount likely to have been paid by Monarch to 
4 Mr. Dunlop was of the order of 85,000 pounds.  Of this sum, 50,000 pounds 
5 appears to have been lodged to the account of Frank Dunlop & Associates.  The 

12:26:43

6 balance, if lodged by him, was lodged to either a war chest account or a 
7 personal account of Mr. Dunlop.  The first payment seems to have been in or 
8 around the 11 March 1993.  And the last payment in or around the 1st August 
9 1995. 

10 12:27:02 11 The Tribunal will enquire into all of the payments and financial transactions, 12 including those referred to above, passing between Mr. Frank Dunlop and Monarch 13 and their related and connected companies to establish the true amount, nature 14 and purpose of the payments. 15 12:27:17 16 The Tribunal will also enquire as necessary into the treatment of these 17 payments or receipts in the books or accounts of the paying company or party 18 and the recipient company or party. The Tribunal will enquire into the 19 treatment of these funds in the hands of Mr. Dunlop and the utilisation or 20 disbursements of these funds or any part of them by him. The Tribunal will 12:27:32 21 also enquire into the circumstances under which Mr. Dunlop came to be retained 22 by Monarch. 23 24 The payments alleged by Mr. Dunlop to have been made by him in connection with 25 Monarch's development at Cherrywood: In May 2000, in the course of private 12:27:46 26 interviews, Mr. Dunlop identified the councillors whom he said got money from 27 him in connection with Monarch. He said that Mr. Don Lydon got money and 28 Mr. Tom Hand was "on the books". However, according to the statement provided 29 by Mr. Dunlop to the Tribunal in October 2000, the only councillors he then 30 identified as having been paid by him in connection with the Monarch 12:28:10 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   49 
1 development at Cherrywood were not Mr. Don Lydon or the late Mr. Tom Hand but 

12:28:19

2 rather were Mr. Tony Fox and Mr. Colm McGrath.  In this statement in October 
3 2000, Mr. Dunlop stated that he had paid Mr. Fox and Mr. McGrath 2,000 pounds 
4 each in connection with their support for the Monarch development.  Mr. Fox 
5 denies ever receiving any money from Mr. Dunlop for any purpose whatsoever. 

12:28:33

6 Mr. McGrath, whilst admitting to receiving money as political donations from 
7 Mr. Dunlop denies that he ever received any money improperly or in connection 
8 with Monarch. 
9  

10 The Tribunal will have to determine whether the alleged or any corrupt payments 12:28:47 11 were made by Mr. Dunlop to any of the councillors identified by him and if so, 12 whether such payments related to the rezoning of Monarch's lands at Cherrywood. 13 14 The issue of whether or not there was knowledge within Monarch of corrupt 15 payments: According to Mr. Dunlop, in private interview, Mr. Richard Lynn and 12:29:04 16 Mr. Eddie Sweeney were fully aware that payments would be made because 17 Mr. Sweeney told him that is Mr. Dunlop, payments had already been made and 18 Mr. Lynn told him lots of money had been spread around. According to 19 Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Lynn said "people were getting greedy" . The phrase "you do 20 whatever you have to do" was used by Mr. Eddie Sweeney according to Mr. Dunlop. 12:29:30 21 22 In October 2000, Mr. Dunlop provided his first narrative statement to the 23 Tribunal. The placing of an asterisk beside a particular development denoted 24 that money was given to Mr. Dunlop in the full knowledge that payments would be 25 required. The Monarch development at Cherrywood statement by Mr. Dunlop 12:29:48 26 carries such an asterisk. Mr. Dunlop also recorded in his statement Mr. Lynn 27 as stating "when you think of the amount of money that is being spent, you 28 would think that these idiots would get their act together". Mr. Bill 29 O'Herlihy, a public relations expert who had been retained by Monarch in mid to 30 late 1991 to the end of May 1992, prior to the retention of Mr. Dunlop, told 12:30:10 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   50 
1 the Tribunal in private session that he was told by Mr. Richard Lynn that it 

12:30:16

2 was not possible to get a planning application or a material contravention 
3 through Dublin County Council unless it was bought. 
4  
5 He told the Tribunal in private session that Mr. Lynn confirmed that money was 

12:30:28

6 involved in the Monarch project at Cherrywood and that money had been paid.  He 
7 told the Tribunal in private session that Mr. Lynn told him the way the system 
8 operated was that one picked a lead councillor in each of the parties and the 
9 matter was discussed between them and an estimation of the amount of money 

10 needed or required to buy the votes. That money was then provided to the lead 12:30:51 11 councillor who did everything after that. 12 13 Mr. Lynn mentioned a figure of 100,000 pounds according to Mr. O'Herlihy in 14 private session. Mr. O'Herlihy however when asked to provide a narrative 15 statement to the Tribunal for these public hearings omitted this information 12:31:11 16 and further stated in his statement, "never once was the question was payment 17 ever mentioned at any meeting I attended". It is understood that Mr. Lynn will 18 dispute making any such comment or statement and will deny that any such 19 conversation took place. 20 12:31:31 21 It should be noted that Monarch had retained the professional lobbying services 22 of Mr. O'Herlihy and indeed another firm, Pembroke, prior to its decision to 23 engage the services of Mr. Dunlop, the Tribunal will have to determine the 24 question as to whether or not there was knowledge within the Monarch Group of 25 payments to councillors and the purpose of any such payments to councillors. 12:31:48 26 27 Mr. Frank Dunlop and a success fee: Mr. Frank Dunlop denied there was any 28 element of a success fee for him or his company from Monarch in connection with 29 the Cherrywood development. Subsequent to the purchase of the lands at 30 Cherrywood by Monarch, Monarch entered into a joint venture agreement with GRE 12:32:07 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   51 
1 or Guardian to develop the Cherrywood lands.  It was agreed between GRE and 

12:32:13

2 Monarch that certain third party costs in connection with the development at 
3 Cherrywood would be split 50/50 between them.  Included in this agreement were 
4 Mr. Dunlop's fees or costs.  Documentation discovered to the Tribunal record an 
5 apparent agreement to pay a success fee of 50,000 pounds to Mr. Dunlop and that 

12:32:33

6 this was agreed by GRE who apparently paid their portion of the contribution. 
7  
8 Mr. Dunlop himself issued an invoice for a success fee.  4839 please, the 
9 Tribunal will have to examine the issue of whether a success fee was charged, 

10 agreed or paid. As in previous modules, the Tribunal will be anxious to 12:32:59 11 establish the precise relationship between Mr. Dunlop and Monarch including 12 whether and to what extent there was knowledge within Monarch of the allegedly 13 corrupt activities of Mr. Dunlop or indeed the corrupt activities of any other 14 person. 15 12:33:12 16 The payments to Mr. Liam Lawlor (deceased), Comex: Following evidence at a 17 public hearing of the Tribunal, the late Mr. Liam Lawlor furnished to the 18 Tribunal a list entitled "B42" outlining income and political contributions 19 received by him from 1972 to 2000. The late Mr. Lawlor identified Monarch 20 Properties as the donor of 40,000 pounds in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. He 12:33:34 21 identified the people who actually made the payments as Mr. Phillip Monahan, 22 now deceased, and Mr. Eddie Sweeney. He identified the payments as being by 23 cheque and as being political contributions towards election campaigns and the 24 running of his constituency office. 25 12:33:55 26 The monies, he said were lodged to bank accounts active at the time. Monarch 27 identified to the Tribunal that payments made to the late Mr. Liam law as being 28 1994, 3,000 pounds, 29 1995, 2,500 pounds, 30 1996, golf classic, 1,000 pounds. 12:34:09 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   52 
1 Total, 6,500 pounds. 

12:34:12

2  
3 The Tribunal informed Monarch that the late Mr. Liam Lawlor had informed it 
4 that he had received 40,000 pounds from Mr. Monahan and Mr. Sweeney of Monarch 
5 and sought details from Monarch.  In reply, the Tribunal was informed that 

12:34:24

6 Monarch did not believe the payments to be at high as 40,000 pounds but that it 
7 would again search its records. 
8  
9 In May 2002, the late Mr. Liam Lawlor disclosed to the Tribunal a list of names 

10 used by him for the purposes of generating invoice for the purpose of A. 12:34:41 11 Securing payments in respect of advice given on rezoning matters or B. As an 12 acknowledgement of receipt of political contributions where such invoices were 13 requested by the donor. 14 15 Included in the list of names used by him to prepare such invoices was Comex 12:34:59 16 Limited an the late Mr. Lawlor also identified Monarch Properties as an entity 17 that may have received such an invoice from him. From the Tribunal's 18 examination of the documentation provided to the Tribunal, it would appear to 19 be the case in October 1990, L and C Properties Limited a Monarch related 20 company involved in the development of the Square Tallaght, wrote two cheques 12:35:27 21 to Comex Trading Corporation. One for 28,000 and one for 28,300 pounds. The 22 cheque for 28,300 pounds was then lodged into an account of Economic Reports 23 Limited. A company beneficially owned by the late Mr. Liam Lawlor. 24 25 This lodgment took place on the 26th October 1990. These cheques were 12:35:47 26 identified in the trade creditors account of L & C Properties as strategy plan 27 and as professional and consultants fees. At the time of this payment, the 28 late Mr. Liam Lawlor was a member of Dublin County Council. Whilst Mr. Richard 29 Lynn and Mr. Eddie Sweeney new and had met Mr. Lawlor, none of them have any 30 knowledge of any payments to Mr. Lawlor. Mr. Dominic Glennane who insisted in 12:36:15 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   53 
1 preparing the list of political donations provided to the Tribunal by 

12:36:20

2 Monarch -- Mr. Dominic Glennane who assisted, not insisted, assisted in 
3 preparing the lists of political donations provided to the Tribunal by Monarch 
4 identified political contributions to Mr. Lawlor in the sum of 6,500 pounds 
5 only.  The late Mr. Phillip Monahan, in his draft statement to the Tribunal, 

12:36:42

6 denied making any payments to the late Mr. Lawlor in his personal capacity.  
7 And said that any payments to Mr. Lawlor were on behalf of the Monarch Group 
8 and that he himself did not have any direct involvement in the details of the 
9 companies finances. 

10 12:37:01 11 If as appears likely, these payments were in fact payments to the late Mr. Liam 12 Lawlor, and/or his related or connected companies, then the minimum total paid 13 by Monarch and its related and connected companies to the late Mr. Liam Lawlor 14 and his related and connected companies was as follows: 15 12:37:20 16 1994, '95 and 1996, 6,500 pounds. Payments through Comex, 56,300 pounds. 17 Total, 62,800 pounds. 18 19 The Tribunal will enquire into all of the financial transactions or payments 20 passing between Monarch and any of its companies and the late Mr. Lawlor and 12:37:36 21 his companies. So as to establish the true amount nature and purpose of any 22 such payment. The Tribunal will enquire into the treatment of these payments 23 in the books and records of the relevant companies. 24 25 Political payments: The following payments were made and disclosed by the 12:37:51 26 Monarch Group of companies by -- sorry, political payments, the following 27 payments were made and disclosed by the Monarch Group of companies, June 1989, 28 Fianna Fail, 16,000 pounds. 29 Mr. Sean Haughey, 1,000 pounds. 30 Mr. Dermot Ahern, 3,000 pounds. 12:38:11 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   54 
1 Mr. Tom Kitt, 500 pounds.   

