Você está na página 1de 1154

1

09:42:12

1

THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS ON TUESDAY,

2

4TH JULY 2006, AT 11.30 AM:

3

4

MR. QUINN: Morning sir, Mr. Sweeney please.

11:34:51

5

6

EDWARD SWEENEY, PREVIOUSLY SWORN, CONTINUED TO BE

7

QUESTIONED AS FOLLOWS, BY MR. QUINN:

8

9

CHAIRMAN:

Morning Mr. Sweeney.

11:35:04 10

A.

Morning.

 

11

Q.

1

Good morning Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Sweeney on Friday we had dealt with Monarch's

12

involvement with Mr. Dunlop or indeed Mr. Dunlop's involvement with Monarch, in

13

1993 and in the lead up to the vote on the 11th November 1993 and I thought

14

this morning that we might start with Monarch's involvement with GRE in the

11:35:29

15

lead up to that vote. If I could have 4493?

16

17

This is a letter, written by you, Mr. Sweeney, to Mr. Baker on the 2nd of

18

September 1993 and as I say, it's in anticipation of the up coming vote. And

19

in that letter you will see that you confirm that the matter -- that a review

11:35:51

20

of the Development Plan would commence in north County Dublin and that the vote

21

in Cherrywood would be taken in November or December '93 and you were

22

absolutely correct, it was taken on the 11th November, 1993.

23

24

And you go on in the second paragraph to say, "Throughout the summer the staff

11:36:06

25

have kept in contact with members of the Council with a view to towards holding

26

support and encouraging additional support for the proposal. We have

27

conscientiously reviewed the position of each member of the Council against a

28

number of backgrounds and the possibility of using whatever means, or personnel

29

necessary to ensure sufficient support on the day".

11:36:25

30

Can I just ask you to explain to the tribal what you intended to convey by that

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

2

11:36:30

1

expression Mr. Sweeney?

2

A.

Is that on the first page?

3

Q.

2

Yes, the second paragraph on the first page.

4

A.

By whatever means?

11:36:36

5

Q.

3

Yes.

6

A.

I suppose what I meant was, whatever means. I don't have any further

7

explanation for that.

8

Q.

4

Well, were there any other means other than lobbying used by Monarch personnel

9

in relation to ensuring that the Council voting in favour of the proposal?

11:37:00 10

A.

No.

 

11

Q.

5

I think in the letter then you go on to say that, "We had a strategy in place

12

to deal with the Development Plan, had the decision to start in South County

13

Dublin" can I ask you what strategy had you in place had the decision been to

14

start the review in south County Dublin?

11:37:19

15

A.

I don't quite understand that.

16

Q.

6

The middle paragraph and it's, you will see just commencing with the words --

17

highlighted now.

18

A.

What I take that to mean really is, that the timing was very difficult to

19

forecast and I suppose as the timing changed, strategies had to change, things

11:37:49

20

had to be brought forward.

21

Q.

7

Now I think you were critical of the support you were getting from GRE in

22

relation to the Business Park and the final paragraph on that first page you

23

expressed your disappointment that no one had from GRE had attended a

24

conference in Montpelier, isn't that right?

11:38:12 25

A.

Yes.

 

26

Q.

8

But you had deemed that conference to be useful and in particular in relation

27

to the relationship of one of the principal councillors, what councillor were

28

you referring to there and how did you feel that the attendance at the

29

conference was of assistance in relation to that councillor?

11:38:30

30

A.

Any of the councillors that I met really, were very interested in the concept

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

3

11:38:38

1

of a Science and Technology Park, particularly Eamon Gilmore and also Donal

2

Marren were very interested in it. I think that's the ones I mean and I have

3

to say Chairman, I was really flying the flag for the Science and Technology

4

Park and what I am really saying there is that, I didn't feel that my pleas to

11:39:14

5

them or whatever, my description of what was going on, I felt that was boring

6

them when I was talking about the Science and Technology Park and they didn't

7

really take it fully on board until much later, by which time they came on with

8

remarkable enthusiasm.

9

Q.

9

Now if I could have 4494, this is the second page of that letter and the final

11:39:38

10

paragraph there you say "I set out on the attached cost projections to the

11

first January 1994, some of which will be critical to the success or otherwise,

12

of Cherrywood." and we see those cost projections if we look at 4209, these are

13

your view as of September 1993, of the likely costs involved throughout the

14

latter part of 1993, isn't that right?

11:40:05 15

A.

Yes.

 

16

Q.

10

Now the headings as we see here, Mr. Sweeney, who would have provided those

17

headings for you?

18

A.

I believe they would have come up by talking to the various people who were

19

involved in the project.

11:40:26

20

Q.

11

Within Monarch?

21

A.

Yes.

22

Q.

12

And we see the first one is management fee, between September and December '93

23

you estimated 120,000, which I work-out at about 30,000 a month, were you, was

24

there an agreement that Monarch would be paid a management fee of about 30,000

11:40:40

25

per month?

26

A.

