FLOOD TRIBUNAL: The Flood tribunal has begun taking direct evidence on controversial rezoning decisions made by Dublin county councillors during the review of the county development plan in the 1990s.
Before hearing evidence from the lobbyist Mr Frank Dunlop, who has alleged that dozens of councillors were bribed in return for their votes on rezonings, the tribunal is to hear evidence from council officials who helped draw up the plan.
Yesterday, Ms Sinead Collins, a former administrative official in the council, gave evidence regarding the meetings held by councillors when drawing up the plan. Responding to questions from Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal, Ms Collins also reviewed the voting record of councillors on motions relating to the development of the Carrickmines Valley in south Dublin.
She also identified whether or not the councillors who spoke on Carrickmines represented the area.
Ms Collins said she believed the Dublin county plan was basically ready when a draft went on display in June 1991. However, the tribunal has heard evidence that county councillors spent a further two years dealing with representations, including rezoning motions, and the final plan was not agreed until December 1993.
Ms Collins worked in Dublin Corporation for 24 years and was centrally involved in the review of the Dublin County Development Plan between 1987 and 1993.
She said it was her understanding that the plan had been agreed, subject to changes from the community, when the draft went on display. She didn't expect there would be any major changes.
The council was required to review the plan every five years, she said. There was a statutory duty to make a new plan by 1988; however, this process was not completed until the end of 1993. In all, the Minister for the Environment acceded to seven requests from the council for time extensions. The witness agreed with a report from the county manager from April 1992 which stated that Dublin county already had sufficient land zoned for housing. The zoning of substantial additional lands could not be justified except where there was a "local deficiency".
During the preparation of the plan, councillors considered 14 working papers prepared by officials during 11 meetings. After the draft plan went on view, there were almost 24,000 objections and oral hearings were organised.
Meetings of the council took place in a chamber designed for 36 members, officials and some media. However, after 1985, membership of the council had risen to 78, all of whom had to be accommodated in the room.
The tribunal viewed photographs of the council chamber and a sketch of the council chamber with the seating layout as it used to be in the early 1990s. It also displayed a photograph of Conways pub, which is on Parnell Street, about 250 metres from the back entrance to the council building.
Mr Gallagher said it had been alleged that some council members spent much of their time in the pub, where they would be rounded up for votes at roll-call breaks called during meetings.
Ms Collins, who attended most of the meetings during this period, said she had no personal knowledge of this.
