DART+ (DART Expansion)

Thunder87

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122611591#Comment_122611591

That's exactly what the recent Clongriffin Busconnects was JR'd over though! Someone doesn't want people waiting for a bus outside her house and the judge agreed it was sufficient grounds to potentially kill the whole project.

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2024/06/19/high-court-permits-artane-resident-to-pursue-challenge-over-north-dublin-bus-corridor/

There've also been plenty of housing permissions quashed over extremely arbitrary reasoning, this one from a few months ago for example

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2024/03/12/high-court-overturns-permission-for-227-homes-in-goatstown-on-public-transport-ground/

cgcsb

The 2 judicial reviews against DART+ West have been granted leave to proceed.

This sets back a start on construction by a year at least.

Just to note these 2 judicial reviews are from business owners that will have their businesses closed or severely limited by the proposed underpass at Ashtown. And the only reason why the underpass was routed this way is because Leo Varadkar interfered to preserve a decrepit horse abuse facility ran by the crustiest of entitled unemployed families that claim their 'facility' has community value. If Leo hadn't stepped in, we likely would have had enabling works began already.

scrabtom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122682792#Comment_122682792

Some bad news to start the weekend

Citizen Six

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122682792#Comment_122682792

How can they be unemployed, yet run a business?

I don't know much about horse riding, but is it not a good facility for kids?

I'm more stressed out about an extra year of delays to services due to manually operated gates!

Thunder87

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122682792#Comment_122682792

If the original plan went ahead the stables would have found some half arsed technicality to bring a JR instead, the bar is so low that it's basically a given with all these projects.

cgcsb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122682977#Comment_122682977

Fortunately the stables are no longer talking with their solicitor and can't engage with another solicitor, nobody wants to work with them basically so they couldn't launch a judicial review. They turned up to the oral hearing ranting and raving, grown men with greasy pony tails shouting at people, no solicitor is going to take that on. I doubt they could afford a JR either given the state of their 'stables'.

Citizen Six

Are details of the judicial reviews in the news yet?

VonLuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122682792#Comment_122682792

What are the claims from the two JR's? I recall they created an elaborate overpass to maintain access into the haulage company in order to appease them and now they submit a JR? Unbelievable.

Also same company own the historic mill building which they've let go to ruin through the years. They don't care about anyone using the DART or the locality.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122683093#Comment_122683093

Unfortunately you don't need legal representation to take a JR or money. As seen by the JR taken by the lady who doesn't want a bus stop near her home, she has taken it without any legal representation.

Thunder87

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122683093#Comment_122683093

As said above, judging by the Clongriffin JR all the stables would have had to do is say "I don't want this thing here, Irish Rail didn't do enough to not have it here" and a judge would gladly rubber stamp a multi year charade

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122683221#Comment_122683221

That's not the case. There's a difference between making a request for a JR and being granted one. JRs can only be granted to examine compliance with law. It's not enough to say "they didn't do enough to please me": you'd be laughed out of Court. To get a JR, you have to show that they didn't do enough to make sure that what they were doing was legal.

It's 100% legal to put a bus stop on the public street outside someone's home. No judge would grant a review on such a ridiculous ground, and that person will have their JR request thrown out when it gets to court, but the problem is that the courts are so busy that it could take a long time before that happens.

… and that's the real problem, NIMBYs are abusing the delays in the court system, and filing requests for JR primarily out of spite and malice: remember the M28 crowd? they probably knew there was no way their case would stand up, but they bankrolled it all the way up to the Supreme Court in the hope that some crisis in the intervening two years would halt the project.

Thunder87

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122683379#Comment_122683379

But it wasn't thrown out... she was granted a review?

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2024/06/19/high-court-permits-artane-resident-to-pursue-challenge-over-north-dublin-bus-corridor/

Unless I'm misreading it and this is just permitting her to request a JR?

cgcsb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122682942#Comment_122682942

Well it's not much of a business, they own the ground for the guts of a century, have some crappy asbestos sheds and a few degrees in philosophy. Some even introduce themselves as 'Dr.'

scrabtom

Is there any chance that these things will move a bit faster now that there's a dedicated planning and environment court?

And is there any facility to move important cases like this one further up in the queue?

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122682792#Comment_122682792

This sets back a start on construction by a year at least.

Why? Like, if the JRs both refer to Ashtown, what is to stop IE cracking on with the rest of it?

And the only reason why the underpass was routed this way is because Leo Varadkar interfered to preserve a decrepit horse abuse facility ran by the crustiest of entitled unemployed families that claim their 'facility' has community value. If Leo hadn't stepped in, we likely would have had enabling works began already.

That is a ridiculous and frankly malicious misdirection of blame. IE got 8,200 submissions on Dart West consultation #2, 6,300 of which were related to Ashtown. Public consultation #1, even with the absolute clusterf**k of the Coolmine crossing, only got 1,700. It was a ridiculous plan that was never going to fly, total incompetence on the part of IE and it didn't need Leo Varadkar or anyone else to point that out.

IE will be delighted because it gives them yet another excuse not to have to actually do anything.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122684344#Comment_122684344

Theoretically, the JR could be so successful as to send the whole thing back to the start.

CatInABox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122684344#Comment_122684344

On the JR front, unfortunately the JR system dictates how cases are dealt with, which means that even if you only want your JR to apply to one tiny part of a project, the entire project gets JRed.

