Mr. Owen Keegan:

I welcome the opportunity to appear before the joint committee again to respond to the evidence given to it last Wednesday by Aiken Promotions and the GAA and address additional questions members might have. I assure them, the media and the general public, particularly in the light of considerable media reporting, that the city council operated fully and appropriately within the planning and event licensing laws laid down by the Houses of the Oireachtas, as was its duty.
A number of very serious issues were raised at the meeting attended by the representatives of the GAA and Aiken Promotions and, for the sake of clarity, I wish to respond to some of them at this point. I will deal, first, with the submission of Mr. Peter Aiken.
At point No. 10 of his statement Mr. Aiken states as follows:

On Wednesday, 12 February, a meeting was held with Dublin City Council. I was accompanied by the event controller and the licensing and safety officer of Aiken Promotions. Attending the meeting from the council was the city manager, the executive manager and the licensing officer. The meeting was constructive. Dublin City Council did inform us that it would be a big ask to do five consecutive days at Croke Park and that it would be looking for additionality to the standard arrangements to address the impact on the local community. We also discussed the timeframe for submitting the licence application and the potential benefits to the city.

The meeting referred to by Mr. Aiken was unrelated to the Garth Brooks concerts. While the meeting did take place, its purpose was to discuss compliance issues associated with events at the RDS where Mr. Aiken was the promoter. At the end of the meeting Mr. Aiken brought up the issue of the proposed Garth Brooks concerts. Mr. Aiken has acknowledged that the city council told him that five concerts on consecutive days would be "a big ask."

This should have alerted Mr. Aiken, an experienced concert promoter, to the fact that there was no certainty regarding the outcome of the licensing process for the Garth Brooks concerts.
At point No. 16 of his statement Mr. Aiken states:

On 3 April, I met with Bob Doyle and rest of the Garth Brooks team in Nashville. They did make a general enquiry about the status of the licence. I relayed to them that Peter McKenna had spoken to the City Manager and he had been told we would get the licence for the 5 shows.

At no stage did I advise Mr. McKenna that a licence would issue for the five shows. Neither Mr. Duffy nor Mr. McKenna in their statements or oral evidence to the committee on Wednesday indicated that I had advised Mr. McKenna - at any stage - that they would get a licence for five shows. I will deal with this matter further when I respond to the written statement submitted by Mr. Duffy.
At point No. 24 of his statement, dealing with my telephone conversation with Mr. Jim Clarke on 2 July, Mr. Aiken states:

Shortly after, the City Manager made contact again with a firm offer to grant the licence for 4 Shows [and] I relayed this response to the Event Controller who asked that Garth's position be considered by the Council and a view on this conveyed back to us before 1.00 pm that day.

When I informed Mr. Clarke late on the evening of 2 July that the likelihood was that only three concerts would be permitted, he asked for time to consult Mr. Aiken and Mr. Brooks. Mr. Clarke rang me back later that night to say 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 fulfil the four concerts. I gave no commitment to Mr. Clarke in this regard and, therefore, it is completely inappropriate to have referred to this as a firm offer; it was not. Early on the morning of Thursday, 3 July - at approximately 7.30 a.m. and before any conversation took 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 the offer I had made to discuss the possibility of a fourth concert with Mr. Keogan and the decision was made to grant the licence for three concerts. Since I had already conveyed the council's position to Mr. Clarke during our 7.30 a.m. conversation, the issue of getting back to him before 1 p.m. that day did not arise.
At point No. 27 of his statement, dealing with my meeting with him on 9 July, Mr. Aiken states:

During that meeting, in desperation to resolve the issue and without due consideration or any consultation with Garth Brooks, I put forward a number of different suggestions to see what, if any, options the Council would be willing to review or if the matter was closed from all angles. This included doing 5 Concerts as originally planned, early shows on Monday and Tuesday and also, the issue of matinées on Saturday and Sunday.