12:38:13

2 Total, 20,500 pounds paid apparently through L&C Properties Limited. 
3  
4 February 1991, Mr. Charles J Haughey, 25,000 pounds.  Paid from the personal 
5 account of the late Mr. Phillip Monahan (deceased) and which has already been 

12:38:28

6 the subject matter of inquiry in the Moriarty Tribunal.  The late Mr. Monahan's 
7 evidence to the Moriarty Tribunal about this payment has been added to the 
8 brief.   
9  

10 November 1992, Mr. John Bruton, 2,500 pounds as leader of Fine Gael. 12:38:41 11 Mr. Albert Reynolds, 5,000 pounds as general expenses for the general election. 12 The covering letter from Mr. Phillip Monahan to Mr. Reynolds in relation to the 13 5,000 pounds records as follows: 14 15 "As you are aware, we in Monarch together with our partners Guardian Royal 12:39:00 16 Exchange London are in a position to commence a major development at 17 Loughlinstown, County Dublin but are caught in the throes of the review of the 18 County Dublin Development Plan which has been holding up developments. We have 19 been greatly assisted by your party members on Dublin County Council without 20 whom it is fair to say, we would not have achieved the part zoning which now 12:39:21 21 obtains on the lands. 22 23 Your members have been to the fore in encouraging good developments based on 24 properly planning criteria endorsed by the council's own professional staff. 25 In so doing, your party shows an admirable stance for a common sense approach 12:39:35 26 towards development and being positive towards job creation. Unfortunately 27 other parties who have been against all proposed developments during the review 28 of the Development Plan now appear to take the High Road on job creation 29 possibilities in the course of the general election." 30 These payments, 5,000 and 2,500 pounds, were made by Monarch Properties Limited 12:39:55 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   55 
1 and attributed by Monarch to Cherrywood Properties Limited as an expense in 

12:40:02

2 connection with the Cherrywood development.  These payments became the subject 
3 of correspondence between Monarch and GRE, having been included by Monarch in 
4 an invoice for third party costs to GRE for payment.  These payments were 
5 described by Monarch as third party costs in the Cherrywood project at 

12:40:22

6 Loughlinstown. 
7  
8 4302 please.  And GRE included in the figure of the balance of third party 
9 costs is the sum of 7,500 pounds paid as to 2,500 pound to Mr. John Bruton as 

10 leader of Fine Gael and 5,000 pounds to Mr. Albert Reynolds as general expenses 12:40:47 11 for the election. And 50 percent of those costs are being sought from GRE. 12 GRE appear to have paid 50 percent of this cost as part of its obligation to 13 discharge 50 percent of the costs incurred in connection with the Cherrywood 14 development. 15 12:41:06 16 The Tribunal will enquire into these payments and their treatment in the 17 relevant books and accounts of the relevant companies. It is not yet clear the 18 basis upon which these apparent political payments could be attributed as costs 19 to the Cherrywood development and this is an issue that the Tribunal may very 20 well have to determine. 12:41:22 21 22 Other political payments this in the main payments to Dublin county 23 councillors, 1991: The total amount paid in 1991 by Monarch to Dublin county 24 councillors was 23,850 pounds and those payments are broken down as follows, 25 Councillor Tom Hand, 5,000 pounds. 12:41:41 26 Councillors Fahy, Hannon, Tom Boland, Ned Ryan and P Hickey, 1,000 pounds each, 27 totalling 5,000. 28 Councillors Sean Barrett, Tony Fox, Harvey, Lydon, McGrath, Hanrahan, Lyons, 29 McGennis, Keating, Lynch, McMahon, Reilly 600 each, totalling 7,200. 30 Councillor James Daly, 500 pounds, Alderman Sean Haughey,300 pounds, 12:42:08 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   56 
1 councillors J Hannon, Hanrahan, Keogh, Maddigan, Quinn, Terry, Tyndall, Ardagh, 

12:42:17

2 Boland, Brock, MJ Cosgrave, Creavan, Gallagher, Geraghty, Gilbride, Larkin, 
3 Mulvihill, GV Wright, 300 pounds each, that's 18 times 300, Councillor Ridge 50 
4 pounds, the Progressive Democrats, 300 pounds, Fine Gael, 100 pounds. 
5  

12:42:36

6 Page 3994 please.  This is a list of payments to councillors in 1991 in which 
7 the recipient councillor is identified by initial.  Commencing with TH which is 
8 Councillor Tom Hand and going down through the list.  This totals 22,150 pounds 
9 and it is the substantial portion of the payments made in 1991 and it relates 

10 to payments made primarily to Dublin county councillors. These allegedly 12:43:06 11 political payments were described as strategy consultancy fees in the books of 12 Monarch in April 1992 which is not dissimilar to the description in the books 13 of L&C Properties afforded the payment to the late Mr. Liam Lawlor via Comex. 14 These payments were also sought to be reimbursed as third party costs from GRE. 15 12:43:37 16 In addition, in 1992, the total paid in 1992 was 26,590 pounds plus a sum of 17 5,100 broken down as follows: 18 Councillor Don Lydon 2,500 pounds; 19 Councillors Ryan and GV Wright, 2,000 pounds each. 20 Councillors Hand, Hanrahan, McGennis, Coffey, GV Wright and MJ Cosgrave, 1,000 12:43:59 21 pounds each; 22 Councillors Lyons and Ann Ormonde, 750 pounds each. 23 Councillors Flaherty, Heraghty, McGrath, Taylor, Flood, Hannon, O'Connor, 24 Ridge, Barrett and Owen, 500 pounds each. 25 Councillors Lohan and Cathal Boland, 400 pounds each. 12:44:21 26 Mr. Michael Keating, 1,000 on two occasions, 2,000 pounds. 27 The late Mr. Brian Lenihan, 1,200 pounds. 28 Miss Mary Harney, 1,000 pounds. 29 Alderman, Sean Haughey, 750 pounds. 30 Mr. Frank Fahy, 250 pounds. 12:44:39 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   57 
1 Miss Mary Flaherty, golf, 600 pounds. 

12:44:42

2  
3 In addition to those payments which total 26,590 pounds, a further sum 
4 totalling 5,100 pounds was paid by L&C Properties Limited, a connected Monarch 
5 Group company.  And it made the following payments to Dublin county councillors 

12:45:01

6 in 1991:   
7 Councillor Jim Barry, 3,100 pounds.   
8 Councillor Charlie O'Connor, 2,000 pounds.   
9  

10 1993: The total amount paid in 1993 was 5,920 pounds broken down as follows. 12:45:14 11 Fianna Fail, 1,720. 12 Fine Gael, 600 pounds; 13 Progressive Democrats, 300 pounds. 14 Councillor Tony Fox, 1,000 pounds; 15 Councillor Ann Ormonde 800 pounds; 12:45:33 16 Councillor Nora Owen 200 pounds; 17 Councillor Ann Devitt 100 pounds; 18 Mr. Colm Hilliard (deceased) golf classic, 1,000 pounds, charitable donation 19 via Miss Marian McGennis, 200 pounds. 20 12:45:52 21 1994: The total amount paid was 22,320 pounds broken down as follows, 22 Fianna Fail, via Saatachi & Saatchi pick me up, 15,000 pounds; 23 Helen Keogh, interest free loan 2,000 pounds; 24 Dun Laoghaire Fianna Fail 1,000 pounds; 25 Councillor Tom Morrissey, 500 pounds, 12:46:10 26 Fianna Fail fund raisers, 470 pounds. 27 Fine Gael fund raisers, 1200 pounds. 28 Progressive Democrats, 200 pounds. 29 The Labour Party, 500 pounds. 30 Councillor Cathal Boland, 200 pounds, 12:46:23 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   58 
1 Councillor Tony Fox, 250 pounds and  

12:46:27

2 Councillor Olivia Mitchell 400 pounds and  
3 Councillor Paddy Madigan 100 pounds and  
4 Councillor Larry Lohan 500 pounds and via Olana Club charitable donation. 
5  

12:46:38

6 If one deducts the amount of 15,000 pounds paid by way of a pick me up to 
7 Saatchi & Saatchi on behalf of Fianna Fail, the balance remaining is a sum of 
8 7,320 pounds. 
9  

10 1995: The total amount paid in 1995 was 4,040 pounds, excluding a sum of 2,500 12:46:51 11 paid to the late Mr. Lawlor and already dealt with and that sum of 4,040 pounds 12 is broken down as follows: Fianna Fail, 850 pounds. Fine Gael, 2,440 pounds. 13 Progressive Democrats, 300 pounds. The balance of 450 pounds were donations to 14 charitable causes at the behest of councillors. There were no direct payments 15 to councillors in 1995. 12:47:18 16 17 1996: The total amount paid in 1996 was 12,735 pounds, excluding a payment of 18 1,000 pounds to Mr. Lawlor already dealt with and that sum of 12,735 is broken 19 down as follows: The Betty Coffey lunch, 1,300 pounds. Councillor N Ryan, 20 1,000 pounds. Mr. David Andrews, not a councillor, 1,000 pounds. Councillor 12:47:44 21 Tom Morrissey, 750 pounds. Councillor Ann Ormonde, 600 pounds. Councillor 22 Sean Lyon, Michael O'Donovan, John O'Halloran, Colm McGrath, Sheila Terry, 500 23 pounds. Councillors Liam Cosgrave, Liam Fitzgerald and Olivia Mitchell, 400 24 pounds each. Councillor Sean Ardagh, John O'Halloran, Larry Lohan, 250 pounds 25 each. Councillor Helen Keogh, 200 pounds. Councillor Ann Devitt, 240 pounds. 12:48:08 26 And councillor Colm McGrath Golf Classic, 500 pounds. The Progressive 27 Democrats, 670 pounds. The Fine Gael party, 700 pounds. Fianna Fail/Mr. Tony 28 Fox, 280 pounds. And Mr. Richard Green, 45pounds. 29 30 1997: The total amount paid in 1997 was 23,890 pounds, broken down as follows: 12:48:28 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   59 
1 The Labour Party 4,500.  Fianna Fail party 5,230 pounds. Fine Gael party, 5,400 

12:48:36

2 pounds. Democratic Left, 1,000 pounds.  The Progressive Democrats, 3,600 
3 pounds.  Charitable contributions via certain councillors, 920 pounds.  
4 Councillor Olivia Mitchell, 1,000 pounds.  Councillor Michael Joseph Cosgrave 
5 and Finbar Hanrahan, 495 pounds each.  Mr. Brian Lenihan, 500 pounds.  