I can't recall if there was an agreement, but I have to say Chairman that a lot

27

of expense was being made at the time by Monarch and it was my feeling that it

28

wasn't being adequately met by GRE and I was at pains to try to maximise the

29

recovery from our partner.

11:41:06

30

Q.

13

And I think in fact we can see from a letter, if we can have 4210, this is a

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

4

11:41:11

1

letter dated 28th of September 1993, from GRE to you and it refers to that

2

letter of the 2nd of September and it also refers to a meeting on the 27th

3

September, isn't that right? You had a meeting with Mr. Baker on the 27th

4

September 1993.

11:41:27 5

A.

Yes.

 

6

Q.

14

And that letter on screen followed on that meeting, where you clarified a

7

number of issues, including Mr. Dunlop's success fee, isn't that right?

8

A.

Yes.

9

Q.

15

Now if I just go back for a moment to 4209 and you have forwarded the cost

11:41:47

10

projection which we see here at 4209 with your letter of the 2nd September and

11

then there is a meeting on the 27th of September where further clarification

12

and agreement is reached between yourself and GRE, isn't that correct?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

16

And we see there that management fee, then the next one is additional personnel

11:42:05

15

cost, from September to December '93 and if we can have 4347 this is appendix A

16

which would have accompanied that had letter, isn't that right -- sorry 4347,

17

and there is some manuscript writing on that letter which is referred to in the

18

letter of the 28th September, do I take it that writing on the letter is in

19

your hand Mr. Sweeney?

11:42:32

20

A.

No, Chairman.

21

Q.

17

Whose writing is that can I ask, or do you know?

22

A.

I don't know.

23

Q.

18

But we do see that Mr. Lynn is pencilled in there for 15, an additional 15,000,

24

bringing the total to 70, 500, isn't that right? Being the costs, personnel,

11:42:53

25

work programme costs for the Draft Development Plan lobby between September and

26

December 93.

27

A.

Yes.

28

Q.

19

And he is added to the list of personnel who are presumably are all Monarch

29

personnel, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Lafferty, Mr. Murray and the others mentioned there?

11:43:10

30

A.

Yeah, he seems to have been missed out.

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

5

11:43:14

1

Q.

20

He had been missed out, was that a bonus payment to Mr. Lynn, or was that a

2

payment to Monarch, in relation to Mr. Lynn's input?

3

A.

I don't know.

4

Q.

21

The letter of the 28th September would suggest that it was a bonus payment, if

11:43:30

5

I can have 4210 please? You see under the heading, item 4 in that letter

6

Mr. Sweeney? Monarch project management fee, as per your appendix A which is

7

the document I had on screen a moment ago "Attached to the letter of the 2nd

8

September with addition of success fee for R Lynn, of 15,000, this will now

9

give a total of 70,500". So Mr. Lynn was to be paid a success fee, isn't that

11:43:58 10

 

right?

 

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

22

So if we go back to 4347, can the Tribunal take it that it was intended that

13

the personnel on the left would all have expended the times, or the hours, as

14

set out in that letter -- if that could be put around correctly sorry? Were

11:44:21

15

they the hours that it was anticipated the Monarch personnel on the left would

16

spend on the lobbying process between September and December 93?

17

A.

Yeah, I think that was a projection.

18

Q.

23

Yes a projection of what was likely to happen.

19

A.

Yes.

11:44:39

20

Q.

24

But in addition to that projection and those costs, there was to be 15,000

21

success fee, paid to Mr. Lynn, isn't that correct?

22

A.

I'm not quite sure whether that 15,000 relates directly to that but yes.

23

Q.

25

Yes. In fact I think if we could have 7817 please. GRE wrote to you on the 14

24

of September 1994, in relation to bonus arrangement for Mr. Lynn and the fact

11:45:03

25

that he had only received three of the 15,000 that he was due to receive, isn't

26

that right, do you recall receiving that letter?

27

A.

Yes.

28

Q.

26

Can I ask you what was the background to that letter?

29

A.

This really was, as a result of the appointment of Richard Lynn being done

11:45:24

30

really without my precise knowledge at the time and it got a bit mixed up

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

6

11:45:29

1

between, as far as I can see, bonus payments and salaries and houses and direct

2

relationship with Mr. Monahan and -- various things, I think that is a result

3

of that.

4

Q.

27

Of a misunderstanding, on your part, of the circumstances under which Mr. Lynn

11:45:51

5

came to be retained in, relation to the Cherrywood project, is that it?

6

A.

No not a misunderstanding on my part, but really a mixed up situation.

7

Q.

28

A lack of clarification, lack of communication to you of the terms of his

8

employment?

9

A.

Yes. And I have to say in a that was resolved at some time.

11:46:07 10

Q.

29

Yes.

 

11

A.

But I'm not too sure exactly when.

12

Q.

30

But in any event it would appear that it was anticipated Mr. Lynn would receive

13

a bonus payment in September 1993 of 15,000 pounds in relation to the rezoning

14

which was to take place between then and Christmas or January '94?

11:46:22 15

A.

Yes.

 

16

Q.

