Dunlop 'too busy' when rezoning motion failed

A Dublin architect, a part owner of land at Carrickmines, yesterday told the Flood tribunal it seemed lobbyist Frank Dunlop was…

A Dublin architect, a part owner of land at Carrickmines, yesterday told the Flood tribunal it seemed lobbyist Frank Dunlop was busy with other, far bigger clients when an unsuccessful rezoning motion went through Dublin County Council in 1992.

Mr Brian O'Halloran, who bought the 22 acres in south Co Dublin with Dr Austin Darragh and Mr Gerard Kilcoyne, said that in 1992 Mr Dunlop was paid £1,500 for lobbying councillors and would have received a further £8,500 if the motion had been successful.

In 1997, the three owners tried to rezone again and retained Mr Dunlop again to lobby councillors. This time, the motion was passed by 13 votes to 11 for rezoning for industrial use.

Mr O'Halloran said in 1992 he and Mr Kilcoyne had gone to Dublin County Council in O'Connell Street on the day of the motion but there was no room to get into the chamber to hear what was going on.

READ MORE

Mr O'Halloran said they thought they saw Mr Dunlop before the motion. "We were surprised he didn't stop and talk and we formed the impression he was extremely busy and hoped he was busy on our motion," he said. "It seemed Frank Dunlop was busy with clients far bigger than us."

He said after the unsuccessful motion in the chamber, Mr Dunlop came out. "Frank Dunlop came flying out through the lobby like an express train, with a pained expression on his face and ignored everybody," he said.

"We were disillusioned and despondent," Mr O'Halloran told the tribunal.

In December 1996, they met Mr Dunlop when they decided to renew their rezoning submission.

Mr Pat Quinn SC, for the tribunal, asked why had they decided to retain Mr Dunlop again as they had been dissatisfied with him in 1992.

"I said I was disappointed. Once again our dilemma was who was there other than Frank Dunlop - none of us could identify anyone else," Mr O'Halloran said.

They agreed a payment of £5,000 and a further £30,000 as a success fee. The partners had agreed the sum before putting it to Mr Dunlop.

"It was a significant amount of money and I thought it would make him roll up his sleeves and work for us. In 1992, I thought if I had kept a closer eye on him, he might've worked harder," Mr O'Halloran stated.

The motion was signed by Cllr Liam Cosgrave (FG) and Cllr Betty Coffey (FF) seconded it. Mr O'Halloran said he did not ask Mr Cosgrave to sign. He knew Ms Coffey and she rang him a few months ago and was irate. She said she certainly did not ask Mr Cosgrave to sign or propose the motion.

"The issue is, who asked Liam Cosgrave to sign the motion?" Mr O'Halloran asked.

Mr Dunlop's role was to lobby and seek support from councillors. Mr O'Halloran said unlike in 1992 he would phone Mr Dunlop every week and ask what kind of response he was getting. Mr Dunlop indicated it was going to be tight.

Mr O'Halloran said he did not attend the day of the motion in December 1997 as the excitement would have been too much.

He rang Mr Dunlop the next day and said he wanted to know who had voted in favour as he wanted to send each councillor a card and a bottle of red or white wine or a hamper. Mr Dunlop had said it was breaking new ground but that he would deliver the gifts.