12:49:00

6 Councillor Ann Ormonde, 400 pounds.  Councillor Sean Ardagh, 250 pounds.  
7 Councillor Pat Rabbitte, 100 pounds.   
8  
9 Almost all of these payments by Monarch were payments made by cheque and there 

10 is little or no dispute as to the receipt of these funds although some 12:49:18 11 councillors do not, in fact, recollect receipt of these funds. 12 13 Monarch Properties Services Limited MPSL was effectively the project manager 14 for the Cherrywood development from 1990 onwards. Apparently, there was an 15 agreement between MPSL and the owners of Cherrywood development that MPSL would 12:49:38 16 pay costs, including third party costs incurred for the benefit of the 17 Cherrywood development. To this end, MPSL attributed a number of accounts 18 within its internal financial accounting structures as accounts which recorded 19 costs incurred in connection with the Cherrywood development. These nominal 20 ledger accounts were numbered 73000 to 73998. And these accounts recorded the 12:50:03 21 cost paid by MPSL for the Cherrywood development. 22 23 One such designated account was the general promotions account and it was to 24 this account that a substantial portion of the political payments made by MPSL 25 between 1991 and 1993 and as outlined were charged, thereby treating these 12:50:24 26 apparently political payments as a cost or expense of the Cherrywood 27 development. 28 29 The Tribunal will examine the financial treatment of these payments which have 30 been described to the Tribunal as political payments and which have been 12:50:42 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   60 
1 identified as having been routed through such accounts in MPSL and are 

12:50:44

2 therefore recorded as being an expense in connection with the Cherrywood 
3 development.  The attribution of these payments to politicians to these 
4 accounts is a matter which will be inquired into in the course of this module. 
5  

12:51:03

6 Unknown payments which are made by MPSL and which are recorded in the general 
7 promotions account: 
8  
9 Recorded in the general promotions account of MPSL as expenses paid in 

10 connection with the Cherrywood development are a number of round figure 12:51:15 11 withdrawals which are made either by cash or which are unattributed in the 12 general promotions account; in other words, the recipient is not identified. A 13 number of these payments appear to have been in cash. Some of these payments 14 appear to occur in or around important planning dates and at election time, for 15 example, November 1992. 12:51:37 16 17 As these payments are made for the benefit of the Cherrywood development, and 18 as they are attributed to the same account as the political payments in June 19 1991 already referred to, and because there is no explanation for these 20 payments contained in the documents furnished to the Tribunal, the Tribunal 12:51:54 21 will have to enquire further into these payments amounting in total to 139,885 22 pounds. 23 24 Miscellaneous unknown payments: 25 12:52:08 26 Also recorded in the general promotions account are a number of other payments 27 which are recorded as having been made on behalf of the Cherrywood development 28 but which do not appear to have been made by Monarch Properties Services 29 Limited. These payments total 15,000 pounds and are the following payments: 30 1. 2,500 pounds paid in November 1993 by L&C Properties Limited. 12:52:25 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   61 
1 2.  4,500 pounds paid upon on the 31st October 1993 by Monarch Properties 

12:52:32

2 Limited. 
3 3.  2,000 pounds paid in November 1993 but not by Monarch Properties Services 
4 Limited.  3,000 pounds paid in November 1993, also not by MPSL and 3,000 pounds 
5 paid in November 1993 also not by MPSL. 

12:52:52

6  
7 It must be recollected that the confirming meeting in connection with the 
8 initial rezoning of the Monarch lands in the 1993 Development Plan took place 
9 in November 1993 and the Tribunal will therefore have to enquire further into 

10 these payments. 12:53:10 11 12 In addition, a further sum of 13,600 pounds is under investigation which are 13 cash withdrawals made from the bank account of L&C Properties on certain dates 14 between the 7th April 1989 and the 14th February 1990 which deal with a 15 withdrawal of 1,000 pounds, 2,500 pounds, 2,500 pounds and 7,600 pounds, 12:53:33 16 totalling 13,600 pounds and finally, other payments for which no source 17 material is available. Payments amounting to 27,000 pounds which are round 18 figure payments for which no source material is available will also be examined 19 in the course of these modules. These payments are the following: By cheque, 20 5756, on the 5th May 1992, 2,000 pounds. By cheque, 8714, on the 6th October 12:53:58 21 1993, 10,000 pounds. By cheque, 9127, on the 21st December 1993, 10,000 22 pounds. By cheque, 9128, on the 21st December 1993, 5,000 pounds. These 23 cheques were drawn on the account of Monarch Properties Services Limited and 24 further information is awaited from the banks in connection thereto. 25 12:54:27 26 The total amount of the financial transactions under inquiry by the Tribunal in 27 the course of this module amount to 508,430 but it may very well transpire to 28 be the case that if the further information sought is provided by the banks, 29 that a certain proportion of those about of about the order of 175,000 pounds 30 by very well fall away. 12:54:48 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   62 
1  

12:54:53

2 Witnesses:  There are over 90 witnesses in this module but it's hoped most of 
3 them will be of reasonably short duration.  It is important to reiterate 
4 witnesses are called to give evidence because the Tribunal believes their 
5 evidence to be relevant and material to matters under investigation.  It should 

12:55:03

6 not be presumed that any particular witness is necessarily called only to deal 
7 with an allegation or a suspicion involving that person. 
8  
9 I propose now, subject to any direction, to call Mr. Richard Cremins.  That 

10 concludes the opening statement. 12:55:19 11 12 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Well it's nearly one o'clock so I think we will adjourn 13 until two o'clock. Before we rise, are there any other parties who haven't yet 14 done so, who wish to apply for representation? 15 12:55:33 16 MR. O'SIOCHAIN: Chairman, this is Sean O'Siochain, instructed by William 17 Hackett & Company on behalf of Mr. Joseph Fahy who I understand is to be part 18 of this module. 19 20 CHAIRMAN: All right. I will grant representation. 12:55:47 21 22 MS. SMITH: I apologise for the interruption. Mairead Smith, instructed by 23 Costello & Company solicitors. I also apply for representation on behalf of 24 Tony Fox. 25 12:56:01 26 CHAIRMAN: All right. Grand. Any parties who wish to do so may reply to the 27 opening statement at two o'clock or, if they wish to reserve their position 28 overnight, tomorrow morning as 10.30. As I said earlier, there is no 29 compulsion on anyone to make such a reply and, in fact, few parties in the past 30 have taken up that invitation. So we will rise until two o'clock. 12:56:26 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   63 
1  

12:56:44

2 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH. 
3  
4  
5  

14:05:27

6 
7 
8 
9 

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   64 
1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS AT 2.00 P.M: 

14:05:27

2  
3 MS. DILLON:   Good afternoon.  Mr. Richard Cremmins please. 
4  
5 MR. RICHARD CREMMINS, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED  

14:06:29

6 AS FOLLOWS BY MS. DILLON: 
7  
8 Q 1 Good afternoon.  Mr. Cremmins, I suppose with the permission of the Tribunal, 
9 and because we have outlined the planning in summary form this morning to move 

10 quite quickly through your statement and ask you to confirm the contents of it. 14:07:05 11 And I propose putting up the absolute minimum of documents on the screen. You 12 have made two statements, isn't that right? One in relation to the variation 13 of the 1993 Dublin Development Plan and one in relation to the review of the 14 1993 plan? 15 A That's correct. 14:07:21 16 Q 2 Now, if we could have page 2342 please. From 1985 to 1949, you were employed 17 by Dublin County Council as a senior executive planner. You are now a senior 18 planner with Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council and "I held that position 19 since 1994. As senior planner I led the Development Plan team which prepared 20 the 1998 County Development Plan and I am currently preparing the draft County 14:07:41 21 Development Plan for 2004-2010. 22 23 The Local Government Reorganisation Act 1985 established three new electoral 24 counties in County Dublin, inclusive of Dun Laoghaire borough, namely Dublin, 25 Fingal, the area north of the Liffey with 24 councillors, Dublin, Belgard, the 14:07:57 26 area between the Dublin mountains and the Liffey, with 26 councillors and Dun 27 Laoghaire/Rathdown, the area east of the Dublin mountains, including Dun 28 Laoghaire with 28 councillors. 29 30 The local elections in 1985 were held on the basis of the new electoral 14:08:10 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   65 
1 counties with all members elected constituting for the time being Dublin County 

14:08:14

2 Council and 14 representing the three electoral areas which included the 
3 borough appointed as members of Dun Laoghaire Borough Council.  Thus the 
4 membership of Dublin County Council which prior to the election consisted of 36 
5 members had increased by 42 to 78 members. 

14:08:30

6  
7 Other than the County Council organising its committee business into district 
8 committees based on the electoral counties, there was no progress towards the 
9 creation of separate counties.  In early 1991 in an advisory expert committee 

10 which had been established in 1990 to advice a cabinet sub-committee on the 14:08:47 11 organisation of the local government system reported. Following consideration 12 of that report, the Local Government Act 1991 required that the next local 13 elections in June 1991 be held on the basis of the 1985 electoral counties and 14 envisaged that three new counties would be established to be called Fingal, 15 South Dublin and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Councils. 14:09:07 16 17 It also required the establishment of three statutory area committees to which 18 functions would be developed by both the county council and the Borough Council 19 as the first step towards the achievement of separate County Council status. 20 Three county managers designate to be known as area managers for the time being 14:09:21 21 were to be appointed who addition to the normal management functions were to 22 set in place the steps to achieve the dissolution of the County Council and the 23 Borough Council an the creation of three new counties. 24 25 3. Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council was set up on the 1st January 1994, 14:09:36 26 this council was an amalgamation of the Rathdown area of the former Dublin 27 County Council and the former borough of Dun Laoghaire. In Development Plan 28 terms, there were two plans in place. The Dublin County Development Plan 1993, 29 which had been adopted by Dublin County Council on the 10th December 1993. And 30 the Dun Laoghaire borough Development Plan 1991. 14:09:55 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   66 
1 4.  As appears some from the statement of Sinead Collins, a portion of the 

14:09:59

2 lands the subject of the inquiry had been zoned residential A1 action area 
3 plan."  In fact that should be A, Mr. Cremmins, isn't that correct? 
4 A That's correct, yes. 
5 Q 3 Not action area plan, it should read A at ten houses per hectare. 

14:10:11

6 A Yes. 
7 Q 4 "In the 1993 Development Plan, another portion had been zoned C, district 
8 centre restricting the retail element to neighbourhood size only and yet 
9 another portion B agriculture, attached herewith at appendix 1 is a copy of map 

10 14 of the 1993 Dublin County Development Plan which contains the land the 14:10:31 11 subject of the inquiry and the subject lands are outlined in red." 12 13 In fact I believe that to be map 27 of the 1993 plan. 14 A That sounds right. Yes. 15 Q 5 And in fact it's map 14 in the later plan? 14:10:51 16 A Yes. 17 Q 6 Isn't that right? Paragraph 5. "A local partnership of key organisations in 18 Dublin with the support of the European Commission SPRINT programme 19 commissioned a feasibility study into the establishment of a science and 20 technology park in Dublin. The organisations represented included Dublin 14:11:05 21 Chamber of Commerce, Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council. In 22 accordance with the requirements of the SPRINT approval, Monarch Properties 23 Services provided technical advice to the project. The Terms of Reference of 24 the first phase of the study were to examine whether a science park initiative 25 was needed and if so, whether any proposed initiative had a good chance of 14:11:22 26 success. 27 28 Arising out of that study a number of sites were suggested as possible 29 locations for a science park including the subject lands at Cherrywood. 30 Attached herewith at appendix 2 is a copy of the said study. 14:11:37 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   67 
1  

14:11:38

2 6.  In April 1994 a draft action plan for Cherrywood was prepared by the 
3 planning department of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council drawing number 
4 PL94/39."  That in fact was prepared by you, Mr. Cremmins, isn't that right? 
5 A That's correct. 