31

Now I think if we just continue with that letter for a moment, if we can have

17

4209. This is the schedule, I think the third item there was the planning and

18

environmental impact statement from September to December '93 and that was at

19

schedule B and we see schedule B at 4348 and these were the infrastructural

11:46:48

20

housing projection costs for the experts being retained, isn't that right?

21

A.

Yes.

22

Q.

32

And included in that was a design project management fee of 50,000 pounds for

23

Monarch Properties Services Limited, together with an environmental impact

24

assessment coordination, of 30,000 to the same company, is that correct?

11:47:09 25

A.

Yes.

 

26

Q.

33

And then I think if we go back to 4209, item number four third party costs

27

related to zoning proposals September to December '93 appendix C. And appendix

28

C is at 4349 and we see there a number of headings, including I think

29

Mr. Dunlop's projected four thousand pound payment, four thousand per month

11:47:35

30

payment, between September and December '93, isn't that right?

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

7

11:47:38

1

A.

Yes.

2

Q.

34

And then we see Mr. McCabe, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Ryan was involved with the Science

3

and Technology Park, there were legal expenses and then Mr. Mc Parland, Douglas

4

Newman-Good and miscellaneous expenses, bringing it all to 50,000 pounds, isn't

11:47:54

5

that right?

6

A.

Yes.

7

Q.

35

And I think on the meeting of the 27th of September, that figure was revised

8

down to 24,000 and we see the figure of 24,000 agreed, isn't that right?

9

A.

Yes.

11:48:04

10

Q.

36

You were at that meeting, who else attended that meeting between yourself and

11

Mr. Baker on the 27th of September, can you recall?

12

A.

I can't recall. I suspect though that it was just him and myself.

13

Q.

37

It's just that the figures, as we see them, that is to say the manuscript

14

amendments, you say are not in your hand, so this document wasn't prepared by

11:48:27

15

you, or wasn't amended by you?

16

A.

No it's not my handwriting.

17

Q.

38

But presumably arising out of the meeting, you would have advised somebody

18

within Monarch, what you had agreed Mr. Baker.

19

A.

Yes.

11:48:38

20

Q.

39

And it was reflected in Mr. Baker's letter of the 28 of September, which I

21

referred to a moment ago?

22

A.

Yes.

23

Q.

40

Then if we go back to the schedule again, at 4209 under paragraph five we get

24

community and PR costs, isn't that right? And the community and PR costs I

11:48:55

25

think are schedule D and they are at 4350, and I think whilst we see there a

26

figure of 36,000, if we go to the letter of the 28th of September '93 at 4210 I

27

think we see in fact that figure was agreed at 30,000, isn't that right? If we

28

look at item number three "As per your appendix D attached to your letter of

29

2nd September but excluding direct mail drop. This now amounts to a total of

11:49:32

30

30,000". Is that correct?

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

8

11:49:33

1

A.

Yes.

2

Q.

41

Can I ask you what community cost of 20,000 were anticipated in September 1993

3

which were likely to arise for November and December '93. At 10,000 per month?

4

A.

I really couldn't be specific on that -- it seems to be community and PR

11:49:51

5

costs.

6

Q.

42

Yes. In a moment we will come to a series of cash payments in November,

7

October, November and December of '93, which appear to be included under that

8

heading of 30,000. Do you know anything about those Mr. Sweeney?

9

A.

I don't know which ones you are talking about.

11:50:10

10

Q.

43

Well I will come to them in a moment and we might revert to this document when

11

I do.

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

44

Just if we revert back then to our schedule again. At 4209 you set out the

14

other marketing and residential at six, 7 revised master plan, 8 industrial

11:50:29

15

layout, 9 science layout and 10 preparation and compilation of valuation data

16

for future sales and that's appendix E. I want to ask you about the next two

17

items 12 and 13. Item 12 is Carrickmines Valley sewage scheme 1994, third

18

party costs to accelerate access to the sewer, and this was to be discussed

19

between yourself and Mr. Baker, 13 is incentive bonus payments for senior staff

11:50:55

20

1994, for achieving zoning and enhanced value of site to be discussed. Taking

21

the first one Mr. Sweeney, that is number 12. what third party costs did you

22

anticipate were likely to arise in September 1993, which would result in

23

accelerating access to the sewer?

24

A.

I can't be specific on that. But I would say those last three items really

11:51:18

25

myself putting everything but the kitchen sink in to try and maximise our

26

return.

27

Q.

45

But you were at the meeting with Mr. Baker and this was on the agenda, isn't

28

that right?

29

A.

Yes.

11:51:27

30

Q.

46

I am just wondering can you assist the Tribunal in identifying for the Tribunal

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

9

11:51:31

1

what third party costs you had in mind and what third party costs were

2

discussed at that meeting on the 27th of September 1993, which related to

3

accelerating access to the sewer?

4

A.

I can't recall the actual discussion.

11:51:44

5

Q.

47

And can you give any indication to the Tribunal on what heading, or who was

6

likely to receive payments to facilitate an acceleration of access to the sewer

7

as envisaged in September of 1993?

8

A.

No I can't recall that.

