Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Transport and Communications debate -
Tuesday, 15 Jul 2014

Concert Licensing: Dublin City Council

The purpose of this meeting is to engage with Mr. Owen Keegan, chief executive officer of Dublin City Council, and with Mr. Jim Keogan, executive manager of the council's planning department, in order to discuss the council's role as the event licensing authority for concerts, particularly in the case of the Garth Brooks concerts. Mr. John Downey from Dublin City Council is also in attendance.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise or make charges against any persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Any submission or opening statement they have submitted to the committee will be published on the committee website after the meeting. Members are reminded of a long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or any official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I call on Mr. Keegan to make his opening statement.

Mr. Owen Keegan

In light of the considerable media and political reaction to the decision of Dublin City Council to permit only three of the five requested Garth Brooks concerts in Croke Park at the end of July and the subsequent decision of the promoter-Garth Brooks not to proceed with the three permitted concerts, as reported on 14 July 2014, I welcome this opportunity to outline to the committee the background to the council’s licensing decision and the application of the statutory event licensing process in this particular case. I also welcome the opportunity to respond to criticisms of the council in the aftermath of its decision.

The event licensing procedure is set out in Part XVI of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, and in planning and development regulations. It is a statutory procedure which the city council is legally obliged to follow. The legislation provides that the decision on any event licence application is an executive decision. The decision falls to be made by me, as chief executive, or by an officer of the council to whom I have delegated the power to make the decision.

In this particular case the decision to grant the event licence and the conditions to be imposed under the licence was made by Mr. Jim Keogan, executive manager in the council’s planning department, to whom those powers have been delegated. The assessment of the licence application was undertaken by Mr. John Downey, administrative officer in the planning department. Both Mr. Keogan and Mr. Downey have very considerable experience of the event licensing system.

As with all major planning applications, the officers concerned consulted me prior to the decision being made.

The legislation requires a local authority to have regard to the following criteria when making a decision on an event licence application; they are set out on page 2 of my statement. It also gives us very general powers to impose conditions on any licence granted. Without prejudice to the generality of these conditions, I have set out some of the particular issues to which the legislation refers. In that context, we have the power to impose conditions in respect of the number of events permitted at a venue within a specified period not exceeding one year. While the power to impose conditions is very general, the council, in determining an event licence application and imposing conditions, cannot restrict the number of future events at a particular venue. The conditions must relate to the event or events covered by the licence application. It should be noted that an event licence decision made under the Planning and Development Act cannot be amended or appealed. It is not legally possible for the council to reopen the decision to grant a licence or to amend the conditions attaching to a licence granted once a decision has been made.

To the extent that this case has highlighted certain weaknesses in the event licensing procedure, it would be a matter for either the Oireachtas to amend the relevant legislation or the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to amend the relevant regulations to address these weaknesses. The city council will be happy to contribute to any review of the event licensing system.

In section 3 of my statement I set out the application of the procedure in respect of the event licence application relating to the Garth Brooks application. Said application was not submitted until 17 April 2014. As part of the licence application, the applicant would have advertised publicly for submissions to be sent to the city council and there was a specified mandatory five week period for public consultation on these submissions. The closing date for receipt of submissions was 21 May and a total of 384 submissions or observations were received. These were detailed in nature and submitted by a wide spectrum of the public, including numerous residents - individuals and representative associations - and some businesses. A copy of the submissions and observations, with sensitive information such as telephone numbers and e-mail addresses removed, was sent to the statutory agencies on 28 and 29 May for their information and consideration. It was also circulated to the relevant Dublin City Council departments. A copy of the submissions was also sent to the promoter and the venue management which were asked to consider the issues and concerns raised in the submissions and outline in detail any proposed mitigation measure they deemed appropriate to address them. A reply was received on 20 June by Dublin City Council from the venue management and the promoter.

As part of the standard event licensing procedure and prior to a decision being made on the application, on 3 June, at Dublin City Council’s request, a meeting was held with the promoter and venue management on the production-build-decommissioning of structures schedule that had been received. Further meetings took place on 11, 16 and 24 June on updates on the application, the arrangements for the proposed concerts - if licensed - and in order that we might discuss issues raised in the submissions and observations received. It was made clear at these meetings by Dublin City Council that no decision had been made on the application at the time and the applicant was advised that the council had serious concerns about the impact the proposed five consecutive shows would have on people living in the area.

Typically, it takes ten weeks to process an event licence application. This includes the specified five week public consultation period, the time necessary to consider submissions received and undertake necessary consultations with various statutory agencies and the applicant. The application for an outdoor event licence for the Garth Brooks concerts was received by Dublin City Council on Thursday, 17 April. The decision to grant a licence, subject to conditions, was made on Thursday, 3 July, precisely ten weeks later.

Having assessed the application and having regard to the issues raised in the submissions and observations received, Dublin City Council approved three of the proposed concerts. However, it considered that it would not be appropriate to grant a licence for the five consecutive concerts for which application had been made. I will now outline its reasons for this decision. In the first instance, the scale, magnitude and number of concerts, with an expected attendance of in excess of 80,000 people per night for five consecutive nights, three of them being week nights, would be unprecedented for Croke Park.

The second reason was that three consecutive concerts had already taken place in Croke Park from 23 to 25 May 2014 and given that the stadium was located in a heavily populated residential area, a further five shows in a row was considered to be an over-intensification of use of the stadium for the holding of special events or concerts. It would, in effect, be permitting an increase of 100% in the maximum number of concerts that had previously been held in Croke Park in any given year. The previous maximum was four and the request in this instance was for five. In addition to the three which had already taken place, this would have meant a total of eight concerts at the stadium this year.

The third reason relates to the fact that the cumulative effect on residents and some businesses in the Croke Park and surrounding neighbourhoods of licensing five shows in a row - three of them on weekdays - would lead to an unacceptable level of disruption to their lives and livelihoods over an unprecedented and prolonged period caused by concert-related noise, access restrictions, traffic disruption, illegal parking and potential anti-social behaviour. The city council would also have been concerned about the precedent that would be created if five consecutive concerts of this scale were to be licensed.

Having regard to the submissions received, approval was given for three events to be held on Friday, 25 July, Saturday, 26 July, and Sunday, 27 July, subject to conditions. In granting an event licence allowing three consecutive Garth Brooks concerts in Croke Park, the council has approved a total six concerts for Croke Park so far in 2014. In so doing it was cognisant of the fact that the maximum number of approved special events or concerts in any one year heretofore in Croke Park had been four. It is worth noting that in the original grant of planning permission for the redevelopment of Croke Park in 1992 An Bord Pleanála determined that there should be a maximum of three special events or concerts per annum in Croke Park.

I am satisfied that the statutory event licensing procedure was applied correctly in this case by the city council and that the decision reached was appropriate, balanced and reasonable and had regard to all competing interests. This is particularly the case in view of the relationship between Croke Park and neighbouring residents. Nothing that has occurred since the decision was made has changed my opinion that it was appropriate, balanced and reasonable. It is, of course, open to any individual or organisation that thinks otherwise to initiate judicial review proceedings and challenge the decision. I should state, however, that such proceedings will be vigorously defended by the city council.

I would like to respond to a number of criticisms. In the light of the decision of the promoter and Garth Brooks not to proceed with the three permitted concerts and given the importance of the concerts to Dublin's economy and the number of individuals who purchased tickets in good faith, there is a general and widely held view that the city council should amend its decision and that, in refusing to do so, it has been unduly inflexible. As stated, an event licence decision made under the Planning and Development Act cannot be amended or appealed. It is not legally possible for the council to reopen the decision to grant a licence or amend the conditions attaching to that licence. Notwithstanding this, I am satisfied that the city council displayed considerable flexibility, both immediately prior to the decision on the licence being made and since it was announced, in an effort to ensure the Garth Brooks concerts would proceed. I wish to provide three examples of that flexibility.

On the evening of Wednesday, 2 July , prior to a decision being made on the event licence application, I spoke to Mr. Jim Clarke of Aiken Promotions. I wanted to advise him, as a matter of courtesy, of the imminent decision on the licence application. In the course of that conversation I informed him that the likelihood was that only three concerts would be permitted. Mr Clarke, having consulted Mr. Aiken and, I understand, Mr. Brooks, rang me back and advised that Garth Brooks would not perform three concerts. I then offered to discuss with the decision maker in the planning department, Mr. Keogan, the possibility of permitting a fourth concert if Mr. Clarke could give me a guarantee that Garth Brooks would perform all four. I gave no commitment to Mr. Clarke in this regard, other than stating I would raise the matter with the decision maker. On the morning of Thursday, 3 July, before any conversation had taken place with the decision maker, Mr. Clarke rang me back to say that unless all five concerts were permitted, Garth Brooks would not come to Dublin at all. I then withdrew my offer and the decision was made to grant the licence for three concerts.

I also met Mr. Peter Aiken of Aiken Promotions and a senior civil servant on Thursday, 10 July. At that meeting a proposal was made by Mr. Aiken in respect of matinee performances designed to break the impasse. Under the proposal, the city council would consider an updated event management plan to be submitted in accordance with the licence. I should stress that it is a condition of the licence that the applicant submit an updated event management plan without changes required to facilitate the event going ahead.