14:11:49

6 Q 7 "Attached herewith at appendix 3 is a copy of the draft action plan for 
7 Cherrywood drawing number PL94/39 with the Monarch lands outlined in red.   
8  
9 7.  On the 23rd May 1994 at a meeting of the planning development and Tourism 

10 Committee of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council, the manager presented a 14:12:03 11 report on the Cherrywood action plan. A motion was proposed by Councillor 12 Gilmore and seconded by Councillor O'Callaghan that "This committee welcomes 13 the development of a science and technology park in the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown 14 area and in order to encourage and facilitate such a development, the council 15 agrees to review the zoning of the lands at Cherrywood Loughlinstown which are 14:12:23 16 owned by Monarch Properties." 17 18 It was agreed to defer further consideration of the report and the motion until 19 the meeting of the committee to be held on the 29th June 1994. It was further 20 agreed that the location of the science and technology park would be the 14:12:35 21 subject of further examination. 22 23 8. On the 29th June 1994, at a meeting of the planning development and Tourism 24 Committee of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council, the manager again read a 25 report on the Cherrywood action plan. He informed the meeting that a working 14:12:49 26 group had been set up at the request of An Taoiseach to consider the 27 feasibility of locating a science and technology park in the Dublin area and 28 that working group was being chaired by the assistant secretary to the 29 Department of Enterprise and Employment, Mr. Michael McKenna. The manager had 30 prepared a draft letter in the following terms to be sent following the 14:13:07 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   68 
1 council's approval to the chairman of the working group."  And the full 

14:13:09

2 consents of that letter is set out, isn't that is correct? 
3 A That's correct, yes. 
4 Q 8 And on the next page at 2345 -- 
5 A I haven't seen the next page, yet. 

14:13:22

6 Q 9 The balance of the letter is set out in its full detail, isn't that correct? 
7 A It is, yes. 
8 Q 10 And if we move on then to page 2346, "it was agreed that the words for future 
9 consideration would be deleted from the draft action plan and it was further 

10 agreed that copies of the draft action be put on public display following on 14:13:39 11 which a further report would be submitted to a future meeting of the 12 committee." I think Mr. Cremmins, it was never put on public display, is that 13 correct? 14 A That's correct. 15 Q 11 "B. A delegation to include an Cathaoirleach, Councillors E Gilmore, LL 14:13:50 16 Butler, F Smyth and S Barrett would meet with the two cabinet Ministers for the 17 administrative area. 18 19 And C. That the draft letter to the chairman of the working group be issued." 20 And that's the letter that was just on screen a moment ago, which the manager 14:14:02 21 presented to the meeting? 22 A Yes. 23 Q 12 "The motion proposed by Councillor E Gilmore and seconded by Councillor D 24 O'Callaghan was unanimously passed." 25 And you attach that at appendix 5, is that correct? 14:14:15 26 A Yes. 27 Q 13 "9. On the 7th September 1994 a meeting was held in the Department of 28 Enterprise and Employment between the Minister for Commerce and Technology and 29 the subcommittee of the Planning and Development and Tourism Committee to 30 discuss the possibility of locating the proposed Dublin science park on lands 14:14:28 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   69 
1 at Cherrywood, Loughlinstown.   

14:14:32

2 Present were Mr. Seamus Brendan, the Minister for Commerce and Technology, 
3 Messrs. Frank Lahiffe, Dick Doyle and Brian McCabe from the Department of 
4 Enterprise and Employment and Councillors Betty Coffey, Sean Barrett, Larry 
5 Butler and Eamonn Gilmore and Mr. Kevin O'Sullivan, the county manager on 

14:14:46

6 behalf of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council.  The minutes of that meeting 
7 noted inter alia "The minister outlined the present position regarding the 
8 Dublin science park, namely a report recommending the setting up of such a park 
9 had been received by the department earlier this year and two groups were now 

10 considering such a park. 14:15:03 11 12 A group chaired by Mr. Michael McKenna, principal officer of the Department of 13 Enterprise and Employment have been given a brief to consider the viability of 14 a Dublin science park. Another group of the science council was considering 15 possible taxation effects in relation to research. The minister expected that 14:15:18 16 the government would be making a decision about the principle of the Dublin 17 science park in January 1995. If the agreed principle was accepted, the 18 government would then seek submissions on the basis of an agreed taxation 19 package. In the event, the likely final decision would be made by summer 20 1995." 14:15:43 21 22 Next page please, 2347. "The minister stated that the EU would not support 23 bricks and mortar in this instance but would support individual programmes 24 arising from the science park. The minister suggested if an individual 25 developer was now in a position to make a submission with the possibility of a 14:15:48 26 major anchor tenant for such a science park, that developer would receive very 27 favourable consideration. The minister agreed that if the developer of the 28 Cherrywood lands would wish to talk to the working group, the county manager 29 should write accordingly to the chairman of that group." And attached at 30 appendix 6 are the minutes of that meeting, isn't that right? 14:16:05 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   70 
1 A Yes. 

14:16:07

2 Q 14 "Paragraph 10.  On the 10th October 1994, Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council 
3 received a motion signed by Councillors Richard Conroy, Don Lydon and Liam T 
4 Cosgrave which proposed, "That having regard to the council's decision of the 
5 29th June to review the zoning of the lands at Cherrywood Loughlinstown, (item 

14:16:21

6 34 of 23/594) and having regard to the report on the Cherrywood draft action 
7 plan, and the decisions thereon, the council hereby request the county manager 
8 to initiate a draft variation to the Dublin County Council Development Plan 
9 1993 as more particularly set out on the attached map (which has been signed 

10 for identification purposes by the proposers of this motion) which provides for 14:16:46 11 66 acres of E zoning outlined in grey with the special objective of encouraging 12 and facilitating a science and technology park. 150 acres of zoned A1 lands 13 outlined in orange with a maximum density of six houses per acre and retaining 14 18 acres of C zoned land outlined in green, with shopping confined to 15 neighbourhood centre. And attached at appendix 7 is a copy of the map and 14:17:11 16 motion. 17 18 Paragraph 11. On the 24th October, 1994, at a meeting of the Dun 19 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council, Planning Development and Tourism Committee, 20 Councillor L T Cosgrave asked the manager, "If having regard to the fact that a 14:17:21 21 subcommittee was set up some months to ago to ask examine the feasibility for a 22 science and technology park for the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council area 23 and having regard to the fact that other areas are pressing for a park, will he 24 now report to the council on the present situation and in particular, having 25 regard to the need to examine every avenue to provide job creating activities 14:17:41 26 and will he make a statement on the matter." 27 28 The manager replied that following the passing of the motion by the Planning 29 Development and Tourism Committee at its meeting on the 29th June 1994, it was 30 agreed to set up a working group of the committee to pursue the issue. The 14:17:58 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   71 
1 terms of the committee's resolution was conveyed to the chairman of the science 

14:18:03

2 and technology park working group of the Department of Enterprise and 
3 Employment which was acknowledged on the 20th July 1994. 
4  
5 The manager said that the working group of the council's committee had held a 

14:18:13

6 number of meetings during the summer months and a report on the proceedings of 
7 that group would be submitted to the committee in the near future.  He further 
8 stated that it was proposed to pursue all possible means of securing the 
9 location of a science and technology park for the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown area.   

10 14:18:30 11 A report from the county manager on the proposed science and technology park 12 was heard in private session. The position outlined by the manager was noted. 13 It was also noted that a visit to the Plassey science and technology park in 14 Limerick had been arranged for the 10th November 1994 for any member wishing to 15 attend. It was agreed that the motion in the name of Councillors Conroy, Lydon 14:18:46 16 and L T Cosgrave would be deferred to the next meeting of the committee." And 17 attached at appendix 8 are the full minutes in fact of the meeting of Dun 18 Laoghaire/Rathdown Planning and Development Tourism Committee of the 24th 19 October. 20 14:19:02 21 "Paragraph 12. On the 9th November 1994, each council member was sent a letter 22 informing them that a meeting of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council would be 23 held on the 14th November 1994. The agenda for that meeting which was 24 circulated with that letter included the following for consideration, report on 25 proposed science and technology park at Cherrywood proposed variation of Dublin 14:19:18 26 County Development Plan 1993 lands at Cherrywood." 27 28 And attached at appendix 9 is a copy of the letter enclosing the agenda, is 29 that right? 30 A Yes. 14:19:30 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   72 
1 Q 15 "13.  On the 9th November 1994 a further letter was sent to each member of the 

14:19:31

2 council enclosing herewith reports on items 13 and 14 of the agenda for the 
3 meeting to be held on the 14th of November namely item 13, proposed science and 
4 technology park at Cherrywood Loughlinstown and item 14, draft of proposed 
5 variation of the Dublin County Development Plan, 1993, lands at Cherrywood." 

14:19:49

6  
7 And that is attached at appendix 10.  "14.  On the 14th November 1994, at a 
8 meeting of the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council, the manager read a report 
9 on the proposed science and technology park.  The manager informed the meeting 

10 of inter alia the following. At a meeting held on the 7th September 1994, the 14:20:05 11 Minister for Commerce and Technology suggested that the parties involved with 12 the Cherrywood site would meet with the working group of the Department of 13 Enterprise and Employment on science and technology parks and that arrangement 14 had been made with the secretary of the working group to make a presentation of 15 a proposal to establish a science and technology park on the lands at 14:20:23 16 Cherrywood at a meeting which had been provisionally fixed for the 21st 17 November 1994. 18 19 Discussions had been proceeding in the meantime with Monarch Properties Limited 20 and with Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group who were the owners of the 14:20:36 21 Cherrywood lands with the view to arranging for the participation of the County 22 Council in the development of the science park by means of an acquisition of an 23 equitable interest in the lands concerned. Arising from these discussions a 24 agreement had been reached on the terms of the acquisition which included the 25 following provisions: 14:20:53 26 A. That the County Council purchase one third of the lands which would form 27 the proposed science and technology park initially. 28 B. That should the County Council acquire any additional lands adjacent to the 29 site, these lands would be added to the area of the science and technology park 30 subject to the proviso that the council share should not exceed 50 percent of 14:21:08 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   73 
1 the total landholding of the park. 

