Dublin City Council has been ordered by the High Court to halt moves to begin work next Monday to open a new two-lane cycle way on Strand Road/Beach Road in Sandymount.
The council had opposed a stay sought on the works following a challenge brought earlier this week by a local resident and a councillor.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan ruled on Friday the risk of greater injustice lay in not granting a stay on the council's works pending determination of the full challenge.
Leave to challenge
Peter Carvill and Cllr Mannix Flynn were given leave to challenge the council's scheme on grounds including that the council was incorrect in asserting the work required for this is exempt development because it was a traffic-calming measure. They also argued the council was incorrect in asserting the project did not require an environmental impact assessment.
The judge adjourned the question whether he should impose a stay on the work until the council had an opportunity to make its case.
On Friday the council urged him not to do so in submissions from its counsel Stephen Dodd SC. The reasons why it should go ahead had been set out in a lengthy affidavit from the head of technical services in the council's transportation services, Brendan O'Brien, counsel said.
Among those reasons were that there had been a delay by the applicants in bringing the proceedings even though it was publicly announced work was to commence on February 15th.
Survey
In a survey, the council said it was strongly supported by 56 per cent of people in the area with 23 per cent opposing and 17 per cent having concerns, counsel said.
It had been emphasised this was a trial for six months and there have been cases where trials did not work they were removed. The works were covered and encouraged under government policy for essential transport infrastructure works during the pandemic and did not require it to go through any of the planning processes.
The applicants had produced no evidence of any possible environmental damage which they claimed necessitated assessments under EU law, it was argued.
Monday's start date was important in terms of the imminent return of children to school, in an area with four primary and seven secondary schools, and the advice that they should walk or cycle, counsel said.
Financial penalties
A stay would also mean the council will incur financial penalties because arrangements have been put in place for Monday's start including 25 traffic management personnel being employed to monitor the situation.
Neil Steen SC, for the applicants, rejected the council's arguments arguing, among other things, the council's own statistics had indicated serious traffic congestion when the cycleway is up and running in normal times.
He also said the council's claim that it was strongly supported was irrelevant because this was a legal process, not a popularity contest.
Legal principles
Mr Justice Meenan said there were well established legal principles in relation to a stay and the question of "greater injustice".
The court had been satisfied the applicants had sufficient interest in the matter to bring the challenge and that there were substantial grounds for doing so.
There was no doubt what was being envisaged is a considerable change in traffic movement which will significantly alter traffic patterns and the way in which people in the area order their transport needs, he said.
The council said it was a trial and that only minimal works would be required which meant that these measures could be put in place at any time without any particular difficulty, he said. He also did not think the challenge to the works came "like a bolt out of the blue" for the council.
The balance of justice lay in favour of the stay being granted. However, he hoped he could give an early hearing of the main proceedings when they return to the court in April.