The proposal was that the three concerts would proceed on the Friday, Saturday and Sunday. However, the Saturday and Sunday concerts would start earlier to facilitate separate matinee audiences on those days. While there would still be only three concerts, there would, in effect, be five separate audiences. This would have allowed everyone who bought a ticket to attend a concert in Croke Park on one of the three days. I emphasise that this proposal was from Peter Aiken himself. I agreed to consider a revised event management plan on this basis within the statutory framework. Partly, I agreed to that as I was conscious of the disappointment of ticket holders who had purchased tickets in good faith for the cancelled events. There was also a concern that disappointed ticket holders for the Monday and Tuesday events might turn up on the other days causing security and public safety concerns.

Unfortunately, it was communicated to us the next day that Garth Brooks was not prepared to move with that option. Finally, as recently as yesterday, the city council offered to act as a co-promoter if Aiken Promotions decided to reschedule the two concerts for which permission was refused by the council to an alternative venue in the city council area requiring an events licence or indeed in Croke Park at a later date. The advantage of the city council being a co-promoter is that it would have reduced the time period to process an event licence application to about five weeks. In all three cases, while the city council demonstrated a capacity and willingness to be flexible, there was no budge from the other side.

Criticism has been levelled at the city council that we should have advised Aiken Promotions much earlier in the process that it would not be getting permission for five concerts. The outdoor event licensing process is a statutory process. The licensing application in respect of the Garth Brooks concert was submitted on 17 April and a final decision was made on 3 July. The city council is satisfied that it would not have been appropriate to advise the applicant or anyone else of the decision it intended to make until it had fully processed the licence application. Any other approach would expose the council to legal action on the basis that it had prejudiced the outcome of a statutory planning process. The regulations for event licensing provide for consultations between the applicant and the local authority at the request of the applicant prior to the submission of an application. When the applicant and local authority agree to enter into pre-application consultations on the submission of an application including the draft eventual plan for the management of the event, the authority may in such instances offer advice to the applicant regarding the proposal. It is important to note that such consultations cannot prejudice the performance by a local authority of its functions nor can they be relied upon in the process of determining an application or in any legal proceedings. It was open to the applicant to avail of the standard pre-planning consultations which afford the local authority protection if it indicates its likely decision. However, the applicant did not avail of the facility in this instance. No form of pre-application consultation took place.

There were a number of informal discussions with the promoter and his agents prior to the lodgement of the application on 7 April. Dublin City Council and its officers have been consistent in informing the promoter and his agents that its main concerns were the impact the proposed five consecutive concerts would have on the surrounding area and the precedent the granting of permission for five consecutive concerts would set. Prior to the lodgement of the application for the proposed concerts, the matter was debated at the Dublin City Council meeting of 7 April and at an area meeting on 11 March. The minutes of the meetings indicate that there was widespread concern among elected members at the proposal to have five concerts based on the impact on local residents. There were numerous media reports of the concerns of local residents at the proposal for five consecutive concerts. It is difficult for me to understand how, in the face of real evidence of disquiet among local residents, the promoters would have anticipated no difficulty in securing an event licence for the five concerts.

The next issue relates to any expectation the promoter might have had to be permitted five concerts by the local authority. Since 1993 and pursuant to the granting of the planning permission for the redevelopment of Croke Park, a total of three special event concerts are permitted under the grant of permission. Special event concerts may take place each year without having to obtain an event licence. The highest number of special event concerts in Croke Park in any one year has been four and that was in 2009. The average number of events per year since 2000, excluding years when there have been no special events or concerts, is three. Since the statutory events licensing procedure was introduced by way of an amendment to the Planning and Development Act 2000, there have been a total of 26 special event concerts at Croke Part, 20 under the planning permission and six on foot of the outdoor event licensing procedure. None of the applications has been refused. However, the proposal to hold five consecutive concerts in addition to the three permitted under the planning permission would have resulted in an unprecedented total of eight concerts this year. While Dublin City Council as the licensing authority has been supportive of special events and concerts at Croke Park to date, we have been consistent in ensuring that the number of special events concerts held in any one year has not exceeded the overall number permitted by An Bord Pleanála by more than one. An additional concert would not be considered a significant breach of the original permission but it would be a major departure for the local authority to approve five concerts in any one year in addition to the three held under the planning permission, as was proposed.

The holding of special event concerts at Croke Park has often been controversial and the controversies have been well documented. The U2 concerts in 2009 provided for three concerts over a four-day period and were highly controversial at the time. The holding of five consecutive concerts was going to be controversial. Any number in excess of one would have created a new precedent. In the circumstances, Dublin City Council does not accept that the promoter could have had an expectation that all five concerts would have been permitted.

The next section of my statement deals with fraudulent or dubious representations. We received 384 submissions or observations. We acknowledged each one by post or e-mail depending on how it was submitted. In response to those acknowledgements, we were advised by individuals in 11 instances that they had not made a submission. Those 11 were taken out and not considered. We advised the Garda on 12 June that we had concerns in regard to fraudulent submissions. There has been an ongoing Garda investigation as a result. The primary issue of concern in all of the submissions and observations was the level of disruption that would arise from the holding of five consecutive concerts. In the report on the licence application, the decision-maker considered three reasons for only granting three of the five concerts. The first related to the scale, magnitude and number of concerts with an expected attendance of 80,000 people per night over five consecutive nights, three of which would be week nights. The second related to the fact that three concerts had already taken place in Croke Park this year between 23 and 25 May. The report referred to the fact that this is a heavily populated residential area and that five shows in a row, following on from the three concerts already held this year, would be considered an overintensification of the use of the stadium. The third reason related to the cumulative effect on residents and businesses in the area of holding five shows in a row which would lead to an unacceptable level of disruption to the lives and livelihoods of residents and local businesses.

In arriving at the first reason, the report considered the application lodged by the promoter. In the case of the second reason, the report considered events that had previously been held at Croke Park. In the case of the third reason, the report cited the necessity to avoid or minimise disruption to the neighbourhood in which the events would take place. Accordingly, while it is disturbing that there is evidence that a significant number of submissions may be called into question, that does not interfere with the integrity of the decision. There is no evidence that the local authority acted other than in good faith in managing the process.

Finally, there is a suggestion that the local authority ignored the benefits to the Dublin economy. The local authority recognised fully the benefit of attracting such a substantial event to the Dublin economy. However, economic benefits are not central or intrinsic to the decision-making process. The three permitted concerts would have generated very significant economic benefits.

If the integrity of the planning system is to be maintained, it is important that the interests of no single individual or organisation, no matter how cherished a place he, she or it occupies in the hearts of the nation, are allowed to unduly influence the system. The genuine concerns of local residents which were a factor in the local authority decision cannot and should not be disregarded notwithstanding the short-term commercial or economic arguments for doing so. I am satisfied that the statutory events licensing procedure was applied correctly by the local authority and that the decision reached was appropriate, balanced and reasonable having regard to all competing interests. This is especially the case given the relationship that exists between Croke Park and neighbouring residents. Nothing that has occurred since the decision was made has changed my opinion that the decision was appropriate, balanced and reasonable.

I very much regret the decision of Garth Brooks and Aiken Promotions not to hold the three permitted concerts and to examine options proposed by the local authority on the two concerts which were not permitted. That was their decision and they must accept its consequences.

Before I hand over the to the members, I want to clarify a number of matters.

I also wish to ask a few questions. We received a letter on Friday from Dublin City Council asking about members of the committee who were also members of the GAA. I want to point out clearly that I am a member of the GAA, have always been and probably will always be, but I had no hand, act or part in any decision or negotiations. My main involvement during the years was as a team manager. Anybody familiar with the GAA knows that team managers have very little influence in Croke Park. I had tickets for the Garth Brooks concerts, but I paid for them.

Many members have indicated that they wish to speak. I will take them in the order in which they indicated: Deputies Timmy Dooley, Paudie Coffey, Mary Lou McDonald, Helen McEntee, Mick Wallace, Patrick O'Donovan, Noel Harrington and Tom Fleming. I ask members to limit their contributions to three minutes because there is huge interest in this issue and I want to ensure everybody will get in.

Why we have invited Dublin City Council officials to come before us is to establish the facts and chain of events involved, as Mr. Keegan has done, which led to the concerts being cancelled. The situation was evolving in recent days and last night the concerts were cancelled. Many issues must be teased out. What consultation took place between the promoter and Croke Park in advance of arranging the initial three concerts? Mr. Keegan has indicated that informal consultation took place and I would like him to outline what form it took. Given that three One Direction concerts have already taken place this year, did consultation or discussions take place before tickets for the additional fourth and fifth Garth Brooks concerts were sold? Will the officials clarify whether a verbal assurance was given by anybody in Dublin City Council at any stage that the five concerts could go ahead? I clarified the issue of any possible conflict of interest I had and wish to ask whether any of the officials live beside Croke Park. If so, do they believe this would be of help in making a decision or could it be a conflict of interest? What, in the opinion of the officials, needs to be done to avoid this type of fiasco happening again? If the five concerts were to go ahead, what would be the financial benefit for Dublin City Council? I had a question on forged submissions, but it has been dealt with.

