A legal challenge has been launched against a confirmed project to make a street in Malahide, a region in northern County Dublin, permanently pedestrianised. The proposition from Fingal County Council, which involves enhancing New Street with improvements including outdoor dining areas, street furniture and bike racks, received approval in January 16th after extensive discussion, with 22 councillors supporting and nine opposing, with five abstentions.
Nicola Byrne, a director of a business residing on Old Street in Malahide, has received approval to proceed with her High Court case, alleging legal issues including the lack of a local area plan render the decision to pedestrianise invalid. This marks Byrne’s second legal appeal against plans related to New Street, with her 2021 plea to the High Court urging them to overturn another decision to temporarily pedestrianise the area.
Despite refusing Byrne a preliminary pretrial prohibition in August 2021 that would have halted pedestrianisation pending further examination of her broader case, the High Court remains in session. Allegedly, pedestrianisation contributes to issues such as increased traffic and antisocial behaviour.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys presided over Byrne’s latest case brought against the permanent plan. Considered for discussion in June by the council, barrister Aoife Carroll communicated their eagerness to proceed with the vital public realm developments extending beyond pedestrianisation.
Adjourned to the following week for the State and An Bord Pleanála to formulate responses, Byrne – represented by Alan Doyle who is supported by MK Solicitors – alleges the council’s Chief Executive erred by disregarding matters concerning proper planning and sustainable development. She contests that they did not assess the cumulative impacts of the latest proposed development with former public realm projects.
The decision to implement the plan, Byrne continues, is invalid due to its reliance on a decision by An Bord Pleanála which she asserts is flawed due to their manner of handling environmental screening requirements.
The planning board, she alleges, made legal missteps by neglecting to take into account the accrued effects on public health, brought about by traffic-related risks, that would come from this project in conjunction with a nearby car park’s development, the renovation of a green area and a cycle route that could draw up to 3,500 cyclists during high season days.
She asserts that traffic rerouted from New Street due to the 2021 temporary pedestrianisation guidelines follows the same route as cyclists. The council’s and board’s verdicts are further questioned as they purportedly approved a discharge to water without carrying out the necessary environmental evaluations, she alleges.
The accusations have been refuted.