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.