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. 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 of 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 issues 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.