14:21:13

2 C.  That the County Council initiate the procedure for a draft variation of the 
3 County Development Plan to provide for:   
4 1.  The rezoning of lands for the science and technology park.   
5 2.  The reciting of the existing C zoned lands to ensure that the seven 

14:21:25

6 hectares approximately of these lands are relocated north of the link road.   
7 3.  That the lands currently zoned agriculture to the north of the link road be 
8 rezoned for residential use at a density of 16 houses per hectare.   
9 D.  That the display period be used to prepare an agreed master plan to 

10 implement the development for the science and technology park and, 14:21:48 11 E. A structure will be put in place during the same period to coordinate the 12 activities and represent the interests of the three principal parties involved. 13 14 The manager told the meeting that the full terms of the draft agreement which 15 were subject to a approval by the County Council and by the boards of Monarch 14:22:02 16 Properties Limited and GRE were incorporated in a document entitled heads of 17 agreement and were available to the members of the council. The manager 18 further stated "It is my strongly held slew that if we do not view proceed with 19 this process, any hope of achieving a science park in the short to medium term 20 will be lost. The agreement with Monarch and GRE represents and opportunity 14:22:25 21 and a challenge for this council to be an active and equal partner in an 22 exciting development with enormous potential for sustainable job creation in 23 high class employment with other down stream job creation opportunities. 24 I would therefore strongly recommend that the council proceed to secure a 25 science and technology park for this county." 14:22:41 26 27 The heads of agreement were then read, it was proposed by the Cathaoirleach, 28 Councillor Betty Coffey and seconded by Councillor L Butler that "That the 29 report as outlined by the manager be adopted". On a show of hands the voting 30 resulted as follows, for 18, against 3, abstentions zero. 14:22:58 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   74 
1  

14:23:01

2 The meeting then moved on to deal with the proposed variation of the Dublin 
3 County Development Plan 1993 relating to the Cherrywood lands.  Minute C/279/94 
4 refers.  The report by the manager which had been circulated to the members was 
5 considered.  The manager informed the meeting that a proposal to vary the 

14:23:15

6 zoning of the lands at Cherrywood would require that a variation be made to the 
7 Dublin County Development Plan 1993.  He said that the making of a variation in 
8 the Development Plan was a reserve function and accordingly it was recommended 
9 that the council should resolve to make a draft of the proposed variation of 

10 the Development Plan. 14:23:35 11 12 Section 21 of the Local Government Planning and Development Act 1963 as 13 amended, provides that where a planning authority has prepared a draft of a 14 proposed variation of a Development Plan, they shall inter alia give notice in 15 at least one newspaper circulating in the area and that a copy of the draft may 14:23:52 16 be inspected at a stated place and stated time during a period of not less than 17 three months and that objections or representations with respect to the draft 18 made to the planning authority within the same period would be taken into 19 consideration before the making of the variation." 20 14:24:05 21 In effect, Mr. Cremmins, the making of the variation is like making a mini 22 Development Plan? 23 A That's correct. 24 Q 16 And you have the same time periods an the same procedures apply and people can 25 put in motions and objections? 14:24:15 26 A Absolutely, yes. 27 Q 17 "The manager then went through the draft of the proposed variation. This 28 included the following and then the manager set out and it's recorded in the 29 minutes the changes that would have to be made in the written statement? Isn't 30 that is right? 14:24:28 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   75 
1 A Yes. 

14:24:28

2 Q 18 And you have recorded that in your statement.  The new specific objectives 
3 after and new definition that would have to be put in and on the following page 
4 you set out the changes that would have to be made to map 27, page 2352, isn't 
5 that right? 

14:24:43

6 A That's correct. 
7 Q 19 That would follow from the making of any such variation? 
8 A Yes. 
9 Q 20 And you also then set out on the balance of page 2532 the other changes that 

10 would have to be made? 14:24:53 11 A Yes. 12 Q 21 Page 2353 please. Is the motion in the names of Conroy, Lydon and LT Cosgrave 13 which had been deferred to the planing and development and tourism meeting to 14 be taken in conjunction with the above was considered. At the conclusion of 15 the debate, Councillor Lydon withdrew the motion. The proposed variation of 14:25:10 16 the Dublin County Development Plan 1993 lands at Cherrywood as referred to in 17 the manager's report was proposed by the Cathaoirleach, Betty Coffey and 18 seconded by Councillor L Butler and agreed on a show of hands with 17 for, 2 19 against and zero abstention." And you attach at appendix 11 a full copy of the 20 minutes of that particular meeting. 14:25:33 21 A Yes. 22 Q 22 And you attach at appendix 12 a copy of the drawing that was presented to the 23 meeting on the 14th November outlining the changes and I think in fact we have 24 had that this morning already. 7284 please. And that in fact is a copy of the 25 map that the manager proposed at the meeting and which was accepted by the 14:25:57 26 council and passed by the council, isn't that right? 27 A That's correct. 28 Q 23 At page 2353 again please. "Paragraph 15, on the 29th November 1994, Dun 29 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council published a notice in Iris Oifiguil on the 30 preparation of the draft proposed variation 1994. Objections or 14:26:15 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   76 
1 representations were invited to be received by the County Council by the 10th 

14:26:18

2 March 1995 and which would be taken into account by the council before the 
3 making of the variation of the Development Plan."  And you attach at appendix 
4 13 the extract from Iris Oifiguil, isn't that right? 
5 A Yes. 

14:26:32

6 Q 24 At paragraph 16.  "The draft proposed variation went on public display at the 
7 offices of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown from the 30th November 1994 to the 10th March 
8 1995.   
9  

10 17. On the 5th December 1994, the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown county planning 14:26:41 11 officer, Mr. William Murphy, wrote to Mr. Dermot Drumgoole, principal officer 12 of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council in respect of the development at the C 13 zone he stated inter alia that a meeting was held in the planning department of 14 Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council on the 2nd December 1994, present was 15 Mr. Richard Lynn of Monarch, Mr. T Coughlan of Burke Kennedy Doyle architects 14:27:05 16 and Mr. C Tracey and himself on behalf of the planning department. 17 18 Monarch were proposing to apply for full permission for phase 1 and outline 19 permission for the balance of overall development of 281,000 square feet on the 20 C zone, 18 acres at Cherrywood. There would be a carpark adjoining for the 14:27:21 21 LRT, 400 spaces and the LRT is the light railway, is that right? 22 A Yes. Light Rapid Transit I think. 23 Q 25 The proposed range of uses was to be submitted by Mr. P Lafferty of Monarch. 24 What was in mind was a business park with a mixture of manufacturing and office 25 use. A sketch plan was submitted at the said meeting." And you attach a copy 14:27:43 26 of the letter. 27 A Yes. 28 Q 26 On the 4th April 1995 a letter was sent to each member of Dun 29 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council notifying them that a total of 21 objections 30 or representations were received by the County Council during the currency of 14:27:57 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   77 
1 the display of the draft variation, enclosed with that letter was a copy of 

14:28:00

2 each of these objections, representations, the councillors were further 
3 notified that the draft proposed variation would be considered at a meeting of 
4 the council to be held on the 10th April 1995 at which a report on the 
5 objections or representation would be presented."  And you attached at appendix 

14:28:17

6 15 a copy of the letter? 
7 A Yes. 
8 Q 27 "19.  On the 7th April 1995 a further letter was sent to each member of Dun 
9 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council enclosing a report on the proposed variation 

10 and a report on two oral hearings which had taken place in respect of two of 14:28:28 11 the representations made and attached herewith at appendix 16 is a copy of that 12 letter. 13 14 20. On the 10th April 1995 at a special meeting of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown 15 County Council, it was agreed to defer consideration of the manager's report on 14:28:42 16 the proposed variation. It was further agreed that a briefing session on the 17 proposed variation would take place in private session on the 19th April 1995. 18 Attached herewith at appendix 17 is an extract from the minutes. 19 20 Paragraph 21. On the 18th April 1995 a letter was sent to each member of Dun 14:28:58 21 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council informing them that a special meeting would 22 be held on the 24th April 1995. On the agenda which was attached was the 23 proposed variation of the Dublin County Development Plan, 1993, lands at 24 Cherrywood. Members were informed that in the event they proposed to make the 25 variation, it would be necessary to adopt a resolution to that effect and a 14:29:20 26 form of the resolution was attached to the manager's report." And you attach 27 that at appendix 18, is that right? 28 A Yes. 29 Q 28 "22. On the 24th April 1995, at a special meeting of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown 30 County Council, the manager read his report on the proposed variation. He 14:29:36 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   78 
1 informed the meeting of the 21 submissions received following the public 

14:29:38

2 display of the draft proposed variation, one, from South Dublin County Council 
3 raised no objection, three were in favour, 15 opposed either in whole or in 
4 part and two submissions related to lands outside the area were not relevant. 
5  

14:29:55

6 The manager went on to say that the lands proposed for the science and 
7 technology park lay to the south of the proposed link road from Wyattville Road 
8 to the South East Motorway.  All but 4.5 hectares which was zoned agriculture 
9 of the 25.5 hectares area proposed for the science and technology park zoning 

10 were already zoned for housing development at 10 houses per hectare. The lands 14:30:13 11 proposed for residential zoning were located between existing zoned land and 12 Lehaunstown lane which was itself separated by the proposed motorway by the 13 proposed public golf course which was the subject of a then current planning 14 application, he recommended that the proposed variation would be made without 15 amendment. 14:30:37 16 17 Following discussion, it was proposed by Councillor Marren and seconded by 18 Councillor Butler "That the County Council of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown being the 19 planning authority for the county of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown having published 20 notice of a draft of a proposed variation of the Dublin County Development Plan 14:30:49 21 1993 relating to map 27 and the townlands of Cherrywood, Loughlinstown and 22 Lahaunstown, together with the amendments to the written statement to the plan 23 and having taken into account objections and representations received and 24 reports of the oral statements made, and the report of the county manager 25 presented to the special meeting of the County Council held on the 10th April 14:31:10 26 1995, hereby in accordance to the provision of the Local Government Planning 27 and Development Acts 1963 to 1993 make the variation to the Dublin County 28 Development Plan 1993 as set out in drawing number PL94/85A dated November 29 1994. 30 14:31:32 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   79 
1 And in the document annexed to the said report, all of which has been signed 

14:31:32

2 for identification purposes by an Cathaoirleach of the County Council and by 
3 the county planning officer an it's further resolved that the seal of the 
4 council be affixed to the variation and that the necessary notices of making 
5 the variation be published with the accordance and requirements of the Local 

14:31:49

6 Planning and Development Acts 1963 to 1993 and the variation be called Dun 
7 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council variation of the Dublin County Development 
8 Plan 1993 number 1 Cherrywood, Loughlinstown, Lahaunstown, April 1995."   
9  

10 This resolution was in the terms as distributed by the manager to the members 14:32:09 11 on the 18th April 1995." And referred to above and you attach at appendix 19 a 12 copy of the resolution, is that right? 13 A Yes. 14 Q 29 "Following a further discussion it was agreed that a roll call vote would be 15 taken and on a division the result was as follows, for, 23, against, one 14:32:23 16 abstention, zero: For, Councillors Boylan, Breathnach, Buckley, Butler, 17 Coffee, Conroy, LT Cosgrave, Dockrell, Doohan, Elliott, Fox, Gordon, Green, 18 Hand, Lohan, Lowry, Lydon, Marran, Matthews, Misteil, Mitchell, O'Callaghan 19 Smyth. 20 Against: Councillor Connolly. The chairman then declared the motion passed." 14:32:43 21 and you attach at appendix 20, a copy of the minutes of the special minutes of 22 the council? 23 A Yes. 24 Q 30 "Paragraph 23. On the 29th April 1995, Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council 25 published a notice in accordance with section 21.4 of the Local Government 14:32:57 26 Planning and Development Act 1963, that the council had made a variation to the 27 Dublin County Development Plan 1993 entitled variation of the Dublin County 28 Development Plan 1993, number 1, Cherrywood Loughlinstown, Lahaunstown, April 29 1995. 30 14:33:16 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   80 
1 The variation involved changes to map 27 and to the written statement.  And 

14:33:16

2 attached herewith at appendix 21 is a copy of the notice dated 29th April 1995.  
3  
4 Paragraph 24.  Attached at appendix 22 is a copy of map 27 of the Dublin County 
5 Development Plan as amended by the variation as a result of the resolution 

14:33:32

6 passed on the 24th April 1995." 
7  
8 Is that correct? 
9 A Yes. 

