‘No case to answer’ for An Bord Pleanála chief over conflict of interest claims

An external report for An Bord Pleanála found its director of planning had “no case to answer” in relation to claims of a conflict of interest in certain decisions, the body’s chairman has said.

Dave Walsh, the chairman, disclosed findings that also cleared Rachel Kenny of any breaches of An Bord Pleanála’s code of conduct when responding to questions from The Irish Times.

Mr Walsh declined to comment on the findings of a separate internal report into planning issues that he received last week from senior officials at An Bord Pleanála, saying he had legal advice against publication.

The external and internal reports follow months of controversy over the role of former deputy chairman Paul Hyde who faces prosecution at Dublin District Court in relation to allegations he gave false particulars to the planning body.

After years of tumult, An Bord Pleanála battles the legacy of crisis

---

An Bord Pleanála reports sharp rise in legal fees with €10m paid out during ‘particularly challenging’ year

---

Former An Bord Pleanála deputy chair Paul Hyde jailed for two months

---

Paul Hyde shows little emotion as Harvard-educated architect gets jail sentence

---

Mr Walsh set out how he commissioned an external report by consultants Resolve Ireland that examined issues raised about a non-board member, Ms Kenny, who directs An Bord Pleanála’s planning operations.

Resolve Ireland “did not address any matters” relating to Mr Hyde, said Mr Walsh in an email.

“While An Bord Pleanála declines generally to comment on the specific matters raised in the report pending further consideration of them by the chairperson, in relation to matters relating to a senior official and potential conflicts of interest, the chairperson commissioned an independent external investigation into the allegations made, and this report concluded that the issues raised had been the subject of materially inaccurate media reports and that there was no case to answer in respect of breaches of the board’s code of conduct or conflicts of interest in decision-making.”

Mr Walsh, who has not previously spoken to media about the controversies engulfing the organisation, said planning decisions were made collectively by a quorum of board members and not by individual members.

“Board members and employees have endeavoured to adhere to the requirements set down in the code of conduct in relation to cases in their immediate neighbourhood,” he said.

“Recognising the need for greater clarity on the issue, matters relating to identification of a consistent and common-sense approach to what constitutes ‘immediate neighbourhood’, for the purposes of minimising or removing the risk of real or perceived conflict, is being considered both in the board’s revised code of conduct to be finalised in the coming weeks as well as in the ongoing [Office of the Planning Regulator] review.”

‘Fact-finding examination’

Mr Walsh disclosed nothing about the findings of the internal review which started in April, saying only that there had been an “unauthorised release” of the report.

“It should be noted that this review is intended to be a fact-finding examination of all of the issues and allegations raised in respect of the board and to provide analysis and information to the chairperson to enable him to assess whether there has been any actual evidence of wrong-doing or malpractice by individuals, or whether the issues arise from poorly documented or unclear ABP policies and procedures,” said Mr Walsh.

“Arising from this internal fact-gathering process, which did not involve any cross-checking or consultation with individuals or parts of the organisation concerned, the chairperson is currently seeking to identify and examine relevant evidence and specific cases that are cited in the report where he considers that further examination is warranted and to inform his next steps in the process.”

Legal advisers said publication now would be premature given “the risk of prejudicing any possible follow-up actions or investigations arising”, said Mr Walsh. He went on to cite the need to provide “an opportunity for persons referenced within the report’s commentary to engage and respond to the allegations and issues, in line with due process and fair procedures”.

He added that the board “always endeavoured to conduct itself to the highest corporate standards” and to make decisions in line with the requirements and statutory functions set for it.