Mr. Jim Keogan

On the issue of consultation, as the chief executive stated, while provision is made in the regulations to avail of a formal consultation process prior to the submission of a licence application, this option was not availed of in this instance. Informal contact was made and a telephone call was made in mid-December 2013 to an officer of the city council from the venue manager indicating the possibility of two Garth Brooks concerts taking place in Croke Park in summer 2014. Our response was that they would be subject to a licence because the intention was to use the One Direction concerts as the three permitted events. Subsequent to this telephone call no other formal or informal contact took place until approximately 30 January. At that stage the two shows indicated to us had been announced, the tickets sold and a third concert added. There had been no informal or formal consultation prior to the sale of the tickets for the three concerts. A telephone call was received on 31 January by an officer of the city council from the venue manager to state it was intended to proceed with a fourth and a fifth concert and that the tickets would go on sale on Tuesday, 4 February. This was subsequently changed in so far as the tickets went on sale on Monday, 3 February.

I understand from speaking to Mr. Keegan that he received a telephone call on the Sunday evening from Mr. Jim Clarke of Aiken Promotions stating it intended to proceed with the fourth and fifth concerts, with the sale of tickets on the Monday morning. The chief executive thanked him for the courtesy of notifying him in advance but made no other formal statement. As it transpired, on approximately 12 February the chief executive, the event co-ordinator and I had a meeting which had already been arranged with Aiken Promotions on an unrelated matter about an event elsewhere in the city; it was not to deal with this issue. At the conclusion of the discussions on that issue, the matter of the concerts was raised. A note or minute was not kept of what happened at the meeting, but what was clearly stated to the promoters was that it was a big ask and that we would be dealing with an unprecedented number of events, having regard to the fact that the highest number of events per year until then was four in 2009 and that there would be serious concerns in the city council as the licensing authority about the impact the five proposed consecutive concerts would have on livelihoods and the neighbourhoods in question.

This is the sequence of events with regard to formal and informal contact. Subsequent to this the issue was raised among members of the city council at area and city council level and there was widespread media coverage of the issue. It would have been apparent to all that the proposal would be controversial and that serious issues would have to be addressed. We received the application on 17 April. This also clarifies the issue of the third, fourth and fifth concerts. I am not aware of any verbal assurance given by any officer of the city council that five concerts would be licensed. On the contrary, we always prefaced any remark by stating serious issues would be raised in processing any application that would involve five consecutive concerts.

The Chairman raised the issue of a conflict of interest or bias. I was born and bred in Clonliffe Gardens, which is in the shadow of Croke Park. I spent 25 years of my life there and my family home is still there. My son and his wife live there. I do not think this altered my decision making and judgment on the proposed applications. I did not hear it stated in 2009, when I was the relevant officer with delegated responsibility for signing off on the very controversial U2 concerts, about which public meetings were held which I attended. I had to deal with issues raised by people with whom I had grown up. I felt I had dealt with the issues in a fair and balanced manner, as I have in this instance. I do not believe there is any bias or prejudice. I no longer live there. I own the property, in which my son and his wife live, but I have not lived in the area for the past 35 years.

Mr. Owen Keegan

I am satisfied no verbal assurance or comfort was given by any officer of the city council to the promoters that they have get five concerts licensed. Various estimates have been made of the economic benefit, but it is not a matter for the city council and we have not worked it out. I do not want to speculate on what it might have been. I suspect the economic benefit of the permitted three concerts would have been significant.

I remind members to try to confine their contributions to three minutes, if possible, because I want to get everyone in. If I must come back to members, I will do so. We will be as fair as we possibly can.

I welcome the officials and thank them for their presentation. There are several aspects to this debacle, into one of which we will not get today, although we will have to deal with it in the future, that is, how 400,000 tickets were sold for an event which had not yet been licensed.

That probably reflects on the Oireachtas more than it does the council, but it is the main issue that needs to be resolved in due course.

To address a point raised by the Chairman, I do not take lightly the inference in Mr. Keegan's letter to committee members that my being a member of the GAA in east Clare would somehow impact negatively on the way I do my business in the Oireachtas. It is objectionable that Mr. Keegan would raise an issue like that in a communication with the committee. If he believes for one moment that my interest in this matter relates to the GAA, he is entirely wrong. We had the GAA attend one of our meetings in recent weeks to address the issue of broadcasting and its deal with Sky. Being members of the GAA does not make us conflicted when being critical of its actions where warranted and appropriate.

My concern in this matter relates to my role as Opposition spokesperson on transport and tourism, the impact on the hotel, restaurant and catering sector in this city, the potential loss of €50 million in revenue, the 70,000 inbound tourists due to attend the event, the 400,000 ticket holders in this State and elsewhere and the ratepayers and property taxpayers who play an integral role in the life of this city and contribute to Dublin City Council's revenue. These are the only issues motivating me. I will not get into a debate on personalities, but if Mr. Keegan's belief is that our only motivation is to feather the GAA's nest, I would first refute that belief and then suggest that it raised more questions about his judgment than it does about mine.

Following on from the Chairman's comments about Mr. Keegan's interest in understanding what might conflict us, has Mr. Jim Keogan told Mr. Keegan that his family home is in the area and his son lives there? Is that something that Mr. Keegan has only become aware of in recent days?

Mr. Keegan discussed the granting of a licence for three concerts. He indicated that he had a conversation with someone working with the promoter and that a fourth concert had been on the table. At the bottom of page 8 of his statement to us, he asserts that the council has been supportive of special events in Croke Park and has not allowed the number to exceed the overall number permitted by An Bord Pleanála by more than one. He considers a breach of one event to be normal. However, permitting the three concerts would have been a breach of three. Had Mr. Keogan acted on Mr. Keegan's conversation with Aiken Promotions, the CEO would have been prepared to allow four concerts. We have gone from one to four, yet Mr. Keegan claims that five would have been a major departure for the council. It is difficult to comprehend how five would be a major departure when four would not.

Notwithstanding the origin of the suggestion, it is difficult to understand how Mr. Keegan can assert that 160,000 people in the curtilage of that zone on Saturday and Sunday evenings would not have amounted to a significant intensification of the property's use. He was concerned that some percentage of those with tickets for the Monday and Tuesday shows might have congregated in the area, but he was prepared to accept all of the 160,000 congregating there. I fail to see how this could have worked.

Mr. Keegan stated that a judicial review was an option but, on behalf of Dublin City Council, the ratepayers and property taxpayers of this city, he would spend more of their money to defend his original decision vigorously because he was so confident in it. That is questionable.

Mr. Keegan expressed regret about this situation but took no personal responsibility for it. He stated that three concerts were permitted, but that considering options for the remaining two was a decision for the promoter and the artist and they must accept the consequences. Does he believe that he should accept some consequences on behalf of the ratepayers, property taxpayers, the tourism sector and Ireland's image as a destination for large-scale entertainment events at a time when, as he is aware, efforts are being made to win a rugby world cup event for this city? Such events benefit the city's economy.

Mr. Owen Keegan

I sent my letter because of the general view that this matter involved Aiken Promotions and Garth Brooks on one side and the city council on the other. It was important to point out that there was another player with a significant financial interest involved. I was drawing members' attention to it. If they feel conflicted, it is a matter for themselves to address. I never refused to attend this meeting, but people need to be aware that the GAA has a major role in this.

Yes, but the GAA has many strands. The strands in which committee members are involved are divorced from-----

If I could be helpful, will Mr. Keegan apologise for that sentence in the letter and withdraw it before he leaves?

Mr. Owen Keegan

I am happy to withdraw that part of the letter if it has caused offence.

The next issue is that of criteria. I am conscious of the impact of concerts on the Dublin economy, but I draw members' attention to page 2 of my statement, which details the criteria on which these decisions are made. We are required to have regard to the documents, including the plans and particulars, submitted by the applicant, including any revision to the draft event management plan; any document, correspondence, plans and particulars submitted by statutory agencies and bodies with regard to the draft event management plan; all submissions and observations received from members of the public; whether events have previously been held on the land concerned; the information highlighted and exchanged at meetings between the local authority, statutory agencies and the applicant; and any relevant guideline or code of practice. These criteria informed the decision.

That said, we were conscious of the situation. Our decision to grant three concerts on top of the three that had already been granted, representing a significant increase on previous years, reflected a balanced view that took account of the economic interests and the legitimate concerns of residents.

Mr. Jim Keogan

It is important to understand that, during the process and once the public consultation period had ended, there were continuous meetings between the promoters, venue managers and State agencies. Upgradings and responses to issues and concerns raised during the consultative process allowed the event management plan to incorporate mitigating measures, thereby enabling us to give consideration to three concerts while bearing in mind that anything in excess of one was creating a new precedent. I take the Deputy's point, but it was only on the basis of trying to get a reasonable, fair and balanced approach that we considered permitting three, having regard to the competing interests, the legitimate concerns of the residents and the economic importance of such events to this city.

Mr. Owen Keegan

Regarding my offer to Mr. Jim Clarke about the possibility of a fourth concert, I would have been criticised for responding with any degree of flexibility and I would have been criticised for not responding. Given the importance of the concerts, I made the judgment to go the extra way and determine whether we could get them. I did not give a commitment. Rather, I offered to raise the matter with the decision maker, but no flexibility was forthcoming from the other side. I can be rightly criticised for making that offer. Looking back, I probably regret that I did, but I felt it was important to make an extra effort to get those concerts for Dublin.