10 Q 31 You have set out or attached to your statement all of those documents, 14:33:39 11 Mr. Cremmins, is that right? 12 A Yes. Its is. 13 Q 32 And I want to move on now, do you confirm that the contents of your statement 14 are true and accurate? 15 A I do. 14:33:54 16 Q 33 Right. And I want to move on now to deal with your second statement, 17 Mr. Cremmins, most of which was also touched on in the opening statement this 18 morning and this relates to the review of the Development Plan of 1993 after 19 the variation was made and this is the review by Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County 20 Council which commences in 1996? 14:34:14 21 A Yes. 22 Q 34 Page 7745 please. Now, this statement is just to clarify the matter is in 23 substitution of a statement you previously circulated, isn't that right? 24 A That's correct. 25 Q 35 And that is because one issue was omitted and that was the proposed changes in 14:34:33 26 density in the review of this plan, isn't that right? 27 A Yes, that's so. 28 Q 36 So the review of the 1993 Dublin Development Plan, paragraph 1. 29 30 "As mentioned in part 1 of this statement, there were two development plans for 14:34:45 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   81 
1 Dun Laoghaire Rathdown county area, these were A, the Dublin County Development 

14:34:50

2 Plan, 1993, which had been amended by the variation of map 27 in April 1995 and 
3 which I have outlined in the first part of my statement and B, the Dun 
4 Laoghaire borough Development Plan 1991. 
5  

14:35:05

6 The review of these two plans began in 1996 with the publication of a position 
7 paper in May 1996.  The position paper identified the main planning issues 
8 dealt with the proposed merger of the two earlier plans and considered the 
9 appropriate policies for inclusion in a new Development Plan.  A copy of the 

10 position paper can be found at pages 24482, 2533 of the brief. 14:35:22 11 12 Paragraph 2. On the 27th May 1996 at a meeting of the Planning Development and 13 Tourism Committee of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council a report of the 14 manager on the review of the Development Plan, consideration of the position 15 paper and a review of the specific objectives was read. Following a 14:35:40 16 discussion, the members were informed that the preparation of the draft written 17 statement and plans would proceed and would be presented in the autumn. The 18 members were informed that if they wished to make observations on the contents 19 of the position paper, they should forward them to the planning department. 20 The report was noted. The relevant minutes of the meeting can be found at 14:35:57 21 pages 2534 to 2536 of the brief. 22 23 3. On the 10th June 1996, Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council considered a 24 report from the Planning Development and Tourism Committee following its 25 meeting on the 27th May 1996. It was proposed by Councillor Coffey and 14:36:13 26 seconded by Councillor P Fitzgerald that the report of the planning development 27 and Tourism Committee be adopted. The relevant extracts from these minutes can 28 be found at pages 2537 to 2541 of the brief. 29 30 On the 18th December 1996 a letter was sent by the county manager to each 14:36:29 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   82 
1 member of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council informing them that a draft 

14:36:34

2 written statement and a draft set of zoning maps had been prepared, copies of 
3 these were enclosed.  He further informed the members that a meeting of the 
4 council to consider the draft plan had been arranged for the 29th January 1997.  
5 A copy of the letter can be found at page 2542 and 2543 of the brief.   

14:36:50

6  
7 On the 22nd January 1997, a further letter was sent to each member of Dun 
8 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council informing them that a special meeting of the 
9 council was to take place on the 29th January 1997, to consider the Dun 

10 Laoghaire/Rathdown county Draft Development Plan. The said letter can be found 14:37:08 11 at page 2544 of the brief. 12 13 On the 29th January 1997 at a special meeting of the council, the manager's 14 report on the review of the Development Plan was noted. The manager referred 15 to the timescale of the review in his report and stated that the final decision 14:37:21 16 of what the draft plan went on display was a matter to be decided by the 17 elected members. I then gave an outline of the main changes proposed in the 18 draft written statement. A copy of the minutes of the said meeting can be 19 found at pages 2545 to 2547 of the brief. 20 14:37:41 21 On the 30th January 1997 a letter was sent to each member of Dun 22 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council informing them that a special meeting of the 23 council was to be held on the 4th February 1997. 24 25 The purpose of the meeting was to consider the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown county 14:37:50 26 Draft Development Plan and listed on the agenda was the presentation to the 27 meeting of maps 4 to 14, together with the motion in the name of Councillors 28 Dillon-Byrne Buckley and Smyth. Namely, "that the density zoning in all maps 29 of the Draft Development Plan be restored to that density which was designated 30 and in the same manner as in the Development Plan presently in being." 14:38:12 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   83 
1  

14:38:17

2 A copy of the said agenda can be found page 2548 of the brief.  On the 4th 
3 February 1997 at a special meeting of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council 
4 maps number 4 to 14 of the Draft Development Plan 1997 were presented and 
5 noted.  The lands the subject of the inquiry constituted part of the lands 

14:38:28

6 contained in map 10 of the draft plan. 
7  
8 Following the noting of the draft plans, the motion in the name of Councillors 
9 Dillon-Byrne, Buckley and Smyth was proposed.  This motion sought the 

10 re-introduction of the density limitations which had been contained on the 14:38:42 11 earlier maps." And by earlier maps there, Mr. Cremmins, you mean the 1993 12 maps? 13 A That's correct. 14 Q 37 "Insofar as the subject lands were concerned, the subject lands had had a 15 density zoning as to a portion of them of 10 to the hectare and to another 14:38:56 16 portion of them, 16 to the hectare. The manager this his report expressed 17 himself satisfied that the factors he had identified as being utilised in the 18 control of density would adequately control density. No vote on this motion 19 was taken at this meeting. The minutes of the meeting can be found at pages 20 2549 to 2511 of the brief. 14:39:18 21 22 On the 26th March 1997 a letter was sent to each member of Dun 23 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council informing them that a special meeting of the 24 County Council will be held on the 26th March 1997 to further consider the 25 motion that had been debated on the 4th February 1997 and to consider a further 14:39:31 26 motion in the names of Councillors Dillon-Byrne, Breathnach, Connolly and 27 Fitzgerald. Namely "That density be specified in all areas zoned residential 28 and all maps". This letter can be found at pages 2554 and 2555 of the brief. 29 The motion is at page 7582. 30 The issue of zoning density came to be considered at the meeting of the 2nd 14:39:55 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   84 
1 April 1997.  It was agreed that the two motions dealing with zoning density 

14:39:58

2 would be debated together.  The manager provided a further report setting out 
3 the factors to be taken into account in assessing density and recommending that 
4 the Draft Development Plan in its present form be put on public display.  Any 
5 amendment considered desirable to the draft plan could be provided for in the 

14:40:15

6 course of the consideration of representations received during the public 
7 consultation process. 
8  
9 Councillors Dillon-Byrne, Buckley, Smyth, Breathnach, P Fitzgerald, Butler, 

10 Mitchell, Misteil, Gordon contributed to the discussion. Councillor 14:40:28 11 Dillon-Byrne with view the first motion in her name. The second motion was put 12 and lost with 11 against, 4 for and two abstentions. The manager agreed to 13 make arrangements for the statutory display of the draft plan and further 14 agreed to make available to the members a written list together with the 15 relevant maps showing the changes proposed in the draft plan which had been 14:40:49 16 presented at previous meetings. A copy of the minutes of the said meetings can 17 be found at pages 2556 to 2560 of the brief. 18 19 A map called the Draft Development Plan 1996 changes map, was prepared and on 20 map number 10 the changes have been identified. Included in the changes 14:41:07 21 proposed on map 10 was an extension of the science and technology area to bring 22 the science and technology area down to the line of the proposed motorway, 23 changes 4 and 5. 24 25 In addition, changes 1, 13, and 14 dealt with the density changes. Change 1 14:41:21 26 was a proposed change in density from A2 to A, not on Monarch lands. B change 27 13 was a change in density from AP10 to A, Monarch lands and change 14 was a 28 change from AP16 to A, Monarch lands. 29 30 In all three cases of changes 1, 13, and 14, which are outlined on the map at 14:41:44 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   85 
1 7465 -- do we have 7465 please, the reason given was to maximise the potential 

14:41:48

2 of land suitable for development."  The zonings and road changes proposed in 
3 the 1996 Draft Development Plan from the 1991 and 1993 plan are set out as text 
4 on pages 7466 to 7469 of the brief and can be cross referenced to the changes 
5 map at 7465.   

14:42:11

6  
7 What that means, Mr. Cremmins, is that in addition to the manager providing 
8 this map which is on screen identifying the changes from the 1993 plan as 
9 varied, the manager also provided by way of text explanation of the proposed 

10 changes. 14:42:27 11 A That's correct. 12 Q 38 And that can be seen at 7466, for example. 13 A Yes. 14 Q 39 These are the zoning and road changes from the 1991 and 1993 plan, if one goes 15 to the next page, 7467. The manager there sets out his changes and he gives 14:42:39 16 each change a number, he identifies the portion of land and then he says what 17 the change is from if it's zoning from A to B or B to A and then he sets out 18 the reason. 19 A That's correct. 20 Q 40 And that is because the manager had agreed to provide that information to the 14:42:56 21 councillors following the earlier meeting, isn't that right? 22 A Yes. 23 Q 41 Page 7748 please. "The Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council Draft Development 24 Plan 1997 was put on public display from the 21st May 1997 to the 22nd August 25 1997." The subject lands are outlined in map 10 and can be seen at pages 2552 14:43:15 26 and 2553, 7470 and 7471 of the brief. 27 28 "The subject lands were zoned A residential without any density limitation, D 29 C, district town centre and E1 to provide for the development of a science and 30 technology park. Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council received certain 14:43:36 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   86 
1 relevant representations in relation to the subject lands.  They were as 

14:43:39

2 follows: 
3  
4 A.  Representation 359 by Mr. Fergal McCabe on behalf of Monarch.  Mr. McCabe 
5 identified an area numbered 3 on map 3 at page 2563 which was reserved for 