It should be noted that Mr. Aiken now accepts that the idea of matinée shows on Saturday and Sunday came from him, not the city council.
In his conclusions Mr. Aiken states, "I accept the procedure and that the elements of process were correctly followed but I feel that the decision making process was not 'reasonable, balanced or fair' and that the decision was wrong." It should be noted that Mr. Aiken, the promoter, now accepts that the event licensing procedure was correctly applied in this case by the city council. Clearly, he is unhappy with the council's decision. However, it is not unusual for an applicant, in a planning or event licensing process, not to be happy with the decision on a particular application.
I will now deal with the submission of Mr. Páraic Duffy. On page 1 of his statement he refers to the Garth Brook concerts being the "great celebratory experience of the summer of 2014." He also states "An irresistible social force took over, and suddenly five concerts had sold out, and 400,000 tickets had been sold." An irresistible social force taking over may or may not have been the case. It is, in terms of the licensing framework laid down by statute, irrelevant. While it stirs an emotive narrative, it does not alter the fact that Aiken Promotions was obliged to submit an event licence application for the five concerts and that the city council had to apply the statutory licensing procedure in assessing that application. The legislative framework permits no other approach.
On page 1 of his statement Mr. Duffy indicates that they had "concerns about the impact on the local community of a larger than usual number of concerts taking place on successive evenings. These concerns were allayed somewhat by several factors." One of the factors quoted by him was the fact that "concert licences in Dublin have never been declined." The fact that Dublin City Council had never previously refused to issue an event licence to Croke Park should not have been interpreted by the GAA as indicating that it would have no difficulty in getting an event licence for the proposed five concerts on consecutive nights. This was especially the case as the maximum number of special events-concerts held in any previous year at Croke park had been four and that the maximum number of consecutive concerts in any previous year had been three. The event licence being sought on this occasion was for five concerts on consecutive nights, in addition to the three One Direction concerts already held this year under Croke Park's planning permission.
On page 2 of his submission Mr. Duffy states:

On the other hand, there are two unpalatable facts that have to be faced up to: first, not all of those who objected most vociferously to the concerts even live in the area adjacent to Croke Park, and, second, many of the objections lodged with Dublin City Council were fraudulent. In addition, it has to be recognised, and is now clear, that the majority of residents in the area were not opposed to staging five concerts ... We totally respect the rights of all residents, but I think it's important that we do not fall into a facile supposition of the big organisation bullying the little man.

On page 7 of his submission Mr. Duffy states, "It would appear, however, that Dublin City Council was swayed by the submissions it received that objected to the holding of five concerts" and "It is not unreasonable to assume there may have been many more fraudulent submissions, given what was quite clearly an orchestrated campaign to prevent a licence for five concerts, through fair means or foul." In the statutory event licensing process Dublin City Council is obliged to consider all submissions it receives from members of the public. The right to make a submission is not restricted to residents living close to Croke Park. The city council is not aware of any evidence to support the claim made by Mr. Duffy that it was clear "that the majority of residents in the area were not opposed to staging five concerts." It must be guided by the submissions it receives as part of the public consultation process provided for under the statutory licensing procedure. It has no choice.
In any public consultation process under legislation it is the actual content of the submissions made that is considered by the decision maker in helping him or her to reach a decision. While the number of persons making the same point may indicate a strong view among the public, the decision maker must still assess the validity of the point being made in reaching his or her decision. Whether there are five, 15 or 500 submissions, Dublin City Council must take account of the views expressed in the submissions. The volume or absolute number is not the issue. In this instance, there were 384 submissions made by the public, etc. The number of submissions was significantly higher than in respect of any previous special event or concert in Croke Park subject to the event licensing procedure. Each submission was individually acknowledged where an address or e-mail details had been provided. In response to these acknowledgements, 11 persons contacted the city council to state they had not made submissions. These submissions were not considered and the matter was referred to An Garda Síochána for investigation. It was, I stress, the city council which initiated the contact with the Garda to have the matter of suspect submissions investigated.
While it may be reasonable to assume that more than 11 suspect submissions were lodged at the time, it would be totally unreasonable on that basis to ignore all of the submissions made by the public and we have no right to so do. It would, in fact, be in breach of the statutory process. Based on an investigation of a sample of 200 submissions, 64% have been assessed as "not suspect" by An Garda Síochána. The primary issue of concern in all of the submissions was the level of disruption that would arise from the holding of the five concerts. In the report on the licence application, prepared by Dublin City Council's designated event co-ordinator, which was endorsed by the decision maker, three reasons are advanced for only granting three of the five concerts proposed. The first relates to the scale, magnitude and number of concerts, with an expected attendance of 80,000 people per night for five consecutive nights, three of which would have been week nights.

