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 sein 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.