14:43:51

6 rural amenity and agriculture and the provision of a golf course in the draft 
7 plan.  He submitted that a more appropriate use for these lands would be for 
8 the provision of, and development of a science and technology park, E1.  Such 
9 an alteration would not conflict with the objective of providing a public golf 

10 course on the remainder of the lands. He sought an oral hearing. This 14:44:12 11 submission can be found at pages 2561 to 2563 of the brief. 12 13 B. Representation 360 from Mr. Fergal McCabe on behalf of Monarch. Mr. McCabe 14 identified an area marked 2 on the map, at 2566, attached to his 15 representation, which was reserved for residential purposes in the draft plan. 14:44:33 16 17 Mr. McCabe submitted that the district centre facility adjoining the area 18 number two on his plan, should be extended into the area marked 2. He sought 19 an oral hearing. This representation can be found at pages 2564 to 2566 of the 20 brief. 14:44:51 21 22 C. Representation 362 by Mr. Fergal McCabe on behalf of Monarch. Mr. McCabe 23 objected to local objective 6 on map 10 which "Limited the retail element on 24 the lands at Cherrywood to neighbourhood centre size." He submitted that the 25 suggested cap was inappropriate and should be removed. He sought an oral 14:45:08 26 hearing. This representation can be found at page 2567 to 2569 of the brief. 27 28 D. Representation 384 from Councillor Bernadette Connolly of the Green Party 29 expressing her reservation about certain densities, including changes on map 10 30 being changes number 13 and 14 on the map at page 7465. No copy of this 14:45:27 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   87 
1 representation is presently available but the content can be found at pages 

14:45:33

2 2619, 2620 and 2599 of the brief.  In summary, Councillor Connolly expressed 
3 concern about the following density issues.  1.  Brennanstown Road, Cabinteely 
4 change from AP10 to A.  Change 4, map 7. 
5  

14:45:51

6 2.  Brennanstown, Cabinteely, change from A2 to A.  Change 5, map 7. 
7  
8 3.  Lehaunstown and Cherrywood, change from AP10 to A.  Change 13, map 10. 
9  

10 4. Lehaunstown, change from AP16 to A, change 14, map 10. 14:46:05 11 12 On the 9th September 1997, a letter was sent to each member of Dun 13 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council. The members were informed that during the 14 public display of the 1997 Draft Development Plan, over 450 representations 15 were received. Arrangements were being made to hear oral representations. 14:46:21 16 Copies of all representations would be sent to all of the members. The members 17 were further informed that all variations proposed to be made to the draft 18 plan, either by the manager or the members, had to be specifically listed as a 19 headed item or motion on the agenda of the relevant meeting. 20 14:46:41 21 Signed motions were to be received not later than nine clear working days 22 before the date of the first meeting. The first meeting of the council was to 23 be held on the 14th October 1997. All motions had to be received by the 24 council no later on than the 30th September 1997 and this letter is at page 25 2570 of the brief. 14:46:58 26 27 On the 18th September 1997, a letter was sent to each member of Dun 28 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council. Notice was given to the members that the 29 deadline for receipt of motions relating to maps had been extended to the 14th 30 October 1997 and the first meeting concerning the maps would be held on the 14:47:14 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   88 
1 13th October 1997. 

14:47:18

2  
3 The letter noted that certain representations were generally concerned with 
4 issues relating to the draft written statement and included in the list of 
5 representations, was representation 384 from Councillor Connolly.  The document 

14:47:28

6 can be found at page 2571. 
7  
8 On the 24th September 1997, oral hearings took place in respect of 
9 representations number 360, 362 and 359, the representations by Monarch 

10 Properties Limited. 14:47:45 11 12 A. Representation 360, the submission sought an extension of the existing 18 13 acre district centre at Cherrywood by an additional 12 acres to be increased to 14 an increased size of 30 acres. The note of this oral hearing can be found at 15 page 2572 of the brief. 14:48:01 16 17 B. Representation 362. This was an objection to local objective 6, map 10, 18 which limited the retail element on the lands at Cherrywood to neighbourhood 19 size. The removal of the limitation was sought. The record of this oral 20 hearing is at page 2573. 14:48:14 21 22 C. Representation 359 by Monarch Properties Limited which sought an extension 23 of science and technology park zoning to the lands identified on the 24 representation map. The record of the oral hearing in connection with 25 submission 359 is at page 2574. 14:48:29 26 27 On the 25th September 1997, a letter was sent to each member of the Dun 28 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council informing the members of the agenda for the 29 next six meetings of the council. On the agenda for the meeting of the 11th 30 November 1997 was consideration of map 6 to 10. Motions relating to these maps 14:48:47 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   89 
1 had to be received by the council by the 28th October 1997.  The letter is at 

14:48:51

2 page 2575.   
3  
4 On the 29th October 1997, a letter was sent to each member of Dun 
5 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council enclosing a copy of the manager's report in 

14:49:02

6 relation to objections or representations concerning maps 6 to 10 of the Draft 
7 Development Plan 1997.  A copy of the manager's proposed changes in relation to 
8 these maps were also enclosed.  The manager's proposed changes to maps 5 to 10 
9 can be found at pages 2577 of the brief.  The manager's report and 

10 representation and objections to map number 10 can be found at pages 2578 to 14:49:24 11 2581 of the brief. 12 13 Insofar as representation number 359 was concerned, which was a proposal to 14 extend the science and technology park zoning, the manager recommended no 15 change. Insofar as representation number 360 was concerned, which requested an 14:49:44 16 extension of the district zoning at Cherrywood into residentially zoned lands, 17 the manager recommended no change. Insofar as representation number 362 was 18 concerned, this sought the removal of the limitation on retail shopping on the 19 proposed district centre at Cherrywood. The manager recommended no change. 20 Insofar as representation 384, the lifting of zoning restrictions was 14:50:00 21 concerned, the manager recommended that density restrictions not apply. 22 23 Motions: The following relevant motions were received by Dun 24 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council. Motion 10.6A seeking to delete change 25 number 13 on map 10 being the density limitation removal from AP10 to A, signed 14:50:21 26 by Councillor Connolly. Pages 7475 to 7477 refers. Change 13 applied to the 27 northern portion of the Monarch residentially zoned lands. Motion 10.6B being 28 a motion seeking the retention of the 1993 zonings in relation to change 13 on 29 map 10, ie AP/ 10 signed by Councillor Smyth, page 7478 to 7480 refer. Motion 30 10.16 being a motion seeking to delete change 14 on map 10, namely the density 14:50:47 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   90 
1 change from AP/16 to A signed by Councillor Connolly.  Pages 7481 to 7484 refer 

14:50:56

2 Change 14 applied to the southern portion of the Monarch residentially zoned 
3 lands.  Motion 10.6D being a motion to revert the zoning on change number 4 on 
4 map 10 back to AP16 signed by Councillor Smyth, page 7485 to 7488 refers. 
5  

14:51:20

6 Motion 10.7 being a motion that change 1, being a change 2A from AP 10 revert 
7 signed by Councillor Smyth.  Pages 7489 to 7491 refer.  Change 1 was not on 
8 Monarch lands. 
9  

10 Motion 10.13A being a motion seeking the rezoning of approximately 40 acres 14:51:34 11 from B agriculture to E1, science and technology park as an extension of the 12 existing E1 lands signed by Councillors Lowry, Matthews, LT Cosgrave and 13 Conroy. The lands are identified on page 7287 and page -- sorry, the lands are 14 identified on page 7287 and page 7286, 7287, 2582 and 2583 refer. An amendment 15 to this motion was lodged with, it should be Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County 14:52:06 16 Council namely to include the words "Without prejudice to the advancement of 17 the council's objective to develop a public golf course on the balance of these 18 lands."This proposed amendment was signed by Councillors Misteil, Coffey and 19 Butler and page 2588 refers. 20 14:52:27 21 Motion 10.14A seeking the rezoning of approximately 11 acres from A residential 22 to DC district town centre as an extension of the existing DC zoning, signed by 23 Councillors Lowry, Matthews, LT Cosgrave and R Conroy and identified on the map 24 at pages 7289, pages 7288, 7289, 2585, 2584 and 2586 refer. Motion 10.15A 25 seeking to delete local objective 6 from map 10 in the draft written statement, 14:52:53 26 local objective 6 limited the retail element on the lands at Cherrywood to 27 neighbourhood centre size. 28 29 This motion was signed by Councillors Matthews and LT Cosgrave, and page 2587 30 refers, is that all correct? 14:53:09 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   91 
1 A That's correct. 

14:53:10

2 Q 42 On the 26th November 1997, a letter was sent to all members of Dun 
3 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council informing them that a special meeting of the 
4 council would be held on the 2nd December 1997.  Listed on the attached agenda 
5 was consideration of motions relating to sections 3 and 4 appendices and 

14:53:25

6 schedules of the written statement.  On the 2nd December 1997, at a meeting of 
7 Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council, motion 10.15A1, the motion in the name 
8 of Councillors Matthews and LT Cosgrave seeking to delete local objective 6, 
9 map 10 from the written statement, ie to limit the retail element on lands at 

10 Cherrywood to neighbourhood size, was agreed to be deferred to the appropriate 14:53:48 11 meeting dealing with the maps, ie map 10. Page 2591 to 2595 refers. 12 13 21. On the 6th January 1998, the members of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County 14 Council were informed that the meeting on the 21st January 1998 would consider 15 the objections, representations, motions and recommendations relating to maps 1 14:54:07 16 to 14. Page 2596 refers. 17 18 On the 14th January 1998, the members were provided with an agenda for the 19 meeting to be held on the 21st January. The members were also circulated with 20 the manager's report on map 10 and the representations and motions in 14:54:20 21 connection with map 10. Page 2597 to 2616 refers. On the 21st January 1998 at 22 a special meeting of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council, consideration of 23 the Draft Development Plan resumed at map number 10. Representation 384 and 24 motions 10.6A, 10.6B, 10.6C, 10.6D and 10.7. In relation to the Cherrywood 25 lands, representation number 384 was considered first. 14:54:51 26 27 The following report and recommendation of the manager was noted. Summary: 28 Representation number 384 refers to the lifting of zoning restrictions at 29 Lehaunstown, Cherrywood. Report: In line with the principles of 30 sustainability, having regard to the 1, scarcity of land suitable for 14:55:08 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   92 
1 development; 2, the recently completed Carrickmines Valley sewer which services 

14:55:12

2 the area; 3, the need to build up a satisfactory population base to support the 
3 extension of the LUAS to the area, it is recommended that density restrictions 
4 be not applied to this area.  The manager recommended no change.  The report on 
5 the recommendation of the manager was noted.  It was then agreed to take the 

14:55:29

6 following motions together.  Motions 10.6A and 10.6B, motions by Councillors 
7 Connolly and Smyth respectively, both seeking to delete change 13 in map 10 and 
8 revert to the previous density zoning of AP10 and motion 10.6C and 10.6D, 
9 motions by Councillors Connolly and Smyth respectively both seeking to delete 

10 change 14 on map 10 and revert to the previous density zoning of AP16 and they 14:55:54 11 were the Monarch lands, Mr. Cremmins, isn't that correct? 12 A Yes. 13 Q 43 And also in addition motion 10.7 by Councillor Smyth seeking to delete change 1 14 in map 10 and revert to the previous density zoning of AP10 and they were not 15 Monarch lands, is that right? 14:56:11 16 A Yes. 17 Q 44 The manager in his report recommended that the maximum densities in the 1993 18 plan be not carried forward. He strongly recommended the motions be not passed 19 and pointed out the need to make the best economic use of scarce development 20 land. The development of the Carrickmines Valley sewer was at great expense. 14:56:25 21 Following discussions the manager agreed to advise his recommendations to 22 include the following objective, "The Cherrywood area between the proposed 23 motorway and the N11 and between the Carrickmines and Brides Glen shall be the 24 subject of an area action plan which shall be presented to the council for 25 approval." 14:56:46 26 27 This recommendation was agreed. And motions 10.6A, 10.6B, 10.6C and 10.6D and 28 10.7 were then withdrew. 29 30 Representation 359 and motion 10.13 A: Representation 359 was then considered. 14:56:56 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   93 
1 Representation 359 sought the rezonings of an area zoned from agriculture with 

14:57:05

2 a specific local objective for the provision of a public golf course to the 
3 zoning use as a science and technology park. 
4  
5 The manager recommended no change and this report was noted. 

