Councillor denies influencing city plan

A LABOUR councillor has denied influencing a redevelopment plan for Dublin city in order to increase his and his family’s interests in an office block in a prime location in the capital.

Cllr Oisin Quinn appeared before the state’s ethics watchdog yesterday on accusations that he ultimately refrained from voting on parts of the plan — despite declaring his interests in the four-storey property.

The Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) heard 14 alleged contraventions of local government legislation levelled against the barrister and elected representative. Mr Quinn has one sixth of a share in an office block at 84 to 93 Lower Mount St, Dublin, the rest of which is owned by his siblings.

Mr Quinn said councillors worked and voted on the city plan in 2009 and 2010.

The property was valued at between €10 million and €15m.

SIPO were told that Mr Quinn had failed to declare his interest to members when he voted on the plan in December 2009. When another draft plan was examined the following July, the councillor did declare his interest to the council, but still voted.

Labour had then agreed to put forth a motion on the permitted height for office and residential buildings. Business groups said the proposed six-storey restriction was too low. Councillors extended height restrictions to seven storeys.

SIPO barrister Diarmaid McGuinness said legislation stated that elected members should withdraw from council meetings or votes if they had declarable interests on matters.

Complaints were originally lodged against Mr Quinn by Michael Smith, editor of Village magazine and formerly of An Taisce, and Independent councillor Cieran Perry.

Mr Quinn said he had sought advice from officials on withdrawing.

The city manager, senior planners and the council’s legal agent had signalled there was no need and that his interest was “so remote” it was unlikely to influence his decision.

Mr Quinn said the complaint against him was lodged after Village ran an article in which it alleged the new city design was “like a plan for Singapore”. He thought that no “reasonable person” would think he would be influenced by his interests in the vote.

But Mr McGuinness said Mr Quinn’s defence, that the vote was for the whole city, did not “dilute” any benefits the property could gain under the new rules.

SIPO will decide on the hearing and release its judgement in January.