They were not prepared to take anything less. It is difficult to deal with a choice of five concerts or none when presented with a very sensitive planning application. I withdrew the offer, I did not have the conversation and I do not know what the outcome would have been. Yes, I could be rightly criticised about showing flexibility.

The reference to judicial review is clear. It has been suggested that we could allow the promoter to request a judicial review of the decision and not mount a defence on the basis that we accept we made the wrong decision. However, I believe we made the right decision, as it was entirely appropriate to seek to balance all of the competing interests. Some people think we should ignore the legitimate concerns of residents and that commercial interests should win out, but I do not agree. My point is, anyone can judicially review our decision but we will defend such proceedings because we believe in the integrity of the process and that we made a fair and balanced decision. We will not initiate proceedings. We took account of all competing interests, including those of residents, as required under the event licensing process.

I was asked whether I accept some blame. As I said in my statement, we are obliged to follow a legal process and we have applied it. Perhaps, in hindsight, we might have suggested that the applicant engage in formal pre-application consultations, but the event developed very quickly. Effectively, all tickets were sold by early February and the damage was done. Had we told the promoter in early February that some of the concerts would not be allowed, what would have happened? The tickets had been sold by that stage and I suspect people had made their accommodation arrangements. We were in a difficult situation and I do not believe we would have prejudiced the statutory process. Even if we had warned the promoter at that point he would have accused us of not giving him an opportunity and trying to deny Dublin the concerts. He might also have said that he intended to work intensively with local residents in the intervening months to mediate on the issues raised. It would be totally inappropriate for Dublin City Council to prejudge such efforts. It is very difficult to say what would have happened had we told the promoter in early February that some of the concerts would not be allowed.

Regarding the residents mentioned by Mr. Keegan, it is obvious that they changed their position significantly. That is how it seemed last week. It appeared for a long time that they all shared an entrenched view, but they seemed to adapt their view. Could this have made a difference?

Mr. Owen Keegan

Any developments after the decision was made could not have made a difference as the decision was made based on information that we received during the public consultation process. The fact that residents now appear to be more accommodating is very welcome but does not change the fact that the decision was made based on information available at the time. It seems the event promoter and the venue owner did much to meet their concerns.

It is just that Mr. Keegan raised the possibility of the promoter mediating with the residents in the intervening period.

Mr. Owen Keegan

If we had not got a significant number of complaints, observations and submissions from residents who objected to the concerts, things might have been different. Events at other venues can attract fewer than ten submissions from local residents. I cannot accept that there were not significant issues of concern to local residents.

On the one hand Mr. Keegan says the promoter should have mediated, but when he did that-----

Mr. Owen Keegan

In the period before the promoter submitted the event management plan, during March and April, he could have worked actively to resolve issues with residents to ensure a lower level of opposition. Not enough was done, and during the consultation period it became clear that there were very significant issues of concern to residents.

Mr. Keegan still has not explained the major difference between allowing four events and allowing five, considering he showed flexibility. He must take into consideration that there was exceptional demand for this artist. At first two concerts were planned, then three, and such was the demand that the promoter and the artist continued to sell the tickets in the genuine expectation that the appropriate mitigation would be in place and the necessary work on the licence application would be done. Mr. Keegan has not demonstrated to me the difference between four and five concerts, considering he thought four concerts was four more than was normal. He was to set a precedent with three concerts and also with four concerts, so only one more was required to satisfy everyone. For that one concert, Mr. Keegan is prepared to commit significant resources to defend judicial review proceedings. He has not indicated at what point the breach of the threshold became a major issue.

Mr. Owen Keegan

It is very clear to me that there is a huge difference between four and five concerts. Had we licensed four concerts, we could have told the residents that their concerns had been heeded to some extent, but had we licensed five concerts, the residents would have believed that we had completely ignored their legitimate concerns, and that would be indefensible. We could have defended four concerts, albeit with difficulty, on the basis that it was less than a complete capitulation to the applicant.

So the promoter should have applied for six concerts in the hope of being granted permission for five. Mr. Keegan would have been fine with that.

Mr. Owen Keegan

I would not have been fine with that.

My final question is on something Mr. Keegan has not addressed.

Mr. Owen Keegan

Dublin City Council does not have the option of completely ignoring residents' concerns.

When did Mr. Keogan make Mr. Keegan aware of the fact that his son lives in what was his family home?

Mr. Owen Keegan

I became aware of it today but I knew he lived in Skerries and thought that more relevant.

I thank Mr. Keegan and his officials for coming before this committee, as it is important that controversial matters of national debate such as this are as transparent as possible. It is helpful that Mr. Keegan's statement is now on the public record and I thank the Chairman and the committee for allowing this.

I must declare my interest in the GAA as I am a lifelong member and chairman of my local club, but I have no input in national decisions, especially those relating to concerts in Croke Park. I will also declare that I am a fan of Garth Brooks and have attended his concerts previously, though I did not have tickets for this event. This is a matter of serious concern, and reputational damage has occurred nationally and internationally. We can all learn serious lessons. I will not engage in the blame game and political opportunism, as they are unhelpful. I was a member of a local authority for eight years and fully understand that there is a statutory process, as Mr. Keegan has outlined. It is important that politicians and those in the know, such as representative bodies, promoters and businesspeople, were fully aware of the statutory process. It has been shown that the statutory process is deficient when it comes to organising national events. The licensing process needs to be reviewed, though that is work for another day. Perhaps there should be definitive licensing for large national venues such as Croke Park, given the number of events in question.

The statutory decision-making process has been outlined by Mr. Keegan, as have the criteria the council is obliged to consider. These criteria include disruption caused to neighbourhoods and residents, the scale and magnitude of concerts and traffic and crowd management. Mr. Keegan referred to the fact that three concerts by One Direction had already taken place at Croke Park this year. I am confused by why any extra concerts were allowed. Mr. Keegan has outlined that economic benefit is not a central consideration, but I believe it should be. Many cities around Ireland and the world proactively pitch for such concerts.

There is a conflict. Given Mr. Keegan's defence, I do not understand how three concerts could be allowed. Could he elaborate a little further on the decision? Any reasonable person would consider that allowing the matinées that were offered by the promoters would contribute to a greater intensification of the problem in terms of traffic and crowd management on the concert days. Serious ramifications would have arisen for transport, crowd management and getting people in and out of the venue. Given what Mr. Keegan said, I do not understand how he would have allowed that to happen yet not allow five concerts to go ahead. Could he explain his position further?

Hindsight is a great thing. I do not engage in the blame game. Given the economic benefit that has been lost to Dublin city and the country, and given that as Deputy Dooley said, Mr. Keegan was willing to consider four events, would he not have allowed the five consecutive events on a one-off basis with the special condition that it would never happen again? Was that not considered? I would welcome a response to the question.

I was concerned today to hear Mr. Keogan has strong family connections and interests in the local area. Given that, would Mr. Keegan not have allocated the decision making to another senior official within the local authority? I do not say that with disrespect to Mr. Keogan. He outlined how he arrived at his decision. To avoid any accusation of a conflict of interest, would Mr. Keegan not have thought delegating the decision making power to another official in the local authority would have been more appropriate?

Mr. Jim Keogan

In regard to the points raised by Deputy Coffey, on the difference between zero concerts and five concerts, in the context of the venue itself – Croke Park – it is the beneficiary of permission granted in 1993 for three events under the terms of the permission. The legislation which now governs event licensing for musical events or special events attracting in excess of 5,000 people specifically identified that where venues had a permission, they held it and it was open to any applicant, venue owner or promoter to apply separately for additional events. Given the controversy that has surrounded special or musical events over the years in Croke Park, with the exception of 2009, the threshold has been of the order of three or four.

Deputy Coffey is right that there has been exceptional interest in this concert and artist. What has come out of all of this is that there is a huge popularity associated with him and also a huge economic benefit attached. However, there are also legitimate considerations that we had to take on board in arriving at the decision. In doing so, it was felt that it was reasonable, balanced and fair to have three concerts, having regard to all the competing interests. We had regard to the fact that it was over the weekend, on a par with what happened with One Direction, and that in itself it would have a substantial benefit on the economy of the city. It was felt that the cumulative effect of five consecutive concerts, which is unprecedented anywhere in the city, would have a very detrimental effect on the level of disruption that would arise to the surrounding area. As a licensing authority we had to have regard to the impact, the precedent that would be set and the level of intensity. We are talking about 82,000 people per night. Committee members might say that venues such as Kilmainham had four or five musical events in a season, but the capacity there is 8,500. There is a significant difference between a capacity of 8,000 and a capacity of 82,000 and the knock-on effect it would have on the surrounding area.

In response to Deputy Coffey’s question on why we allowed only three concerts, it was reasonable, balanced and fair. We did not ask the promoter to sell five concerts. He did not consult with us formally on our views before he sold the concert tickets. We had to deal with the situation when the tickets were sold. We also have a responsibility to adhere to due process and procedure.