The second relates to the fact that three concerts had already taken place in Croke Park this year from 23 to 25 May. In doing so it referred to the fact that Croke Park is located in a heavy populated residential area and that five shows in a row following on from the three concerts already held this year would be considered an over-intensification of use of the stadium for concert events. The third reason relates to the accumulative 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 their lives and livelihoods for those five or more days.
The report states that in arriving at this decision:

The Planning Authority has carefully considered any information sent in by the applicants, any submissions from the prescribed bodies, submissions/observations received within the statutory period, whether events have previously been held on the land concerned, the matters referred to in Section 231(4) of the Planning & Development Act 2000 (as amended), any relevant Ministerial codes of practice or guidelines, the information outlined/exchanged at the event-related meetings that the Planning Authority had attended associated with the application, any other information received at the request of the Planning Authority.

Section 231(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 specifically requires the local authority, in assessing an event licence application, to have regard to "the avoidance or minimisation of disruption to the neighbourhood in which the event is to take place". Even if no submissions were received, we would be required to consider this matter. Although important, the submissions-observations made by the public are only one of the matters that must be considered by the city council in reaching its decision. While a percentage of those submissions-observations have been found to be suspect, the majority remain valid. The main issue raised in all submissions, which was the disruption that would arise from the holding of five consecutive concerts, was one which the decision-maker was required in any event to take into account.
The council is of the view there was a failure on the part of the GAA-Aiken Promotions to address the legitimate concerns of residents. This failure was evidenced by a number of public meetings of residents where strong opposition was expressed to the proposed five concerts and by the large number of objections to the proposed concerts submitted under the public consultation process as part of the event licensing process. At a number of public meetings senior officials of the GAA acknowledged that the proposal to hold five concerts on consecutive nights was "too big an ask of local residents" and a "mistake". Mr. Páraic Duffy, director general of the GAA reflected the genuine concerns of local residents when before any decision had been made on the event licence application, he stated on the RTE news on 27 June 2014: "We accept that to have eight concerts this year is asking too much of our residents". That is a direct quote of what he said. The fact that Mr. Duffy acknowledged publicly that eight concerts was asking too much of local residents totally undermines the GAA's criticism of Dublin City Council for taking account of the concerns of the same local residents and approving only three of the five requested concerts. Indeed, his comments actually support the view that in granting three concerts the council had reached an appropriate, balanced and fair decision based on all the factors raised during the statutory process.
On page 4 of his submission Mr. Duffy states: "During our discussions with DCC, the impact of five shows on local residents was always raised". This again confirms the city council's position that the impact of the five consecutive shows on local residents was consistently raised. Mr. Duffy further states on page 4 of his submission: "I must stress the absolutely vital point that at no stage was there even a hint that a licence would not be granted for all five concerts". On page 5 of his submission, Mr. Duffy states: "At no stage was Croke Park alerted to the need to prepare contingency plans for a smaller number of concerts". As I outlined in my statement to the committee on Tuesday, it would not have been appropriate for any officer of the city council to indicate the likely outcome of the event licensing process or to alert Croke Park of the need to prepare contingency plans until that process had been completed. To do so would have exposed the council to the very real possibility of legal action. The city council did indicate consistently throughout the process that it had concerns regarding the impact of the proposed five consecutive concerts on local residents.
On page 4 of his submission Mr. Duffy states:

In their phone conversation, Mr. Keegan advised Peter McKenna that Dublin City Council would support a licence application for all five concerts. Mr. Keegan asked Peter McKenna to make the decision-making process as easy as possible for DCC.

