The Murphy group saved up to £220,000 in payments on water and sewerage services to Dublin County Council for a housing development in north Dublin in 1988, the Flood tribunal was told.
Grafton Construction, part of the Murphy group, paid £122,460 to the council for services on the site at Forest Road in Swords before an existing planning permission ran out in June 1998.
By doing so they did not have to pay any further levy when they made a further application for planning permission. Calculations showed they would have had to pay between £180,000 and £220,000 extra if they had waited until they sought planning permission again.
A principal officer in the planning section of the council confirmed that by accepting the payment, the authority committed itself to granting permission for a development, although not necessarily the same permission.
Mr Albert Smith, now a principal officer with Fingal County Council, was giving evidence on the 56th day of the tribunal.
Mr John Gallagher SC, counsel for the tribunal, read out a letter from Grafton Construction to a Mr M. McNamara in the council's planning office on May 10th, 1988. From the then director of JMSE, Mr James Gogarty, it related to planning permission for a housing development on Forest Road, Swords, north Co Dublin. Mr Gogarty in his evidence had alleged that the former assistant city and county manager Mr George Redmond, had drafted this letter for him.
The developers had agreed to pay a levy of £122,460 towards water, sewerage and road development services which the council would have to supply. Mr Gogarty in the letter said their planning permission was due to expire in six weeks on June 21st.
Mr Gogarty asked that they would not have to pay any further levy in another application if the company paid the £122,460 in full before that date. He also asked the council to confirm that it would reserve sewerage and water facilities.
Mr Smith agreed the letter was referred to him and he "quite obviously" replied to it although he had no recollection of doing so as it was in 1988.
The letter he wrote in reply, which counsel read out, confirmed that if the money was paid in full by June 21st, 1988, no further levy would be charged in a second application for a similar residential development on substantially the same site and that facilities would be reserved for that site.
Mr Gallagher asked: "Would it be your view that in practical terms the effect of your letter was to effectively extend planning permission?"
Mr Smith replied that it was a commitment that if an application was made a permission would issue, but not necessarily the same permission.
Mr Smith said money was short at that time and developments were not secure. It would have been the thinking to go ahead and accept the lump sum rather than to get its equivalent in instalments five years later.
He had no recollection of any representations being made to him about the development by Mr Redmond or anyone else.
He said that contributions towards public services by developers could be calculated on "so much per acre" for services and that figure would be fixed. Otherwise payments would be on an adhoc basis or on the extent of specific works.
He accepted that the figures for services drawn up by another official, Ms Sinead Collins, of between £302,000 and £342,000, were correct.