9

Q.

48

Now if we can have 8089 this is a letter of the 20th October 1993 from you to

11:52:14

10

GRE and it relates to costs in relation to the pavilion site, I think you

11

agreed me on Friday that the -- what you were doing in Dun Laoghaire had a

12

beneficial effect on your lobbying campaign for Cherrywood, particularly in

13

relation to those councillors that were concerned about the development of Dun

14

Laoghaire, is that right?

11:52:37

15

A.

That's quite correct Chairman. There were a number of councillors,

16

particularly the local ones in Dun Laoghaire, that didn't want to see anything

17

happening in Cherrywood without corresponding investment in the centre of the

18

town, so Monarch went out of their way at that time to try and placate their

19

problems and Bloomfields was a direct result of that, as was The Pavilion.

11:53:09

20

Q.

49

And I think you were there seeking a contribution of a hundred thousand, which

21

appears from a note dated 20th of October '93 was agreed GRE. Is that correct?

22

They saw the benefit of what you were seeking to achieve there?

23

A.

Yes, they decided to invest money in The Pavilion, but not in Bloomfields.

24

Q.

50

Now if I, a moment ago I referred to a series of payments in October and

11:53:33

25

November 1993 and I just put them on the screen for a moment and then ask you

26

about them Mr. Sweeney. If I can have 4670, this is the cheque payments book

27

for Monarch Property Services Limited. And for the 2nd of November you just

28

see, just about four items down, you see for the 2nd November 1993 a cash

29

payment there of six thousand pounds, do you see that, you see the word cash,

11:54:03

30

just underneath Frank Dunlop and Associates?

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

10

11:54:05

1

A.

Yes.

2

Q.

51

Then just two items below that you see for the 3rd November 1993, Allied Irish

3

Banks PLC and what appears to be the words -- expression cash, do you see that,

4

a sum of five thousand pounds?

11:54:19

5

A.

Yes.

6

Q.

52

Now if we look at 4676, we see that five thousand pounds cheque dated the 12th

7

November '93, cheque number 8893, and then if we can have 4671, we see a debit

8

for six thousand pounds of the 4th November '93 and if we look at 4673 for the

9

2nd November '93 about midway down, you will see a debit, it's not a cheque

11:54:53

10

it's a debit on the account, of five thousand pounds, which may be a debit for

11

either a cash withdrawal or a bank draft. And then if I could have 4782

12

please, this is another extract from the cheque payments book, it's for 7th

13

December 1993 for a sum of three thousand pounds, the second last entry. Do

14

you see that? Allied Irish Banks PLC and what appears to be cash in the column

11:55:17

15

beside it and we see that being debited on the account at 4783 for the 9th

16

December 1993 and finally, in the books of L&C Properties Limited, at 8787 we

17

see a debit of 2,500 for the 2nd of November '93, do you see that, it's the

18

first debit on that screen?

19

A.

Yes.

11:55:41

20

Q.

53

Those sums appear to have been debited to the accounts of either, L&C

21

properties or Monarch Property Services Limited, in October, November '93. If

22

I could have 4781, they were included in community PR costs, a figure of

23

29152.52, as you will see on that screen. You will see the various debits, you

24

see the six thousand, five thousand, five thousand, then if you go down you see

11:56:18

25

three thousand and then third from the end cheque 50082 L&C 2,500, that makes a

26

total of 25,500 pounds.

27

A.

Do you want --

28

Q.

54

21,500 pounds sorry, apologies.

29

A.

Yes.

11:56:37

30

Q.

55

Leaving a balance of 7657.52 pence. Now looking at that document on screen

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

11

11:56:47

1

Mr. Sweeney, do you recognise the handwriting on that document?

2

A.

No.

3

Q.

56

Do you recall any discussion between yourself and representatives of Monarch

4

where the -- those items were discussed?

11:57:03

5

A.

No.

6

Q.

57

At 5022 you will see those items referred to in the ledgers of Monarch Property

7

Services Limited, the general ledger report as you will see in the top and they

8

are in under the heading general promotions and they are given the series

9

reference numbers which relate to Cherrywood, in other words they are being

11:57:27

10

included as part, or posted I should say as Cherrywood costs, do you

11

understand, under the heading general promotions?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

58

Now what, my real question to you Mr. Sweeney is insofar as you can, would you

14

advise the Tribunal of the ultimate destination of the 21,500 that we see there

11:57:52

15

on screen, which appears to have been withdrawn in or around the period

16

October/November '93, from the third vote on Cherrywood was taken place?

17

A.

Yes, I see that. I don't know what the ultimate destination of that money was.

18

Q.

59

Who within Monarch would know the ultimate destination of that money?

19

A.

I would say the accounts department.

11:58:18

20

Q.

60

That would be Mr. Glennane, is it?

21

A.

Yes.

22

Q.

61

And do you have any recollection or any, of a discussion within Monarch in

23

relation to those withdrawals, or the expenditure of that 21,500 at that time?

24

A.

No that I can recall.

11:58:35

25

Q.