I returned a telephone call to Mr. McKenna early in February 2014 in which I indicated to him that I would be supportive of the Garth Brooks concerts. The city council had previously been supportive of special events-concerts in Croke Park and supports special events-concerts at other venues across the city because of the benefits to the city. As chief executive, I am always supportive of events which add value to the city. However, I gave absolutely no assurance nor could I have given any assurance at that stage that all five concerts would be licensed because no event licence application had been submitted in respect of the concerts. Mr. McKenna was fully aware of the event licensing process and must have known that any decision on a licence application would have to follow the statutory process and be informed by that process, including any submissions by members of the public etc. which, of course, had not been received at that point.
On page 6 of his submission Mr Duffy states:

Despite our excellent record of running concerts in Croke Park, despite Dublin City Council's praise for our running of the One Direction concerts, despite the quality of the submission and total commitment to formulating the licence application according to the letter of the law, and despite a long-standing relationship with Dublin City Council, apparently we did not even deserve the courtesy of being allowed to consider, and possibly address, the grounds for the refusal to grant a licence for five concerts.

The Oireachtas has laid down the event licensing procedure which was applied by the city council in this case. There is no provision for the applicant to be allowed address the reasons for refusal of a licence, once a decision has been made on the application. There is also no appeal mechanism. I accept that when this is presented in a certain manner, it may appear unreasonable but this is the law. It is not an area in which Dublin City Council has any discretion.
On page 8 of his submission Mr Duffy states:

What DCC actually says is that potential benefits are, I quote, "not central" in its decision-making. That does not seem to say that economic benefits are not considered at all, only that DCC does not seem to consider them very important in considering licence applications. If only DCC had done so on this occasion.

and, "Moreover, we made a decision that can be considered undemocratic, in that the wishes of a truly enormous number of people were ignored". The criteria to be considered in assessing an event licence application are set out in the relevant legislation. These criteria were applied in this case. In any event, the council is satisfied that it had regard to the economic benefits to the city of the Garth Brooks concerts when it decided to licence three of the five concerts. The issue of the decision being democratic or undemocratic simply does not arise. Yet again, I must advise members that Dublin City Council followed the procedures set down in the legal framework, within which it must operate.
I want to assure members and the public of three key issues. First, the integrity of the statutory event licensing framework is paramount. I am satisfied that the city council, in its assessment of the Garth Brook concerts event licence application, upheld the integrity of the laws under which it must operate. Second, while there has been a huge, and to some degree understandable emotive narrative around aspects of these concerts, had the city council not operated within the legal framework it would have been subject to legal challenge for its failure to do so. Third, I am confident that few people in the Houses of the Oireachtas or the wider public want a planning-licensing system which gives a free reign to certain vested interests or one which operates on the basis old style understandings. Our job was to apply the legal framework diligently and fairly to ensure the correct process is followed in this and every other planning or licence application. We did this in the case of the Garth Brooks concerts application.
Are the event licensing laws fit for purpose? As members will be aware, the Minister has indicated his intention to review the legal framework. The city council welcomes this and will contribute fully to any review established by the Minister. In the meantime, we will, and must, comply with and implement the existing rules. I want to reiterate the conclusions to my statement to the committee on Tuesday. If the integrity of the planning system is to be maintained, it is important that the interests of no single individual or organisation, regardless how cherished a place they occupy in the hearts of the nation, is allowed to unduly influence that system. The genuine concerns of local residents, which were a factor in the city council's decision, cannot, and should not, be disregarded, notwithstanding the short-term commercial or economic arguments for doing so.
Mr. Páraic Duffy, director general of the GAA reflected the genuine concerns of local residents when he stated on the RTE News on 27 June 2014, before any decision had been made on the event licence application: "We accept that to have eight concerts this year is asking too much of our residents". The fact that Mr. Duffy acknowledged publicly that eight concerts was asking too much of local residents totally undermines his criticism of Dublin City Council for taking account of the concerns of local resident and only approving three of the five requested concerts.

I am satisfied that the statutory event licensing procedure was applied correctly in this particular case by the city council and the decision reached was appropriate, balanced and reasonable, having regard to all the competing interests. Nothing that has occurred since the decision was made has changed my opinion that it was appropriate, balanced and reasonable. The council would welcome an independent, impartial and objective review of all aspects of its handling of this licence application.