Developer stood to net £1.5m from sale of Christian Brothers' land

A property developer has told the Mahon tribunal that he expected to gain £1.5 million from the sale of land in north Dublin, even though he never owned any part of the lands.

Joe Tiernan stood to get up to 50 per cent of the profits from the sale of 70 acres owned by the Christian Brothers at Balheary near Swords if the lands were successfully rezoned and granted planning permission by Dublin County Council.

The tribunal is investigating three unsuccessful attempts to have the land rezoned between 1991 and 1995.

The lobbyist Frank Dunlop has alleged that he paid four councillors £1,000 each for their support in seeking the rezoning in 1993. Mr Tiernan, who had engaged Mr Dunlop's services in relation to the rezoning, said he was not aware of these payments and was never himself asked for money by a politician.

Mr Tiernan had been approached by an estate agent to assist the Christian Brothers in securing the rezoning. Mr Tiernan reached an agreement with the order that, if rezoning was secured, they would each get £35,000 per acre, with any remaining money, being split at a percentage in favour of the order, Mr Tiernan would also have first refusal to buy they land.

If rezoned the land was likely to be worth £75,000 - £80,000, Mr Tiernan said, before tax, he stood to make £1.5 million. In return for this money, he said his involvement made rezoning more likely because of his contacts with the councillors and his track record as a developer.

Mr Tiernan said he decided to engage Mr Dunlop to lobby the councillors because of his "professional knowledge of politicians". He said he had been introduced to Mr Dunlop by the late Liam Lawlor. Mr Tiernan said he was "friendly" with Mr Lawlor, but had no business dealings with him and would be "horrified" if anyone suggested he did. When asked why he would be horrified Mr Tiernan said he used the word to be emphatic about the matter.

He said he was not aware that Mr Dunlop had, on this occasion or as a general practice, paid councillors for their vote. Mr Tiernan said that if councillors had asked him for money he would not have agreed to pay them and if Mr Dunlop had asked for money to pay councillors, he would have refused this request and would have broken his association with Mr Dunlop.