62

Can you give, or can you speculate for the Tribunal, as the person who lead the

26

Cherrywood project, as to how that sum might have been expended at that time?

27

A.

No, I couldn't speculate on that.

28

Q.

63

Now if we can have 5016, this is a letter of the 24th March 1994, it's from

29

Mr. Lynn to Mr. Benge. You may or may not know of this letter -- it's

11:59:02

30

existence Mr. Sweeney and it says, "I refer to a letter of the 28th September

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

12

11:59:04

1

from Martin Baker which is enclosed for ease of reference and in particular to

2

paragraph three. And also refer to fee notes 2181 and 2189. And have pleasure

3

enclosing detailed break down of sums expended under community/PR costs as

4

back-up documentation in relation to these." And we see those invoices at 5020

11:59:30

5

and it refers back to that schedule which we were dealing with a moment ago in

6

relation to the letter of the 2nd September and it's headed community costs,

7

appendix D of Edward Sweeney's letter of 2nd September and paragraph 3 of M D's

8

letter of the 28th September 20,000 -- in other words the 21,500 has been

9

netted to 20,000. Then at 2189 at 5019, you see the public relations cost,

11:59:56

10

appendix D of Eddie Sweeney's letter of 2nd September, paragraph three of Mr.

11

Baker's letter 28th September '93. And then the schedules are included and in

12

a memo to you at 5272 from Mr. Caslan, on the 8th July '94, dealing with the

13

amounts due by GRE re Cabinteely, items C and D are referred to, that is

14

community costs, and you are advised that Richard Lynn supplied back up to this

12:00:22

15

invoice 2181 to Geoff Benge, over two months ago, it's included in my list

16

attached. Public relations, same reference, and you refer to invoice 2189.

17

18

If we can have 5027 please, this is a letter to Mr. Padfield, by Mr. Lynn, on

19

29 July 1994. It refers to a short meeting taking place on 28 of July 1994.

12:00:50

20

Included with that document then is a -- under item 2, fee demand in respect of

21

community and PR costs in sum of 7652.52 plus VAT. This is the net sum having

22

taken out the 21,500, which we discussed, from the previous list. Amended list

23

is also attached. Then at item 3. Fee demand in respect of special management

24

fee, in the sum of 21,500 plus VAT, being the items that we discussed and

12:01:16 25

 

agreed.

 

26

27

Now I accept you didn't right that letter Mr. Sweeney, it was written by

28

Mr. Lynn, but it would appear those cash payments of 21,500 pounds, were now

29

being described as a special management fee, do you see that?

12:01:29 30

A.

Yes.

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

13

12:01:29

1

Q.

64

What can you tell the Tribunal about that special management fee and that

2

21,500 pounds?

3

A.

I can't really say anything except that it would appear to me that it was a

4

heading made, or put on at the request of GRE.

12:01:50

5

Q.

65

And we see the two invoices accompanying that letter at 8759, invoice number

6

2283 dated 28 of July 1994, for 7652.52 and at 8758 we have invoice 2284 again

7

dated 28 July '94, for 21,500 plus VAT at 26015. And if I could have 5029,

8

this is a letter to Mr. Lynn from Guardian on 3rd August 1994 and we are

9

dealing with the sum 21,000 plus VAT. Which had been claimed and if you look

12:02:28

10

at the very last item on that first page it says, "I cannot agree to pay

11

invoice 2284 involving a special management fee of 21,500 plus 4,515 pounds VAT

12

giving a total of 26,015.

At 5030, whilst Martin Baker of this company

13

acknowledges in his letter of 7 July 1994, his agreement to a fee budget of

14

30,000 in respect of community payments, that is 20,000, invoice 2181 and

12:02:58

15

Pembroke PR 10,000 invoice 2189, we made it clear we would not be able to pay

16

this balance until satisfactory invoices had been produced". In other words

17

GRE were looking for satisfactory invoices in relation to that 21,500 cash

18

payment, do you know if such invoices were ever produced Mr. Sweeney?

19

A.

I don't.

12:03:17

20

Q.

66

Can you help the Tribunal in anyway in relation to those payments?

21

A.

No.

22

Q.

67

Did you know that those payments had been made at that time?

23

A.

The payments had been made by GRE.

24

Q.

68

No by Monarch, in order that 21500 as I have shown on screen in relation to

12:03:37

25

those debits and cheques made payable to cash, had been made and withdrawn?

26

A.

No I can see that now but at the time I don't recall seeing them.

27

Q.

69

But it was included in a memo to you at one stage by Mr. Caslin, isn't that

28

right, I put that memo on screen a moment ago?

29

A.

Yes.

12:03:59

30

Q.

70

5272, isn't that right?

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

14

12:04:00

1

A.

Yes.

2

Q.

71

But you can't assist the Tribunal in relation to those payments at all?

3

A.

I'm afraid not.

4

Q.