14:57:15

6  
7 Motion 10.13A was proposed by Councillor LT Cosgrave and seconded by Councillor 
8 Matthews seeking the rezoning of approximately 40 acres from B, agriculture to 
9 objective E1, science and technology park, as an extension to the existing E1 

10 zoning. The manager recommended no change. An amendment was proposed by 14:57:36 11 Councillor Misteil. "Add to the end of the motion without prejudice to the 12 advancement of the council's objective to develop a public golf course on the 13 balance of these lands." 14 15 This substantive motion as amended was seconded by Councillor Butler and put 14:57:52 16 and passed on a show of hands, and page 2623 and 2624 refer. Representation 17 360 and motion 10.14A. Representation 360 sought the extension of the district 18 centre lands at Cherrywood into the residentially zoned lands. The manager 19 reported no objection to the proposal provided specific local objective 6 was 20 adhered to, ie the limitation of the retail element on the lands at Cherrywood 14:58:16 21 to neighbourhood centre size. This report was noted. 22 23 Motion 10.14A, seeking the rezoning of 11 acres from A residential to DC 24 district centre, as an extension to the existing DC zoning on the adjacent 25 lands was proposed by Councillor Lowry and seconded by Councillor Conroy and 14:58:35 26 passed on a show of hands and page 2624 and 2625 refers. 27 28 Representation 362 and motion 10.15A: Representation 362 sought the removal of 29 local objective 6 on map 10, ie the removal on the limitation of the retail 30 element on the lands at Cherrywood to neighbourhood centre size. The manager 14:59:01 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   94 
1 recommended no change and that was noted.  Motion 10.15A, motion proposed by 

14:59:05

2 Councillor Matthews and seconded by Councillor Cosgrave that local objective 6 
3 on map 10 be deleted from the draft written statement of the Development Plan, 
4 ie to delete the limitation on the retail element of the lands at Cherrywood. 
5  

14:59:21

6 The manager in his report recommended that in order to ensure sufficient 
7 flexibility to accommodate a retail centre of adequate size in the particular 
8 location, that specific objective 6 should be replaced with a new specific 
9 objective 6, namely "The retail element on lands zoned DC at Cherrywood shall 

10 compliment adjoining land uses, as such it will be of size which will provide 14:59:40 11 for the local needs for the proposed science and technology park, the proposed 12 business park and adjoining residential neighbourhoods." It was agreed to 13 accept the managers recommendation." Page 2625 to 2629 refers. 14 The full text of the minutes of the meeting dealing with the above 15 representations and motions can be found at pages 2517 to 2630 of the brief. 15:00:00 16 17 The 1998 amendment that Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown Draft Development Plan 1997 went 18 on public display from the 7th April 1998 to the 15th May 1998. 19 20 The main proposed relevant changes were as follows: Change 4, a change in 15:00:16 21 zoning from B to E1 pursuant to representation number 359 and motion 1013 A, 22 signed by Councillors Lowry, Matthews, Cosgrave and Conroy, passed on the 21st 23 January 1998. 24 25 Change 5. Change in zoning from A to DC and local objective 6, these changes 15:00:34 26 arose from representation 360 and 362 and by the motions signed by Councillors 27 Lowry, Matthews, Cosgrave and Conroy and by the managers suggested change to 28 local objective 6 on map 10. 29 30 Change 15, local objective 13 to provide for an action area plan. Map 10 is at 15:00:55 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   95 
1 page 7290 which also contains a schedule of the changes proposed to be made and 

15:01:04

2 pages 2631 and 2632 also refer.  A schedule of map changes from map 10 are at 
3 7578 to 7581 and the amendments to the draft written statement are at 7575 to 
4 7577. 
5  

15:01:20

6 The 1998 amendments to the Draft Development Plan 1997 written statement 
7 contain the new proposed local objective 6 which read "That the retail element 
8 on the lands zoned DC at Cherrywood shall compliment adjoining land uses, as 
9 such it shall be of a size which will provide for the local needs of the 

10 proposed science and technology park, the proposed business park and adjoining 15:01:40 11 residential neighbourhoods." 12 13 A new local objective number 13 was added to map 10 local objectives, "That the 14 Cherrywood area between the proposed motorway and the N11 and between 15 Carrickmines and the Bride's Glen shall be the subject of an area action plan 15:01:55 16 presented to the council for approval." 17 18 Pages 7576 and 7577. What was happening there, Mr. Cremmins and correct me if 19 I am wrong, is the amendment map was put on display and in addition to the 20 changes to the written statement and an explanation for the changes were also 15:02:12 21 put on display. 22 A That's correct. 23 Q 45 "During the currency of this, the second public display, the council received 24 the following motions, 1 a motion signed by Councillors Connolly and Gordon 25 proposing "That this council reject the amendment to the 1998 Development Plan 15:02:26 26 on map 10, change 4, zoning from agriculture to industrial (E1)". Page 2633 27 refers. 2, motion signed by Councillor E Fitzgerald, to rescind map 10, change 28 4. Page 2634 reference. On the 27th May 1998 "The members of the council were 29 informed they would receive a copy of each representation made during the 30 public display, they were given the dates of the meeting. The members were 15:02:54 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   96 
1 informed that the agenda for the first meeting would comprise all of the 

15:02:58

2 proposed amendments to the maps and written statements as circulated to the 
3 members prior to the display.  A report and/or recommendation of the manager on 
4 each proposed amendment would be available at the meeting. 
5  

15:03:10

6 Notice was given that the latest date for receipt of motions relating to any of 
7 the proposed amendments for inclusion on the agenda was the 3rd June 1998.  
8 Page 2635 refers.   
9  

10 On the 9th June each member of the council was provided with a copy of the 15:03:22 11 agenda for the meeting of the 16th June 1998 to consider the proposed 12 amendments to the draft County Development Plan 1997 and representations 13 received during the statutory display. The members were provided with a 14 managers report and the motions in connection with the relevant maps, page 2636 15 to 2641 refer. 15:03:42 16 17 On the 10th June 1998, a letter was sent to each member of the council 18 informing members of the order in which the changes were to be considered and 19 the same would commence with map 14 working back to map 1. The members were 20 reminded that while motions were being proposed the only options available to 15:03:56 21 the members were to A accept the proposed amendment, B to reject the proposed 22 amendment or C to propose a compromise between the draft plan 1997 position and 23 the proposed amendment." Page 2642 refers. 24 25 "On the 16th June 1998 at a special meeting of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County 15:04:12 26 Council the members came to consider map 10. The relevant changes were map 10, 27 change 4. Change of zoning from B to E1. The manager recommended that the 28 amendment be confirmed and informed the meeting that whilst he had originally 29 opposed the proposed zoning to E1, the developer had confirmed that the balance 30 of the lands were capable of development as a golf course and had submitted the 15:04:35 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   97 
1 layout. 

15:04:39

2  
3 Motions 10.4A and 10.4B were agreed to be taken together and motion 10.4A 
4 proposed that the council reject change 4 map 10 and it was proposed 
5 Councillors Connolly and Gordon and seconded Councillor Smyth.  Motion 10.4B 

15:04:54

6 proposed the rescinding of change 4 map 10 and was proposed by Councillor 
7 Fitzgerald and seconded by Councillor Smyth.  The proposed motions were lost 
8 with four voting in favour, 20 against and the list of those voting at pages 
9 2647 and 2648, the motion was declared defeated.   

10 15:05:15 11 Change 4 on map 10 was declared confirmed. Change 5 on map 10. Change of 12 zoning from A to DC and local objective number 6 shown. The manager 13 recommended that the amendment together with local objective number 6 be 14 confirmed and this was agreed. Change 5 on map 10 was confirmed. Change 15 on 15 map 10 being local objective number 13 showing the Cherrywood area, sorry "The 15:05:32 16 Cherrywood area between the proposed motorway and the N11 and between 17 Carrickmines and Bride's Glen shall be the subject of an area action plan which 18 shall be presented to the council for approval. This was taken with similar 19 matters and was confirmed." Page 2650 to 2651 refers. The minutes of the 20 meeting of the meeting of the 16th June are recorded at pages 2643 to 2651. 15:05:55 21 22 "On the 13th July 1998 at a special meeting of the council, Councillor Marren 23 proposed the adoption of the written statement and 14 maps for the purpose of 24 making the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Development Plan 1998 and that was 25 passed with 20 voting in favour and two against. 15:06:13 26 27 Pages 2652 to 269 refer. At page 7292 -- could I have page 7292 is a copy of 28 map number 10 of the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council Development Plan 29 1998 showing the zonings. The effect on the subject lands of the rezonings 30 which occurred during the course of the review were as follows. 15:06:32 www.pcr.ie Day 638

   98 
1  

15:06:35

2 1.  11 acres approximately were rezoned from objective A residential to 
3 objective DC district centre."  Is that correct? 
4 A That is correct. 
5 Q 46 "2.  Approximately 40 acres were rezoned from objective B agriculture to 

15:06:46

6 objective E1 science and technology park without prejudice to the council's 
7 objective to develop a public golf course."  Is that correct? 
8 A Yes. 
9 Q 47 "3.  Change number 6 was altered to read that the retail element of the lands 

10 on the district centre would be such a size as would provide for the local 15:07:03 11 needs of the proposed science and technology park, the proposed business park 12 and the adjoining residential neighbourhood to compliment the adjoining land 13 use." Is that correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q 48 "The residential limitation of 10 houses and 16 house to the hectare 15:07:17 16 respectively were removed from the residential portion of the subject lands." 17 And the relevant extract from the written statement is the 7572 and 7574 is 18 that correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q 49 Now, can you confirm, Mr. Cremmins that the contents of your statement are true 15:07:30 21 and accurate to the best of your belief? 22 A Yes, they are. 23 Q 50 If anybody has any questions, that concludes Mr. Cremmins' evidence.