Tidy Towns group take high court action over decision for flood alleviation works
By Aideen O'Flaherty
BALLYBODEN Tidy Towns has taken High Court action over An Bord Pleanála’s decision to grant permission for flood alleviation works along the Whitechurch Stream and its confluence to the Owendoher River..
According to the council, the €2m Whitechurch Stream Flood Alleviation Scheme will protect over 170 properties, including 150 homes and up to 20 businesses, from flood events that happen once every 100 years.
The Whiteschurch Stream
The proposed scheme is to consist of raising banks, river bank improvement, the removal of trees and other vegetation, new flood defence walls and/or reinforcing existing ones, increasing existing wall heights, the removal or replacement of low-level bridges, and provision of trash screens.
South Dublin County Council lodged the plans for the scheme with ABP as a Strategic Infrastructure Development last July, and they were granted permission in December.
However, Ballyboden Tidy Towns recently brought High Court proceedings in a bid to overturn ABP’s decision, and an ex-parte hearing, meaning only one side was represented, was held last Friday.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys instructed the group to amend one of the grounds of their case. Another ex-parte hearing will be held later this month.
A provisional hearing date has been fixed for November, and the judge granted a stay on the works.
A montage of the works
Angela O’Donoghue from Ballyboden Tidy Towns told The Echo: “The River Glin and the Owendoher River are glacial rivers.
“What the council is proposing to do won’t fix the problem – they need to look at things further upstream.”
In their application for a judicial review, Ballyboden Tidy Towns claimed that ABP’s decision was invalid for a number of reasons, including their view that the council’s ability to “screen out the necessity for an environmental impact assessment” for the scheme “constitutes an impermissible conflict of interest”.
They also claimed that site notices, and notices which were published online and in two newspapers, didn’t inform the public that a binding EIA screening had already taken place – which meant that a full EIA report wouldn’t be required.
The group also claimed that the decision was invalid because ABP “failed to reach a conclusion consistent with the requirements of strict protection contained in Articles 4 and 12 of the Habitats Directive” in relation to impacts on bats and otters.
By subscribing to The Echo you are supporting your local newspaper Click Here: Echo Online.
TAGS news