72

Now if I could have 4606, these are three payments of five thousand pounds each

12:04:16

5

and the cheques appear to be made payable to you, Mr. Sweeney, at 4606 you see

6

the remittance advice for a sum of five thousand pounds and you see cheque

7

number 798 and it appears to have been dated 2nd October '93 and we see the

8

cheque at 4607, it's a cheque of the 21st October '93 made payable to E

9

Sweeney, five thousand pounds and appears to have been negotiated in Dockrell

12:04:43

10

Farrell. There is a subsequent one at 4613, dated again possibly the first of

11

October '93, the cheque is 4608, dated 21st October '93, E Sweeney. And

12

finally at 4612 we see the remittance advice for a further five thousand pound

13

cheque number 799, although we don't seem to have that cheque, that make a

14

total of 15,000 pounds and if, we can have 4784, this is an extract from

12:05:18

15

Monarch Property Services Limited, general ledger report, you will see about

16

two thirds of the way down the screen, item -- under the heading general

17

promotions is a sum of 15,000 pounds. Cheques numbers 798, 799 and 800 and in

18

brackets (E S) 15,000 pounds. In other words that 15,000 pounds payment to you

19

has been included under the heading general promotions and would appear to

12:05:48

20

relate to Cherrywood, can you help, or assist the Tribunal in anyway

21

Mr. Sweeney in relation to those payments?

22

A.

Yes Chairman I can. Those payments were relating to another job, other than

23

Cherrywood and if you like I'll give you a brief overview of it.

24

12:06:10

25

I was negotiating at that time for this other job and in order to secure the

26

job I required 20,000 pounds and I went to Mr. Glennane and asked him for four

27

cheques of five thousand because I might have been able to secure the

28

negotiation for five, ten, 15 or 20. In the end of it -- and this all happened

29

down on the steps of the High Court -- I only needed 15,000 which I used and I

12:06:50

30

gave the fourth cheque back to Mr. Glennane.

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

15

12:06:55

1

Q.

73

And had that anything to do with the Cherrywood project Mr. Sweeney?

2

A.

Indirectly it was mentioned, I don't really know whether I should bring it into

3

the public arena here. It had been mentioned before in terms of when of the

4

jobs that we were trying to use to encourage GRE to get involved in, in fact

12:07:21

5

GRE did eventually get involved in it.

6

Q.

74

In any event I think, on the 11th November 1993 the vote did take place in

7

relation to the Cherrywood proposals and we have seen that. And you were

8

successful in relation to that motion, isn't that right?

9

A.

Yes.

12:07:40

10

Q.

75

Could I have 2752, this is a handwritten note of -- do you recognise that note

11

Mr. Sweeney?

12

A.

Yes I saw this note.

13

Q.

76

Can you explain the note as far as you can to the Tribunal?

14

A.

Yes. I don't really know how this note came to the attention of the Tribunal

12:08:03

15

but it goes away on to after, way after I left Monarch in the year 2000.

16

Q.

77

Has it anything to do with the Cherrywood proposals at the time?

17

A.

Nothing at all.

18

Q.

78

This is a more recent project that you yourself pre involved in?

19

A.

This?

12:08:22 20

Q.

79

Yes?

 

21

A.

The reason that I have got all these phone numbers of all these councillors

22

were that under another job I, as principal, had given political donations and

23

for some reason I gave the political donations in 1998, one of them was

24

returned and two years later I think for the benefit of a general election, the

12:08:49

25

fact that I gave these donations was released to the press and a furore came on

26

over it, it ended up believe it or not on the 9 o'clock news and I was really

27

annoyed, so what you are seeing on that sheet, is my getting hold of the phone

28

numbers of the people to whom I had made donations, to establish, for the

29

press, who had been hounding me on it, hounding really I mean hounding, so that

12:09:31

30

I could supply them with accurate information.

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

16

12:09:35

1

Q.

80

Now at 7941, following on the vote Mr. Murray, the marketing director, wrote to

2

Ansbacher in relation to the Cherrywood Properties Limited, isn't that right?

3

And you will have seen this letter in the brief and he is effectively advising

4

Ansbacher of the outcome, isn't that correct?

12:09:56 5

A.

Yes.

 

6

Q.

81

And he refers to a meeting on the 12th November 1993, which would have been

7

the day following the vote, in that first paragraph, where he says Eddie,

8

presumably you Mr. Sweeney, "Outlined, Monarch's technical strategy for the

9

total site, it is our view that rather than make an outline planning

12:10:16

10

application in respect of the residential lands only it is preferable to

11

prepare an outline planning application for the total site development works

12

and submit same to the new Dun Laoghaire Borough Council, work on this

13

application has commenced and it is envisaged that it will be lodged by January

14

94", isn't that correct?

12:10:32 15

A.

Yes.

 

16

Q.

82

Would it be fair to say Mr. Sweeney we dealt on Friday with the meetings with

17

the Manager and your strategy at the time, you had hoped to put an industrial

18

zoning on the site, that wasn't possible in the review which had just taken

19

place, but you had this understanding with the Manager in relation to the

12:10:49

20

Science and Technology Park, is that correct?

21

A.

Yes, this stems way back to the Manager's report of a number of years before

22

which was turned down, it included an area of industrial --

23

Q.