I am sorry for interrupting but this is critical to the confusion and the conflict as I understand it. Given all that Mr. Keogan said, which I accept in terms of the balanced and reasonable approach taken, was it not a serious mistake to offer the matinées because that would have contributed to a much more serious intensification and demand on the neighbourhood and traffic management systems around Croke Park, given that people would be coming from all parts of the country and be funnelled into the city, and there would be a crowd leaving at one time and another crowd coming in? I am no expert in logistical exercises but that seems totally illogical and I would welcome an explanation.

Mr. Jim Keogan

Deputy Coffey raised the issue of the fourth concert. The fourth concert was a proposal the chief executive made to the concert promoter. I did not make the offer and I did not make a decision on it. In any event, the offer was withdrawn.

Deputy Coffey raised the issue of the matinée performances. That proposal was made by the promoters in the context of breaking the impasse, as it then was, following the dispute and controversy that surrounded the decision-making process. We gave an undertaking that we would give consideration to it; not that we would grant it. The terms of the agreement that we arrived at with Aiken Promotions-----

It was a rearguard action. Dublin City Council was willing to consider it in hindsight. Given that, why were five concerts not considered at the outset as a once-off? Given the lessons we have learned and the pressures and difficulties it brought on the council and everyone else, it could have been decided that it would not to be allowed to happen again. Could the concerts not have been allowed to proceed in the interests of the economic benefit to the country and the city?

Mr. Jim Keogan

In the context of the five concerts and the licensing decision to grant three concerts, condition No. 4 of the licensing condition provides for a revised update or event management plan to be submitted prior to the event taking place. The date in question was last Friday. It says that any changes made or brought about by way of the proposed event could be accommodated within the revised event management plan. It was a proposal that was made by Aiken Promotions that we would consider matinée performances. There was no decision made on the proposal but it was rejected before it ever got into the consideration process. Five concerts are unprecedented. The reason we said it was not appropriate to grant five was due to the scale of the proposed events, the intensification surrounding the number of events at the venue and the cumulative effect it would have on the area in question. That was the basis on which we made the decision. We did it within the parameters of the licence that was granted to see whether there was scope for considering matinée performances. One must bear in mind that the public outcry was that we were perceived to be inflexible and we were attempting to see if there could be a resolution. We only said we would consider it; we did not make a decision on it.

My question to Mr. Keegan is whether he thought it appropriate that someone with family connections and a house in the local area should have been as closely involved in the decision making process.

Mr. Owen Keegan

I do not see a difficulty with that. I lived in Drumcondra for three years. I had forgotten that, but I do not think it disqualifies me either.

Given the public discourse and perception around the debate I am sure Mr. Keegan would have pre-empted it and understood that it would have become very controversial. To avoid any charges or accusations of conflicts of interest, did Mr. Keegan feel there was no necessity to appoint another official to examine the decision?

Mr. Owen Keegan

Mr. Keogan has resided for many years in Skerries and I have already said I was unaware that he had a family background in the area and a property. The issue of appointing someone else did not arise.

In hindsight, if Mr. Keegan knew, would he have appointed somebody else?

Mr. Owen Keegan

I do not believe I would, but I will deal with that if it comes up again.

The interesting thing is that Mr. Keegan showed such vigour in trying to establish any potential conflict of interest we might have, notwithstanding that we are governed by SIPO and House rules. What system does Mr. Keegan have in place to deal with potential conflicts of interest in Dublin City Council or is that an area he might consider reviewing in light of what has transpired today?

Mr. Owen Keegan

We have the standard register of interests of senior officials.

But in light of information that emerged today and which Mr. Keegan is now aware of -----

Mr. Owen Keegan

People do not have to declare their previous properties. They declare the properties in which they are currently residing or any interests they may have.

This is an important point because anybody who served on a local authority would know that if a councillor had an interest in a decision being taken by the council he or she would have to vacate the chamber to avoid being involved in the process. A fundamental issue arises in this regard. I am not casting aspersions but it is something we will need to consider at a future date. Where there is an interest in serious decisions, it needs to be examined.

Obviously we will be considering the issues arising today in a future meeting.

Did either Mr. Keogan's son or daughter-in-law make observations or objections in respect of these concerts?

Mr. Jim Keogan

No.

Have they previously objected to Croke Park events?

Mr. Jim Keogan

No.

I understand the position is that Croke Park can host three events annually under its planning permission without requiring the rigmarole of the full licensing procedure and, thereafter, it can go through the standard procedure to apply for whatever number of events. Is that the position?

Mr. Owen Keegan

It goes through the event licensing procedure.

Confusion had arisen due to a view that it could only hold three events. The first three events are covered by a short circuited procedure and thereafter Croke Park is required to go through the standard procedure. I thank Mr. Keegan for that clarification.

Notwithstanding the lunacy of selling tickets in advance of obtaining a licence, I ask to him clarify whether that is standard procedure for gigs and events across the board and not a new development.

Mr. Owen Keegan

It is standard procedure to sell tickets subject to licence. In most cases a licence will come through.

I agree with Mr. Keegan that the prospect of holding eight events at Croke Park year on year would represent an over intensification of use of the stadium. My only conflict of interest is that I represent the vicinity in which Croke Park is located and my son is a fanatical hurler for Naomh Fionbarra in west Cabra.

I am sure Mr. Keegan is aware that Cumann Lúthchleas Gael accepted that it had over-reached. It said as much to the community. I agree with him on that point but I part company with him from there on. I think he made the wrong decision and I think his decision was disastrous for the city. I hope he is aware that it has caused considerable upset and anger in the local community and among residents and that he is now aware that there is not a single view from residents but that there are different views on these matters. In the course of his consultation with the statutory bodies, which of them objected to five concerts? Did An Garda Síochána or any of the other statutory organisations object to five concerts?

Mr. Owen Keegan

There was no objection. All of the statutory organisations indicated that they could facilitate five concerts.

There was no objection from any of the statutory organisations. I would have thought, in arriving at the decision, that would be a significant factor. Mr. Keegan repeatedly cited his concern for residents and their views. I appreciate that he has to take account of the views of those who live in the vicinity of the stadium but let us examine the matter more closely. There were at least 11 fraudulent representations. He brought those to the attention of An Garda Síochána. He noted in his presentation that acknowledgements were sent only where an e-mail or postal address was attached to the observation. I presume, therefore, that a batch of objections did not have that kind of contact information. Am I correct in that presumption?

Mr. Owen Keegan

There were eight observations for which we could not decipher the address or where the e-mail address bounced back. We are confident that we sent an acknowledgement to all bar eight. Normally people would give an address.

If we are to believe what we read in the media it appears that, based on a sample, An Garda Síochána reckon that up to 40% of the observations submitted were dubious or fraudulent. How does Mr. Keegan account for that?

Mr. Owen Keegan

I cannot account for that but we must be clear on this matter. The process is not like a standard planning application, which has to be accompanied by a fee or a declaration of a PPS number. I have to accept what I receive in good faith. Given that we acknowledge submissions, if 40% of them were dubious I would have expected more people to have responded that they never made an observation. In good faith, all we can do is acknowledge them and see if we get feedback. When we get feedback, which we did in 11 cases, we withdraw the observations from the file.

In terms of verifying objections or observations in a case like this, the sole verification procedure is to send an acknowledgement. Is that correct?

Mr. Owen Keegan

That is correct.

Does Mr. Keegan consider that to be sufficient?

Mr. Owen Keegan

In light of this case, I will have to review it. We do not have the resources-----

I am not asking about resources; I am asking whether he regards it to be a sufficient verification for objections.

Mr. Owen Keegan

In the aftermath of this it raises questions about an open invitation public consultation process without requiring a fee or evidence to accompany the submission. This raises legitimate questions.

It raises more than that, given that repeatedly in Mr. Keegan's submission he has pointed to the concerns of residents and the objections that he received as, arguably, the key reason for his decision. Arguably, that is what it boiled down to for him.

Mr. Owen Keegan

We were never guided by the sheer physical number. Let us suppose that the estimate was that 40% were dubious. Some of those people are claiming they signed letters under pressure at public meetings. They may have done so; I do not know. That still leaves a significant number which the Garda is not questioning.

Mr. Keegan repeated the number several times, not only in his statement before us but also in the public domain.

Mr. Owen Keegan

A total of 384 were received.

He is the person who initiated the argument around volume rather than quality. I have a big concern, and I suggest he should have similar concerns, that he does not have an adequate procedure or process to check authenticity of objections lodged. I do not deny the right of any resident to lodge an objection but given the weight he attached to the objections, surely he had a duty to ensure their accuracy and validity. I say to him that he did not do that. I suggest that he was negligent as a local authority representative in not doing so given this was the key point on which his decision hinged.

Mr. Owen Keegan

We do not have the authority to verify submissions apart from acknowledging them. We cannot demand documentation or fees. We are constrained in what we can do in this regard. I have not seen a Garda report but there were media reports on the matter. There is an implication in the Deputy's question that there was no concern among residents.

Mr. Owen Keegan

That flies in the face-----

There was no such implication.

Mr. Owen Keegan

Even if 40%-----

The only implication in my question is that if Mr. Keegan attaches such a level of importance to public submissions and if he is going to make decisions that have big implications for the community and this city on the basis of those submissions, he is duty bound to ensure their validity and authenticity. That is the inference of what I am saying and I hope he is crystal clear on it.

