Minister Flanagans justice dept flushes 3.89 million down the toilet. Just taxpayers money so no heads will roll.

kimari

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
865
Twitter
dont like it
If there were other higher bidders, they would have bought it, know of any, a bottom to a market in freefall had to be found.
This site has been surrounded by the stench of corruption ever since it inception.Comissioned by the doj without planning permission .No sign of a e tender for its conversion from the office of public works .Trying to build something that required a z15 zoning permit in an area designated z5 by Dublin city council. Rental value 1 million a year yet its was up for sale for 1.5 million . in a city center location .with property prices going through the roof. Ceiling .freefall my axse nothing about this site has ever been above board
 


The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
According to another posted
R, it was Liam Carrolls Zoe Developments.
The plot thickens.
A swirl of controversy surrounded that company .

So the funds reduced Zoe's debts and helped the Receiver collect his fees.
One has to ask was there a secret commercial relationship between civil servants in the depts of justice / opw and Zoe Developments.
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
This site has been surrounded by the stench of corruption ever since it inception.Comissioned by the doj without planning permission .No sign of a e tender for its conversion from the office of public works .Trying to build something that required a z15 zoning permit in an area designated z5 by Dublin city council. Rental value 1 million a year yet its was up for sale for 1.5 million . in a city center location .with property prices going through the roof. Ceiling .freefall my axse nothing about this site has ever been above board
There should be a public enquiry into this matter.
If minister Flanagan gave a hoot about the reputations of the civil servants in his department all files relating to this matter would be made public.

On the assumption that the building in question is the former PMPA insurance co offices I'm fairly confident a permission would have existed for the building to be used as a commercial office/ business use.
That would have been known and certain for any potential tenant.

What remains to be answered is why the dept of justice signed an expensive binding lease knowing that an intended future use required a different form of planning permission?

This is where the reckless / corrupt conduct kicks in.

The civil servants answer will be : We always had the option of just using it for the existing business/ office use.

Therein lies the rot at the heart of the Irish public service where enormous sums of public money are placed in jeopardy whilst careless civil servants joggle options dictated by either personal or ministerial whims.

Charley Flanagan is the minister currently responsible for this departmental scandal and ought to unearth the people responsible including his ministerial predecessors.
 

stanley

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
10,072
This site has been surrounded by the stench of corruption ever since it inception.Comissioned by the doj without planning permission .No sign of a e tender for its conversion from the office of public works .Trying to build something that required a z15 zoning permit in an area designated z5 by Dublin city council. Rental value 1 million a year yet its was up for sale for 1.5 million . in a city center location .with property prices going through the roof. Ceiling .freefall my axse nothing about this site has ever been above board

Take some of your points but exactly what did a US Hedge fund do wrong, it would seem the Paddy's involved are well able to lump all the deficits due to their corruption onto the sovereign debt of the State.
 

Cahal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
880
Nothing will ever change in this regard untill politicians are held leagally responsible for these kind of blatant miss use of public funds.
 

kimari

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
865
Twitter
dont like it
I think the original planning permission for comercial use expired in 2006
 

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
15,406
Nothing will ever change in this regard untill politicians are held leagally responsible for these kind of blatant miss use of public funds.
That wont happen while gobsh1tes keep voting for FG FF or Labour (and soon i suspect SF)

Stay at home for the next election ...a 20% turnout would really shake them
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,645
I think the original planning permission for comercial use expired in 2006
That building was built as an office block and the office use permission would normally have had no expiry date.
Once constructed the original planning use terms do not normally have an expiry date.
We're that the case nobody would build anything.

The PMPA building was I think an expensive Scott Tallon Walker designed office block.
Inconceivable to think it would have been constructed on foot af any planning permission that had an expiry date in terms of how the building was to be used.

No.
The dept o f justice knew they were leasing a building that had at very least a definite valid permission for use as an office block.
Of that I feel certain.
 

kimari

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
865
Twitter
dont like it
That building was built as an office block and the office use permission would normally have had no expiry date.
Once constructed the original planning use terms do not normally have an expiry date.
We're that the case nobody would build anything.

The PMPA building was I think an expensive Scott Tallon Walker designed office block.
Inconceivable to think it would have been constructed on foot af any planning permission that had an expiry date in terms of how the building was to be used.

No.
The dept o f justice knew they were leasing a building that had at very least a definite valid permission for use as an office block.
Of that I feel certain.
im bumping this for the fm as there seems to be some confusion over which building was being discussed .the pmpa now axa is at 1 wolfetone street which is on the left side as you come down henry street the building which the dept of justice leased is underneath the apartments of 25 wolfetone street which is on the right hand side coming down henry st.its owned now by someone called bnp paribas which is leasing it out as offices
 

'orebel

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
20,150
im bumping this for the fm as there seems to be some confusion over which building was being discussed .the pmpa now axa is at 1 wolfetone street which is on the left side as you come down henry street the building which the dept of justice leased is underneath the apartments of 25 wolfetone street which is on the right hand side coming down henry st.its owned now by someone called bnp paribas which is leasing it out as offices
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNP_Paribas
 

Mushroom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
15,474
I've just read the two paragraphs in the C&AG's report about this and have attached them below - in full - for reference.

Contrary to the howling of the usual suspects, it appears that the problem was, quite simply, that the DoJ's legal advice was wrong.

This gives us two possibilities:

* the incorrect legal advice came from in-house or from another Government Agency, most likely the OPW, in which case someone deserved - and may well have got - a very big kicking.

or

* the legal advice came from an external source - in which case the DoJ should be looking for compo from whoever provided the advice.

If the latter was the situation, then I would have expected the C&AG to have mentioned in his report that the DoJ was pursuing the matter, but there is no such mention.

Hopefully this will be teased out in the PAC, later this year.

6.8 Probation Service Premises

Legal proceedings in relation to the leasing of an office premises in Wolfe Tone Street, Dublin 1, planned for use by a community-based project funded by the Probation Service have now concluded.

The total cost of this issue was €3.89 million analysed as follows:

 a settlement of €1.8 million paid by the Department.
 write off of an amount of €1.068 million spent on leased premises fit out reflected as an asset under development in (note 2.3)
 €1.022 million incurred in rental of the premises and other related costs.


The Department had been legally advised that the draft lease agreement in relation to the premises was in order for signature.

Subsequent to the lease being signed, it transpired that no planning permission was in existence. Legal proceedings which subsequently ensued were settled in late 2016 on the basis of strong legal advice to do so, thus avoiding any further costs accruing to the State. Prior to that settlement, significant efforts had been made to find an alternative use for the property but to no avail. As part of the settlement, the lease on this premises has now been terminated and no further costs will be incurred in relation to this property.

The Department relied on legal advice at all times in relation to the matter.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top