83

That's DP90/123, which had been struck down in December '90?

24

A.

Yes, so I was very aware that this was, I don't know if ambitious is the right

12:11:11

25

word, but it was on their list of things they would like to see on the site and

26

I had started work on the Science and Technology Park and I was trying to

27

encourage everyone to support it, with a view, if I may say, to getting rid of

28

the agricultural zoning that remained on the site.

29

Q.

84

If we can have 5211 this is an extract from a report done in June 1994 by

12:11:42

30

Mr. Sweeney -- or Mr. Lynn I should say, under the heading Science and

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

17

12:11:47

1

Technology, it says, "The rezoning of the agricultural land the increasing of

2

the residential density rests on the premise that a Science and Technology Park

3

would be brought to fruition. Without this potential job creating concept the

4

agricultural lands will not be rezoned and no increase in density will occur."

12:12:05

5

under normal circumstances the plan having been confirmed in December '93 it

6

wouldn't come up for review again until 1998, isn't that right, five years on?

7

A.

Yes.

8

Q.

85

But you had seen the prospect of introducing the concept of the Science and

9

Technology Park, you had sold to the Manager the idea of job creation within

12:12:22

10

the new Council, the Science and Technology Park would have necessitated a

11

variation of the plan and in that variation you were going to seek to increase

12

and I think you were successful in increasing, not just -- and introducing

13

sorry, not just an industrial zoning, but increasing the density on the

14

existing zoning, isn't that right?

12:12:42 15

A.

Yes.

 

16

Q.

86

And all that was in place at this time as well, that is to say late '93?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

87

And at 7942, this is the second page of that letter of the 19th November '93,

19

under item number four, Mr. Murray is reminding the bank, Ansbacher Bank, how

12:13:04

20

you had outlined your strategy in relation to the 67 acres of land, which were

21

presently now zoned B, which would have been agricultural zoning. He went on

22

to say "Whilst these lands are zoned agricultural this zoning also allows a

23

wide area of activity to be carried out in the context of it's location. With

24

regard to the value of the particular portion of the site we are of the view

12:13:28

25

that due to the particular strategic location of these lands and particularly

26

it's proximity to the proposed new South East Motorway that there is no doubt

27

that ultimately these lands will be rezoned to either AP zoning or E zoning to

28

permit either residential or industrial development on the portion of the site.

29

In any event we would be of the view that this particular portion of the site

12:13:47

30

is presently worth not less than 7 million". So your strategy at the end of

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

18

12:13:51

1

'93 was to encourage the programme, that you had ongoing with the planners and

2

the Manager and fostering the idea of the Science and Technology Park, isn't

3

that correct?

4

A.

Yes.

12:14:02

5

Q.

88

And I think if we can have 2129, if we revert to your statement just for a

6

moment under the heading 1994 Cabinteely/Cherrywood, you say, "Acceleration of

7

infrastructure and services. As this came within my sphere as development

8

director, I would have attended various meeting with local authority officials

9

on matters such as roads, sewers, access ESB and water. Pavilion, you were

12:14:27

10

seeking planning permission, Then at 2030 you say, Bloomfield shopping centre,

11

Quinnsworth Dunnes negotiation."

12

13

You say, "I attend a Science and Technology conference in Bordeaux attended by

14

Ching Chong, Singapore Science Park. Dermot Drumgoole, Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown

12:14:45

15

County Council principal officer, was also in attendance. You say there were

16

also other Science and Technology conferences, in far away places like, Bejing,

17

Japan, Kyoto, America, Hong Kong, isn't that right? And you attended most of

18

those?

19

A.

Yes.

12:14:58

20

Q.

89

You say, "I will explain below the aspects of Cherrywood became a central focus

21

as part of this -- and you set out a series of very high place people and

22

specialists in relation to the Science and Technology Park, isn't that right?

23

A.

Yes.

24

Q.

90

And I think on the 6 of January 1994, at 4923, there was a meeting between you,

12:15:17

25

Mr. Lafferty, and Mr. Willie Murray, who was the planning officer, isn't that

26

right, you have seen that attendance of that meeting?

27

A.

Yes.

28

Q.

91

And I think at that meeting Mr. Murray advised you that the Action Plan would

29

be available within two months, isn't that right? The planners had decided

12:15:35

30

carry out an Action Area Plan on the site?

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

19

12:15:39

1

A.

Yes.

2

Q.

92

And obviously one of the niggling little difficulties that you had at this time

3

was the zoning of lands for agricultural purposes below a notional line for the

4

motorway?

12:15:53

5

A.

Yes.

6

Q.

93

And this was seen as an anomaly and Mr. Murray was here advising you that this

7

would be recommended to be changed to AP, isn't that right?

8

A.

Yes.

9

Q.

94

And then I think on the 19th May '94, Mr. Murray presented that plan, that

12:16:11

10

Action Area Plan at 5107, to yourself and other representatives of Monarch and

11

GRE, isn't that right? He advised you what was likely to happen in relation to

12

it and what the proposals would be, I think the matter came before the Council

13

in May 1994, and was adjourned to June '94, is that right?