Mr. Jim Keogan

The licence was granted subject to conditions and the provisions of the legislation strictly outline the type of conditions we can impose. We are looking at the decision to grant permission for three, rather than five, concerts. That was in relation to two areas in particular under the provisions of the Act, for which we must have regard, namely, disruption to the neighbourhood and the number of events in any one year at the venue. The decision was made on this basis and the reasons have been proffered.

We dealt with the submissions properly. We were notified by way of a response from an individual who was concerned about the fact that they had not made a submission. Subsequently, over a number of days, 12 people identified themselves. We immediately alerted the Garda, on 12 June, and that matter was with the Garda for its attention.

According to Mr. Keegan's script, Dublin City Council brought 11 instances to the attention of the Garda. Given the lack of a robust procedure to follow up on such submissions, not to seek fees from people, but to ensure their validity, Mr. Keogan cannot, with any level of confidence, stand over taking the decision he took on the basis of the submissions. That is my strong view, and I strongly suggest the council remedy the situation without undue delay.

I was struck by an expression Mr. Keegan used in an earlier answer to Deputy Dooley when he said if he granted permission for four as against five, at least the message would have gone out that he had not "sold out". I want Mr. Keegan to explain what he meant by it. Was it his concern that residents might see him as a public figure "selling out"?

Mr. Owen Keegan

My concern was that there was an expectation that we should ignore the legitimate concerns of residents regarding the impact of these events. I am satisfied that very significant concerns were articulated in our public consultation process for residents and it would be inappropriate to ignore them. We granted a licence. We permitted three concerts, which was a very significant increase on the number of concerts that have been granted before for Croke Park. We were very sensitive to the economic benefits of the event. To grant a licence for five concerts, given the precedent and what had been done in the past, would have represented a totally unbalanced and inappropriate decision.

Mr. Keegan would have been concerned that he would have been seen as selling out. Mr. Keegan was aware that Mr. Kieran Mulvey was involved in a very detailed process of mediation between all parties regarding Croke Park. The relationship with the residents clearly animates Mr. Keegan. Dublin City Council participated in discussions with Mr. Mulvey. Mr. Keegan is aware that Mr. Mulvey produced his report on 27 June, a week before he issued his decision, and that the report went a very significant way towards addressing the concerns of residents and the long-term relationship between the stadium and the people who live in its shadow, and was widely welcomed. When Mr. Keegan said earlier that more effort should have been made by the promoter and Croke Park to sort out the relationship between the residents, he knew full well that a major consultation and mediation process was under way and that a report had been produced on 27 June. Did that factor in his decision making?

Mr. Jim Keogan

The report the mediator prepared is a separate process. We are dealing with a statutory process which is laid down in law regarding what we can and cannot take into consideration. I understand a parallel process was put in place by the venue managers and the residents groupings to determine whether there could be resolution in the future regarding the ongoing controversies regarding the holding of events generally in Croke Park. The terms of reference of the process did not specify that it was to deal with the five concerts that were the subject of the licence application per se, but to determine how best to move forward.

Had Mr. Keogan read the report before he made his decision?

Mr. Jim Keogan

Yes, but under law it was not for me to take it into consideration, bearing in mind the statutory process.

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee. I agree with Deputy Coffey that we should not play the blame game or to be judge and jury. It is not why I am here. It is a very difficult situation and people are torn, given that we are talking about a concert while many other major issues are ongoing. The issue has dominated the media for the past two weeks and has received an unprecedented amount of attention for an issue of its kind. I was unaware that we had so many Garth Brooks fans in the country. I love going to gigs and concerts and I have been let down in the past when an artist has had to cancel, which is fine. I am disappointed that Aiken Promotions and Garth Brooks could not come to some sort of agreement or meet the council halfway, because many people have been let down.

Mr. Keogan went through a series of phone calls and said there was talk in mid-December of the concerts taking place. By early January the contact was made and the second and third concerts were announced. However, in the phone call of 31 January when Aiken Promotions announced that it wanted a fourth and fifth concert, did the council ask it to hold off on promoting or selling the tickets? By February, all the tickets had been sold. At any point, did the council tell Aiken it had serious reservations about the fourth and fifth concerts and not to go ahead? If not, was it because the legislation was not there and the council could not legally ask Aiken to hold off?

During the five weeks' public consultation process, what work, if any, was done by the council or Aiken to make people aware that there was a problem? Surely, the crisis talks during the past two weeks should have been held during the five-week consultation process when the council knew there was going to be a problem. During the past two or three weeks there have been at least four or five concerts in Marlay Park. I attended one last week and it was bedlam. It caused disruption for people trying to get home at night and to take buses and trains. What is the difference between Marlay Park and Croke Park regarding permission to hold such concerts? Is it purely down to whether or not the residents object? Regarding the signatures, will anything further be done? Is it in the hands of the Garda or will the council take anything on board? What needs to be done to ensure this does not happen again?

Mr. Jim Keogan

On the issue of the discussions, formal or informal, that took place before the sale of the tickets, hindsight is a wonderful thing. If there is anything to be taken out of the legislation, we would all welcome if it were made mandatory for the promoters to hold formal consultation meetings with the licensing authorities before tickets go on sale. That would have resolved many of the issues. We were not asked for an opinion. We were notified, as a statement of fact, of the intent to launch the concerts and sell the tickets.

At any point in the conversation did the council suggest it was not a good idea or that Aiken should hold off?

Mr. Jim Keogan

The nature of the conversation was not to do with the pros and cons of the number of concerts, but just to notify us of Aiken's intent to sell the tickets.

Mr. Owen Keegan

I have some familiarity with Marlay Park, as I was the manager of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. In my experience, there was a more positive relationship between the residents in the immediate area, the promoter and the local authority. There was active engagement and a great deal of pre-consultation. Generally, the residents were on board. While they accepted that there would be a degree of disruption, they were generally supportive. I only recall a very small number of objections to event licence applications being received. There was an intense process of engagement with the residents on the concerts and other issues.

The contrast between the Croke Park situation and other venues is significant. In the case of the former, serious issues remain unresolved and there is a difficult relationship between the Croke Park authorities and residents. The situation might be more difficult for Croke Park because it is in the middle of a residential area, but a great deal more work needs to be done to mediate a degree of agreement among the residents. It emerged recently that there is support for concerts, but significant issues remain to be resolved. The onus is on the promoter and the venue manager to handle that process.

Mr. Keegan believes that it was the duty of Aiken Promotions and Croke Park to ensure during the five-week consultation process that people were satisfied and completely aware of the situation and the fact that there was an issue.

Mr. Owen Keegan

It would be best if this issue was handled externally. Mr. Mulvey's report might provide a basis for a better relationship in future, and I hope it does, but work like this should have been done before such a significant licence application came to the local authority. Even with 40% of complaints discounted, there was a considerable number. It was clear from media coverage, council meetings and area committee meetings that there was a significant degree of disquiet among local residents.

Will the council submit its opinions on the system so as to avoid a recurrence? What is Mr. Keegan's position in that regard?

Mr. Owen Keegan

We will willingly participate in any review. The Minister has announced his intention to undertake a review of the event licensing procedure.

I intend to take two members at a time so that we can get through everyone. Deputy Wallace is next, followed by Deputy O'Donovan.

The council's submission deals mainly with the licensing question, but I would have pointed to planning as the main issue. Mr. Keegan referred to the integrity of the planning system, but can he explain how holding more than three concerts in one year does not break Croke Park's remit under the planning regulations? Mr. Keegan stated that one could apply for a licence for more than three concerts. I have examined the legislation but cannot see that provision. Perhaps Mr. Keegan can point to where it can be found. Did he seek a legal opinion on the issue?

According to Mr. Keegan, three special events or concerts can take place each year without having to obtain event licences. If so, why did One Direction make an application for a licence? It was granted within the rules. Mr. Keegan played on the fact that the licence for three U2 concerts in 2009 was controversial. Regardless of whether people liked it, those concerts were within the planning regulations and, as such, there was no issue with them.

According to Mr. Keegan, an additional concert would not be considered a significant breach of the original permission. Is it for an official to decide how far to bend the law? If it would not have been appropriate to advise the applicant or anyone else of the decision that the local authority intended to make until it had fully processed the licence application, did Mr. Keegan alert the GAA to the planning conditions and the need for a planning amendment to allow for more than three events, a number already used up by One Direction? As CEO of the city council, does Mr. Keegan agree that he is under a significant onus to be proactive rather than reactive in how he manages the city?

I thank the representatives of Dublin City Council for attending. I seek a clarification before I start asking questions. Are the representatives or have they ever been members of the GAA?

Mr. Jim Keogan

I was a member of O'Toole's GAA Club when it was in Seville Place, but it has since moved to the north city. I was also a member of Scoil Uí Conaill GAA Club and played hurling and football for both as a juvenile, having attended the nearby school of St. Canice's CBS and O'Connell school. I also played in Croke Park numerous times as a juvenile.

What about Mr. Keegan?

Mr. Owen Keegan

No.

What about Mr. Downey?

Mr. John Downey

No.

I presume that Mr. Keogan was party to the letter, the part of which relating to our membership or otherwise of the GAA Mr. Keegan has withdrawn, that was sent to committee members last week. Did he know that it was being sent?

