If that were the general attitude, every Tom, Dick and Harry near a piece of new infrastructure could veto it. That does not rule out properly determined compensation.
Jusding by the plans, it only looks like they're losing a small portion of their parking anyways? It's not like their whole site is being CPO'd.
The land isn't suddenly worthless. It's only of no use for a business that requires car access. As a residential development site, though, it would very valuable.
Gowans will live, this isn't their only site, or their only business activity.
But maybe they don't want compensation, maybe they want to keep their businesses open.
But surely it has been obvious for years that their businesses would not be viable? I'm pretty sure once the location of the overpass was decided we all discussed that possibility on this thread.
In which case surely the TII have been discussing compensation already.
NTA were in a Wicklow CC meeting recently and said the consultation on (what's left of) Dart South would start next month.
there’s nothing implicit about it, it’s explicitly spelled out in the text you quoted.
“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upon an application to the High Court, that Court suspends the railway order until the application is determined or withdrawn”
But the net effect is the same, IE won’t do anything until it’s resolved - however that isn’t the same as “can’t” do anything.
Nice find on Gowan Motors, their objection was 100% inevitable, the arrangements at Ashtown essentially put them out of business and presumably there will be another coming from Burke Bros wholesalers. I misread the thread, I thought the implication was that the JRs were supposed to be from local residents.
People may not appreciate the application for a JR but this isn’t some woman who doesn’t want a bus stop outside her house, these are businesses that have been there for years and years and are being sent to the wall. Yes, I know they’ll be compensated but that isn’t the point.
If the applications are frivolous, the High Court won’t entertain them. My bet is that any decent lawyer will be able to show that IE and ABP didn’t give due consideration to the impact on these businesses.
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."
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The High Court is examining the decision as a whole. The High Court really only has two options:
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.
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.
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).
What’s happening should be career ending stuff for some…
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.
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.
Theoretically, the JR could be so successful as to send the whole thing back to the start.
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.
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?
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.'
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1170065b4dc42461431e566fc739ce94.svg)