14

A.

Yes.

12:16:30

15

Q.

95

And I think also in May '94 there was a motion by Councillor Gilmore in

16

relation to the Science and Technology Park, isn't that right?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

96

And that again was adjourned to June '94. And if we return to your statement

19

at 2188, you say in June 1994 the planning committee of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown

12:16:50

20

County Council unanimously passed motion welcome the Science Technology Park

21

and a case to be made to the working group set out by the Department of

22

Enterprise and Employment. You said in parallel discussions were being held

23

between Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council and Monarch to view the

24

possibility of the participates of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council in the

12:17:07

25

Science Park development by means of an acquisition of an equity interest in

26

the lands in question, isn't that right? By means of the lands were being

27

considered were 63 acres on the south side of the proposed link road between

28

Wyattville junction and Loughlinstown junction and South Eastern Motorway?

29

A.

Yes.

12:17:27

30

Q.

97

Now in June 1994 and I referred to it a moment ago, at 5167 there was a report

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

20

12:17:34

1

compiled in relation to the Cherrywood Development, this was to set out the up

2

coming strategy, isn't that right?

3

A.

Yes.

4

Q.

98

And the strategy at this stage was to push ahead with the concept of the

12:17:45

5

Science and Technology Park which, of itself would necessitate a variation of

6

the Development Plan, so that there would be an area set aside or zoned for E1

7

which was the Science and Technology zoning, isn't that correct?

8

A.

Yes E1.

9

Q.

99

And I think that if we look at that strategy, just very briefly, one of the

12:18:08

10

areas identified in that was a progress report, at 5206 and I think that

11

effectively reviewed the situation to date and the meetings with Mr. O'Sullivan

12

and his staff in relation to the Science and Technology Park and it considered

13

the motion of Councillor Gilmore, isn't that right?

14

A.

Yes.

12:18:28

15

Q.

100

And I think at 5207 it set out the action that was to be undertaken, isn't that

16

right?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

101

And it was obvious that the Manager would continue to promote the zoning and

19

the density changes, provided he could see the majority of elected members were

12:18:46

20

in favour of it.

21

A.

Yes.

22

Q.

102

The Manager didn't have the power himself to alter the zoning, that was a

23

function for the councillors?

24

A.

Yes.

12:18:53

25

Q.

103

And presumably he wasn't going to go out on a limb and do something that the

26

councillors weren't supportive of, isn't that correct?

27

A.

I expect so.

28

Q.

104

However if the councillors for their part would be led somewhat by his views on

29

things, that is to say by the Manager and his planning staff?

12:19:11

30

A.

I should certainly think so.

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

21

12:19:14

1

Q.

105

Now another, one of the two continuing outstanding issues was the sewage

2

system, Carrickmines valley sewerage system and also the question of access to

3

the site, because you now had zoning which would have enabled you to develop

4

and construct houses, isn't that right?

12:19:33

5

A.

Yes.

6

Q.

106

And 5208, in relation to access, that report reports that agreement had been

7

reached with the County Engineer that agreement had been reached to allow

8

access from the N11 to service circa 20 acres of the residentially zoned lands,

9

subject to an existing access of an adjoining landowner being permanently

12:19:50

10

closed. And that report records that the agreement was reached over the head

11

of the Roads Engineer for the area, do you recall any agreement or discussion

12

which lead to that agreement Mr. Sweeney?

13

A.

I'm not entirely sure what this refers to.

14

Q.

107

This is Mr -- I presume it's Mr. Lynn's report, maybe others had a hand in

12:20:11

15

compiling it and it's in relation to the strategy

16

A.

For the access?

17

Q.

108

Well strategy generally as of June 1994, at 5212 Mr. Lynn appears to put his

18

name to a date it 15th June 1994. Presumably this was a document that would

19

have been circulated with in Monarch and you would have set out the up coming

12:20:33

20

strategy for the site?

21

A.

Yes.

22

Q.

109

Do you recall any discussion within Monarch in relation to that document or

23

that strategy?

24

A.

I'm getting a little bit lost, I have lost the thread, you were talking about

12:20:47

25

closing an access.

26

Q.

110

Yes one of the issues that has been identified there by Mr. Lynn relates to

27

access to approximately 20 acres of the now residentially zoned lands.

28

A.

Oh, yes.

29

Q.

111

Which has been permitted by the Council?

12:21:01

30

A.

Now I understand. Yes, on a temporary basis an access was really -- it was

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie

Day

663

22

12:21:10

1

very difficult to get in through the roads people, because they didn't want any

2

more accesses off the N11 and we came up with a possibility of swapping that

3

access with another one, who happened to be a developer we knew, who was quite

4

happy to close his access, so that meant that it was pushed through and we did

12:21:32

5

get the agreement to open an access for, I may say, a very small area of

6

development.

7

Q.

112

Now one of the other issues then identified by Mr. Lynn in that at appendix A

8

and 5178, under the heading "general promotions", were a series of payments

9

which were envisaged, isn't that right? Do you recall any discussion within