Mr. Jim Keogan

I was aware that the CEO was acknowledging the invitation to appear at this meeting.

He has withdrawn the part in question. Other members found it objectionable, but I found it insulting that a CEO of a local authority would cast an aspersion on us by virtue of the fact that some of us are members of the GAA. It smacks of everything that is bad about this entire situation. Other members have merely called Mr. Keegan's judgment into question for sending the letter, but he was out of order to ask us to consider our positions as members of this committee because, for example, I attended the Munster final on Sunday, regardless of the fact that Limerick was unsuccessful. That letter was inappropriate. Mr. Keegan has withdrawn the part in question, but he should also apologise for it.

Mr. Owen Keegan

I certainly apologise if I caused any offence. My position remains that the GAA had a substantial interest in the outcome of this licensing decision. On that basis, some committee members may have felt conflicted.

Did Mr. Keegan ask Dublin City Council's councillors to absent themselves from last week's council meeting if they were also members of the GAA?

Mr. Owen Keegan

No.

Why not? Did Mr. Keegan write to them in advance and ask whether they had a conflict of interest?

Mr. Owen Keegan

No.

Dublin City Council held a meeting last week at which its members presumably put to Mr. Keegan questions similar to ours. He did not ask them whether they had conflicts of interest by virtue of being supporters or members of the GAA, yet it is okay for him to ask that of Members of the Oireachtas. This relates to one of my concerns with this situation, in that it has been shambolic from the start. Deputies Dooley and McDonald went to the core of the issue. To paraphrase Mr. Keegan, he felt he had to be seen to be throw a sop to the residents and reduce the number of concerts from five to four in the hope that they would be happy. Mr. Keegan mentioned that there was a suggestion of a matineé. I have heard some ridiculous suggestions, but the most ridiculous has certainly been the suggestion that 160,000 people converging on Dublin on a Saturday afternoon over and above the numbers who are regularly in Dublin anyway to do their shopping and so forth would in some way have less of an impact than holding five concerts on consecutive nights. How did he rationalise this as a good idea?

Mr. Owen Keegan

I never stated that it was a good idea. I have made it clear at this meeting that it was not my proposal. Rather, it was made by Mr. Peter Aiken of Aiken Promotions.

It was something that the council would consider.

Mr. Owen Keegan

Yes.

Deputy O'Donovan should conclude his questions and Mr. Keegan should answer Deputy Wallace's questions first.

To even suggest that it would be considered is ludicrous. Mr. Keegan also stated that five concerts would have been unprecedented. Given the experience of events at Croke Park, would four consecutive nights, each entailing 80,000 people, not have been regarded as unprecedented? At what point would it have become unprecedented?

In terms of declarations of interest, Mr. Keegan stated that he only became aware that Mr. Keogan owned a property in the area today. Some 400,000 people have been discommoded and God only knows how much damage has been done to the local economy, including for those residents who stated on the news that their children would have worked in the stadium.

Was there ever an intention to ask that officials dealing with the file, given its size, complexity and nature, would declare any interests to the city manager with a view to getting someone else to deal with the matter? Will people have confidence in the local authority to deal with a similar application under the current system if it came across the desks of the witnesses in future? Would they do anything differently, including, for instance, request those considering files to declare any interests in property or otherwise they might have of relevance to such an application?

Mr. Jim Keogan

Deputy Wallace raised the issue of the legality of consideration of an additional concert beyond the three permitted under the original 1993 permission for the redevelopment of Croke Park. I refer the Deputy to section 240 of the Planning and Development Acts which provides:

240.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), the holding of an event to which this Part applies and works directly or solely relating to the holding of such an event shall not be construed as “development” within the meaning of this Act.

(2) (a) Notwithstanding section 230 or 239 , the provisions of this Part shall not affect the validity of any planning permission granted under Part IV of the Act of 1963 for the holding of an event or events or for a funfair.

(b) Where a planning permission referred to in paragraph (a) has been granted for the holding of an event or events in respect of land, a licence under this Part shall be required for the holding of any additional event on the land concerned.

The legislation is quite clear that it is quite within the rights of the venue owners or event promoters to lodge an application under the event licensing process for an event in addition to the three that were granted permission under the 1993 planning permission. The Deputy referred to submissions and a licence being lodged for the three. What he is actually referring to is the requirement under the same condition to submit compliance documentation. It was the compliance documentation submitted that was adjudicated on by the planning department in relation to the three events. That is separate to any additional event which is dealt with under the provisions of the legislation I have just outlined.

The Deputy asked about a precedent of three, four or five. The maximum number of events in Croke Park to date was in 2009, in respect of which application I was the decision maker. Nobody raised issues in relation to potential conflicts of interest or bias on the basis that I spent my first 25 years of life living in Ballybough. The issue of a material breach was also raised. There is no material breach per se in the condition. There is a grant of permission. What we are trying to emphasise is how we might be able to give consideration to the level of intensification and what would be the appropriate number. It is a delicate balancing act. It is very fair to say from this morning's discussions that it is a complex issue and there are a number of matters that arise. Events are not the same development under the planning Acts. There is a wording in the legislation that indicates for the purposes of interpretation of planning Acts, an event should not be classed as development. Consequently, we do not assess an event having regard to the proper planning and development of an area and we do not assess it having regard to the development plan. We assess it having regard to what is laid down in the provisions in five or six areas. That is submissions received from an applicant, submissions received from statutory bodies, submissions received from the public, the consideration of same and what emerges out of that. We are governed by a very different set of strictures. What we were trying to achieve here was a reasonable balance between the competing interests, bearing in mind the impact on the city and on the surrounding area. We felt that three was appropriate and is fair, reasonable and balanced.

Mr. Owen Keegan

On Deputy O'Donovan's questions, most independent outside observers could have confidence in my capacity to provide leadership to the local authority on the basis that the statutory procedures were applied correctly in this case and the decision reached was appropriate, balanced and reasonable having regard to all competing interests.

Mr. Keegan said that while there would still only be three concerts, there would be five separate audiences according to the submission which was made later and that this would have allowed everyone who bought a ticket to go to a concert on Friday, Saturday or Sunday. When was that taken off the table?

Mr. Owen Keegan

The proposal came from Aiken Promotions which came back later in the day to say it was not a runner. It never went anywhere.

Is that even though it was being considered by the local authority?

Mr. Owen Keegan

No. What we said was that if they wanted to consider that, we would consider it. It did not arise as Aiken could not get the agreement of Garth Brooks.

In his earlier submission, Mr. Keegan said "Under the proposal the city council would consider an updated event management plan to be submitted in accordance with the licence whereby three concerts would proceed but the Sunday and Saturday concerts would start earlier". At some stage, he must have thought it was a good idea.

Mr. Owen Keegan

Let me be quite clear. They made the proposal at a meeting convened by a senior civil servant, myself and Peter Aiken. Peter Aiken made the proposal to me and I asked if there was consultation with the Garda to see if it would be happy. I was told the Garda would be. I said that was fine and if it was wished to send in an event management plan on that basis, we would certainly consider it. We would still have to approve it. It emerged later in the day that they were not in a position-----

At no stage did Mr. Keegan say to Peter Aiken "This is a bad idea."

Mr. Owen Keegan

No. He is the promoter and it is for him to decide what he wants to propose. We would have had to get our events licensing people to assess it. I said I would be prepared to consider it.

I welcome Mr. Keegan and his officials. Mr. Keegan used the phrase "from the outside looking in". We are here to be informed as to how the local authority arrived at its decisions. In respect of something as significant as this it seemed chaotic. There were many twists and turns in the licence application from all sides. It became a circus and it is helpful to get some clarity from at least the authority's point of view as to how it arrived at its decision.

Listening to the approach that has been taken and noting the statutory requirements, I see that the local authority has been doing this for some time. It deals with applications as they arise. It is the same way. It considers disruption, the views of residents and all the other issues which are taken into account. It is difficult to understand why there is no over-riding blueprint. I acknowledge that Mr. Keegan has said events are detached from development. Why is there no plan whereby promoters, event management, the authority, councillors and residents can feed in and be part of an overall process? It could be the same process to be reviewed, voted on by elected representatives thereby providing at least some indication in advance to stakeholders what the policy in Dublin city on events is. If there are three concerts in one venue, one goes through one process. If it goes over that, it is an entirely different process. That is difficult to explain to people looking in at this one. It is going back to a decision of An Bord Pleanála.

In deliberating on and arriving at the decision, different consultations were cited. Is there a planning team that makes recommendations in Dublin City Council comprising a broader, extended internal committee? In this instance, I refer to Mr. Keogan. Does Dublin City Council have a strategic policy committee for event management only? If so, how often does it meet and has it made recommendations? This is not the first big gig Dublin City Council has dealt with. We had the 2009 one which Mr. Keegan said was controversial. Has the council learned anything from that? Could we move the process on in-house to provide more certainty in advance?

There was a distinct lack of pre-decision consultation, whether it was informal or formal. I do not see any evidence of minuted meetings. Would Mr. Keegan not think it would be good practice to minute meetings, particularly when there are more than three or four stakeholders and all the residents? It would make sense to invite the stakeholders for a formal pre-planning minuted meeting in order to have better transparency in the whole issue.

