3 4 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Miss - Planning Tribunal

8
1 A It would have arisen because from the original proposal in relation to the
2 Baldoyle and Portmarnock former racecourse lands, so this proposal would have
3 been, shall we say, the people opposed to that rezoning would have been aware
4 of this proposal and most likely objected to this proposal as well.
5 Q 42 Yes. And are you aware independently of this, of any objection on the part of
6 the local community to the rezoning of Mr. Mahony's lands as a thing in itself?
7 A No, I am not.
8 Q 43 Just I am reminded, Mr. McInerny my solicitor, I take it those 2,530
9 representations then relate to April?
10 A Yes.
11 Q 44 And therefore --
12
13 MS. DILLON: That is correct factually and the witness should be allowed to
14 explain that because it's not physically possible for these representations to
15 be received by the County Council until the second public display. The second
16 public display on these lands took place between the 1st July 1993 and the 4th
17 August 1993 and these representations were received after that or during that.
18 Therefore it is not correct and Mr. Hogan knows it is not correct to suggest
19 that these representations were received in April.
20
21 MR. HOGAN: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, the witness has just very fairly stated to me
22 that, having looked carefully at this, that these representations were received
23 in April but this is a quote from a minute in April.
24
25 MS. DILLON: It is correct that the quote is a quote from the minute in April
26 and it's referring to the minutes of the meeting at which the decision was
27 taken to rezoning those lands. It is not correct to suggest the words 2,530
28 representations relating to this change relate to April because the undisputed
29 planning evidence and uncontested in this case is in this module, it was after
30 the vote in April that these lands were put on public display as a change for