Anyway, absolutely no way that anyone would ok work on part of a project without knowing that all of it is legit. The scandal if IR went ahead and did all the work, only for the courts to say that there's no way to do this final section, would be immense, career ending stuff for a lot of people.

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122684374#Comment_122684374

Theoretically yes, but I can't see any scenario in which the High Court suspends the entire RO purely because of one very localised problem. But again, IE absolutely will down tools for the duration, it's how they operate.

It's odd that this hasn't made the news, so all we have is one poster who has told us that a) the applications were lodged and b) they've been granted. So we don't know if they've been granted leave to apply for a JR, whether the JR itself has been granted, or whether none of it is true.

Zebra3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122684387#Comment_122684387

What’s happening should be career ending stuff for some…

Pete_Cavan

A JR is taken against the grant of planning permission as a whole, not just a particular part of it. Even if the person taking the JR is only interested in a small park of the planning permission, they are challenging the whole lot. IÉ can't just plough on with everything except the Ashtown LC area.

This is very different to the situation with the depot near Maynooth. The depot was refused but the rest of the application granted meaning can proceed with what has been approved (well, could have until the JRs).

DaBluBoi

You'd think that with the clear struggles on the western line from the new rail timetable, that they would then prioritise DART+ West to get a new and improved terminus built to decrease congestion at Connolly, but nope. I'm aware that the timetable will soon revert, tho I can't imagine much or any expansion of services is possible without DART+, given how stretched the rail network has clearly become.

specialbyte

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122684402#Comment_122684402

The High Court is examining the decision as a whole. The High Court really only has two options:

• Upload the decision of ABP to grant permission
• Quash the decision of ABP

When quashing the decision they can decide to remit it back to ABP for another decision from scratch or they can effectively declare the whole process invalid and require a new planning application from Irish Rail, which would require updated environmental analysis, which would take months-years to prepare.

For long linear infrastructure projects should the Oireachtas give more nuanced powers to the High Court to allow for more nuanced decisions? Yes. Is that in the new 700 page planning bill? No, because the new planning bill is the dreams of private developers who almost exclusively deliver very site specific projects rather than public projects that tend to be larger in scope.

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122684510#Comment_122684510

A JR is taken against the grant of planning permission as a whole, not just a particular part of it. Even if the person taking the JR is only interested in a small park of the planning permission, they are challenging the whole lot.

This isn't true. While you can challenge the whole RO, you can equally challenge only a part of it. And the High Court can choose to reject even smaller parts of that part while leaving the rest intact.

"Where an application is made for judicial review in respect of part only of a railway order, the High Court may, if it thinks fit, declare to be invalid or quash the part concerned or any provision thereof without declaring to be invalid or quashing the remainder of the railway order or part of the railway order"

Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act, 2001, Section 47 (irishstatutebook.ie)

So they can plough on with all of it, at least until the High Court suspends the RO. Will they? No.

But until this is confirmed by a reliable source, it's all speculation.

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122684632#Comment_122684632

I didn't realise that they can quash only part of a RO. It would be hilarious if the High Court quashed the underpass at Ashtown but allowed the LC closure to proceed.

IÉ can proceed with anything until the outcome of the JR has been decided. The decision can still be to quash the whole lot. Even a partial quash could materially effect the rest of the project.

spacetweek

The schadenfreude in me actually hopes that this is exactly what will happen! It would serve the locals right.

As for the JR, yes nothing can happen until it’s decided. So now it’ll be interesting to see how long it’ll take for the case to be heard. In a country with a functional legal system, this would only be 2-3 months hence.

VonLuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122689960#Comment_122689960

I just feel sorry for the vast majority of local people who want this to happen when it's the very small minority who manage to disrupt things for everyone else.

Bsharp

Also feel sorry for the project team working on it, really saps the life out of them. Work endlessly trying to meet all the requirements these days, consultation after consultation, deadline after deadline, endless pressure, finally thinking something might get built, and then another prolonged waiting period which could unravel everything you've committed to over a number of years. The industry is struggling to attract people as it is, that's without the completely broken system.

danfrancisco83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122694695#Comment_122694695

I was just thinking about the presentation given by Paul Hendrick, decarbonising Ireland's railways, and at the beginning he lists a number of successful projects he's been part of. I imagine it's definitely something people think about before committing to work on a project.

"…Do I want to be 30 years old and the only project I have on my CV is a failed railway upgrade that took 10 years and ultimately got canned?"

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122689960#Comment_122689960

As for the JR, yes nothing can happen until it’s decided.

the legislation explicitly says the exact opposite.

But I’ll repeat, it’s claimed that leave for two judicial reviews has been granted by the High Court against a multi-billion euro state infrastructure project… and this hasn’t made the news?

There is something very strange going on there, the most likely explanation being it isn’t true.

Thunder87

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122694778#Comment_122694778

Fairly sure this is one of them, Gowan = Bright Motor Group which is the car place next to Ashtown Stables

https://services.courts.ie/high-court-search?caseRecordId=H.JR.2024.0001133

On the legislation, the part you quoted doesn't say anything about being able to continue, just says the specific section being JR'd can be declared invalid. Another clause in your link says it's up to the court whether to suspend the railway order while the review is being decided. I'd say that implicitly means they can't continue until the court decides one way or the other.

"Notwithstanding an application for leave to apply for judicial review under the Order against a railway order, the application shall not affect the validity of the railway order and its operation unless, upon an application to the High Court, that Court suspends the railway order until the application is determined or withdrawn."