I am pleased that the letter was withdrawn. I find it curious that that would be asked. I am a member of a very small GAA club, 240 miles from Croke Park. I am not sure whether that is a conflict. We are aware of our obligations under the legislation and it often happens that Members will declare conflicts and declare interests. I am pleased that has been withdrawn. The witnesses have outlined their position regarding the residents and their own interests. Are they Garth Brooks fans? Do they have his DVDs, CDs, iTunes downloads and all the rest of it?

After last night's announcement the horse has well and truly bolted and the barn door is closed. The explanations being offered to the committee today are riddled with contradictions. To compare it to a football match, this is akin to what happened between Germany and Brazil, with many own goals scored by the management of Dublin City Council.

Last week a senior member of the Garda stated at an Oireachtas committee meeting that they have no difficulties in terms of logistics for the five concerts or in terms of security provision. That is a well-known fact and it is a vital matter in the organisation of these five concerts.

Having been a member of Kerry County Council, I know that the now retired Kerry county manager, Mr. Tom Curran, always regarded his role as manager as being proactive in economic activity, particularly in the provision of jobs in tourism. I believe Dublin City Council management has lost sight of that. It would not happen in my county. A proposal for something similar to the Garth Brooks concerts in Fitzgerald Stadium in Killarney, for instance, would be welcomed with open arms. Any snags that might exist would be removed. This has been a disaster to put it mildly. Would the representatives of Dublin City Council present regard it as being a major faux pas, a huge mistake and a huge loss economically?

In recent years we have retrieved our reputation which had been in tatters in the eyes of the world because of our economic and financial situation. However, I think this has done major damage worldwide, particularly to the image of Ireland as a tourist destination.

Mr. Jim Keogan

I agree with Deputy Harrington's point. There is considerable merit in his suggestion to bring forward to the elected members of the city council a strategy and a plan identifying our position on the numbers of events in venues. We are fortunate in having in the city a number of venues that are capable of holding large concerts. It would be appropriate that we would outline our strategy.

Does Mr. Keogan not believe that should have been done some time ago?

Mr. Jim Keogan

We need to bear in mind that for the purposes of the Act it is not classified as a development. On a regular basis we would bring forward plans and particulars to the city council for its consideration. However, we are in a very different area here and there is a degree of flexibility among the music promoters regarding event licensing. Many of them have different contractual arrangements in place with different venues around the city. We could not bring anything into play that might adversely affect that.

The Deputy referred to pre-application consultation. We have already said today that hindsight would suggest to us that we would be very much hoping that it would be mandatory that formal pre-application consultations with minutes taken would take place with promoters prior to any tickets going on sale. I think that should be one of the key priority areas of the review of the legislative provisions that the Minister is considering. We would very much welcome that kind of arrangement.

As regard the structures we have in place, Mr. John Downey is the designated event co-ordinator. His responsibility is to work with the various agencies, promoters, and venue owners and managers to co-ordinate the events. He does that very successfully. He has developed a great relationship with the various bodies and agencies that oversee the process because the process is hugely important to the economy of the city. However, it is only through Mr. Downey's dedication that we get very good results. We had issues with particular venues over the years and Mr. Downey, through his dedication, has put in place protocols and procedures with the various agencies and representatives of the residents' groups to ensure these issues are resolved satisfactorily. Regarding Croke Park, we have not managed to come to a conclusion as to the agreed way forward with regard to, for example, community representation and consultation.

Deputy Tom Fleming raised the issue of the economic aspects of it. I will ask Mr. Keegan to deal with that.

Mr. Owen Keegan

Before that, the issue of a senior garda stating - I do not know if it was at the Committee of Public Accounts - that they had no issue is not relevant in that the decision-making authority on an event is the city council. We are required to have regard to the impact on residents and to submissions made. We never implied that the Garda would have a difficulty policing five concerts, so that was not the basis of our decisions. However, we must have regard for the interests of residents and we have done that on this occasion.

The Deputy suggested that I am inactive in terms of economic activity. I believe that the decision to permit three concerts, which is a 50% increase on the maximum number we ever gave before, represents the council being very proactive in facilitating or promoting economic development. I do not accept the suggestion that we made major mistakes just because we had regard to the concerns of residents. I believe the procedure was correctly applied and we reached an appropriate, balanced and reasonable decision having regard to all the competing interests.

I believe that management was more or less accepting four concerts. Surely one more was not a bridge too far in view of the overall effects when we consider the loss to the people who invested in tickets, including 70,000 from abroad. We will not get that opportunity again in the very near future.

Mr. Owen Keegan

I have already explained why there was a very significant difference between four and five. I very much regret that I even went that distance because I think it undermined our case to some extent.

I did it in good faith, just to show how committed I am to get this event running. It was not accepted by the other side and I am much happier with the decision we made to grant three licences.

I will begin by stating my abhorrence at what Mr. Keegan stated in the last paragraph in his letter to the committee. As a member of the GAA for many years, and one of the few members of this committee who has had the thrill of playing in Croke Park several times, fadó, fadó, I have had no conflict of interest whatsoever. I accept Mr. Keegan’s withdrawal and apology.

Why does Mr. Keegan believe there was no need for a pre-consultation process? How early were the promoters aware that the granting of a licence for the five concerts was not on the agenda? Selling 400,000 tickets was a clear indication that there would need to be five concerts. If the promoters were aware that three was the maximum number of concert licences to be granted, why did they go ahead and sell 240,000 extra tickets?

Mr. Keegan indicated there were 384 objections to the concerts by residents. Eleven of these indicated their submissions were not made by them. I find it hard to believe that 384 people objected, whether individually or on behalf of others. I know of a case where a person objected to a certain development in a certain county. Twelve months later, his name was used for an objection and the fee for it was paid on his behalf. Is there a fee for objections made to Dublin City Council? I take exception to anyone telling a local authority what they will or will not accept. I accept Mr. Keegan does not have the authority to verify the objectors.

This has done our reputation as a welcoming nation major damage. While I did not see it referred to on CNN, this fiasco has been highly damaging to our tourism reputation. It is a major loss to the economy of our capital city. Mr. Keegan has a role as city manager in promoting tourism and, in fairness, he is doing that. The Government is encouraging international events to take place in this country such as American football games, rugby world cup matches and so on. This decision is a major tourism and economic loss to our capital city and our country.

I welcome the representatives from Dublin City Council. This whole sequence of events going back to January has been a farce. I note the media this morning stated Mr. Garth Brooks is now blaming the rules as the reason he is not coming to Ireland. I know if he were driving across Interstate 40 in Oklahoma, doing 80 mph, and was pulled in by the cops, he would certainly appreciate the rules of the road over there.

I smell a rat in all of this and the rat is money. I cannot understand that when no licence was granted and no event management plan submitted, tickets for a concert were still sold. Walking up Grafton Street this morning, I know the ladies selling flowers there would not be allowed to do so if they did not have a permit. Licences are usually granted while the process is going through. I believe the contract of trust between the promoter and Dublin City Council or the trust between the promoter and Croke Park has been broken. There seems to be some sort of a nod and a wink going on in this case.

The rat in the room is the €40 million in ticket sales alone that is now in someone’s bank account. That money becomes more valuable over the time it is being utilised in that account. There is a contract between Mr. Brooks and the promoter, as well as one between the promoter and the GAA. Yet, there is no contract with Dublin City Council in all of this. Dublin City Council is now getting all the blame because the concerts will not take place. If it had granted permission for five concerts and there was a major catastrophe during one of them, it would also have got the blame for granting the licence. Does the blame fall with Mr. Brooks, Aiken Promotions or the GAA? Somebody seems to be bullying Dublin City Council to give the five concerts, even after three concerts were held by One Direction.

Where do we go from here? What is the ideal timeframe for a licence to be granted to ensure this does not happen again? Should we make sure that tickets are not sold until a licence has been fully granted?

Mr. Jim Keogan

To respond to Senator Terry Brennan, no formal pre-consultation meetings with the promoter took place. I cannot provide reasons but the onus is on the promoter to seek a meeting with us. There is a provision in place to have such a meeting and Dublin City Council would welcome such a meeting.

On the second issue raised by the Senator, which Senator Eamonn Coghlan also raised, we would very much welcome a review of the legislation that would give consideration to introducing a mandatory pre-application consultation before tickets are sold. The issue of selling tickets before a permit has been granted is a separate matter on which I believe there will be a broader debate. There should, however, be a frank discussion with the licensing authority before any commitment is made to sell a ticket. That is the major lesson to be learned from this process.

Mr. Owen Keegan

I believe I was being invited to blame other parties and I do not want to do that. I see my role as one of explaining the city council's part in this process and trying to convince members, however unsuccessfully, that we discharged our statutory duties in an appropriate manner and reached a balanced and fair decision.

I sincerely thank Mr. Keegan, Mr. Keogan and Mr. Downey from Dublin City Council for their attendance and engagement with the joint committee. Tomorrow morning, the joint committee will meet representatives of the GAA and Aiken Promotions on the same topic. I propose to suspend until 5 p.m. when we will meet representatives of the Independent Broadcasters of Ireland. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 1.10 p.m. and resumed at 5 p.m.
Top
Share