Cycle infrastructure planned for south Dublin

Seth Brundle

Larbre34 wrote: »

I read that latest news report, I knew the application to An BP was due, but that argument about the social distancing is daft, I would never have raised it and in PR terms it undermines the substantive issues.

You mean this new argument in favour of social distancing doesn't work with their previous suggestion of removing one footpath for the cycle lane?

Face it, the residents arguments are simply a ruse to be able to continue to use their cars. It has little to do with concerns about traffic on adjoining streets or anything else.
This latest justification to block a trial for safer travel is unbelievably pathetic and shows how badly thought out their approach is.
However, I'd like to suggest that maybe we should listen to their concerns and assist social distancing by removing traffic altogether - would that appease them?

Larbre34

Ignore the rest of the noise and the social media nonsense and look at the law.

A Part 8 was required. The City Council didn't carry one out. At best for them, the High Court will delay things until An BP have made their determination that the Part 8 must be done. Then the City Council will either do one or it won't.

If it doesn't, the project ends there. If it does, its a 6 to 9 month process, minimum and a Part 8 scheme can only be approved by a vote of the City Council, which it will not. At most, 20 votes out of 63.

So, any way you slice it, no cycletrack.

Plastik

In your opinion. The Council say a Part 8 wasn't required. We will see whose opinion the High Court side with.

Make sure and do continue to post back here in the thread if the High Court don't find in your favour.

Larbre34

The Council's approach was based on "the Government said go and build temporary Covid mobility things", which in fairness, the Government did say.

Unfortunately for everyone, including the Government, they didn't change any laws to allow it, and "cos I said so" doesn't really stand up in court once challenged.

I'm ready for this to go against me alright, but I'm pretty confident it won't. Are you?

Type 17

Gonna be messy if it gets stopped - DCC are currently ripping out traffic islands/roundabout at Roslyn Park, and have closed a lane in each direction on Merrion Road at Merrion gates, to start the changes there (southbound traffic from Strand Road will be allowed turn right, to go northbound).

buffalo

Larbre34 wrote: »

A Part 8 was required. The City Council didn't carry one out. At best for them, the High Court will delay things until An BP have made their determination that the Part 8 must be done.

So, any way you slice it, no cycletrack.

Unless you got yourself a seat on the High Court while I wasn't looking, its [sic] just bonkers talk from you and people should inform themselves of where things are at rather than listening to you.

Larbre34

Type 17 wrote: »

Gonna be messy if it gets stopped - DCC are currently ripping out traffic islands/roundabout at Roslyn Park, and have closed a lane in each direction on Merrion Road at Merrion gates, to start the changes there (southbound traffic from Strand Road will be allowed turn right, to go northbound).

They know full well what they're at.

If its called off, they'll have to reinstate it all.

Peregrine

Larbre34 wrote: »

Ignore the rest of the noise and the social media nonsense and look at the law.

A Part 8 was required. The City Council didn't carry one out. At best for them, the High Court will delay things until An BP have made their determination that the Part 8 must be done. Then the City Council will either do one or it won't.

If it doesn't, the project ends there. If it does, its a 6 to 9 month process, minimum and a Part 8 scheme can only be approved by a vote of the City Council, which it will not. At most, 20 votes out of 63.

So, any way you slice it, no cycletrack.

You are aware that the application for judicial review is arguing that it required an environmental impact assessment? If it requires an EIA then it can't be a Part 8 application. The people asking for the judicial review don't agree with you. You can't both be right.

Larbre34

Peregrine wrote: »

You are aware that the application for judicial review is arguing that it required an environmental impact assessment? If it requires an EIA then it can't be a Part 8 application. The people asking for the judicial review don't agree with you. You can't both be right.

As I understand it, the case is asking for an injunction on further works proceeding so that An Bord Pleanála can make a determination on whether the development is exempt. That determination would specify if a Part 8, EIA or whatever level of application would have to be carried out, in the event it is not exempt development. (spoiler, it is not) I know various media reports are fixating on an EIA, but they are missing some of the specifics when they say that.

In any case, Village Magazine are reporting in the last few minutes that the High Court has granted the petitioners leave to challenge the project.

I imagine they will now immediately lodge the Section 5 application with An BP and that at the full Court hearing an injunction will be granted against further works until that determination is received, probably by mid-summer due to An BP backlog.

So with reference to an earlier post, every bit of concrete torn up by the City Council from this moment on, will likely have to be replaced exactly as it was by the end of the week.

Thelonious Monk

Our hero doesn't mind vans driving on footpaths I bet

https://twitter.com/Kev_OMahony/status/1363842997985681412

a_squirrelman

Larbre34 wrote: »

....will likely have to be replaced exactly as it was by the end of the week.

You seem waaaaaaay too excited about this.

a_squirrelman

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Our hero doesn't mind vans driving on footpaths I bet

https://twitter.com/Kev_OMahony/status/1363842997985681412

And Mannix has taken in a base salary of 17k per year for his part time job of saying no to absolutely everything.



Nearly €200,000, fair play to him I guess.

Thelonious Monk

So how long does this mean it'll be postponed for? Not that I really thought it was ever going to happen in the first place. It's just annoying that nothing ever changes.

Larbre34

a_squirrelman wrote: »

You seem waaaaaaay too excited about this.

No, excitement is not what I would call it.

Disgust at the blatant waste of my taxes and presumably yours in the process would be more accurate.

Larbre34

Larbre34 wrote: »

So with reference to an earlier post, every bit of concrete torn up by the City Council from this moment on, will likely have to be replaced exactly as it was by the end of the week.

An injunction to cease works until a determination is made is just that, ceasing works. Its not "put back everything to the way it was" while we decide

AndrewJRenko

Larbre34 wrote: »

No, excitement is not what I would call it.

Disgust at the blatant waste of my taxes and presumably yours in the process would be more accurate.

Disgusted at the 'waste of taxes' while pushing for the much more expensive solution of building it over the wall?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116158858&postcount=251

Larbre34

[Deleted User] wrote: »

An injunction to cease works until a determination is made is just that, ceasing works. Its not "put back everything to the way it was" while we decide

Thats up to the Court.

Given the likely period for the determination and then inevitably carrying out a proper planning process if the City Council decides to proceed (could be up to a year), the Council would be pretty negligent not to restore the mini roundabouts, traffic islands, kerbs etc that they have removed thus far.

Larbre34

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Disgusted at the 'waste of taxes' while pushing for the much more expensive solution of building it over the wall?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116158858&postcount=251

If thats what you choose to see.

The City Council performing amateur hour is wasteful. Investing in a permanent, sustainable, win-win solution isn't.

Chips Lovell

Locked for review

Chips Lovell

Reopening. If you can't have a civil conversation about this topic, please refrain from posting.

It should go without saying, but the following is not on

a.) Alleging that individuals or groups of individuals may be engaging in wrongdoing.

b.) Threatening other users with legal action.

Please don't think that there are clever ways of avoiding sanction, such as going heavy on allusion or dressing your post up as "just asking a question".

Thanks

Thelonious Monk

there's bleedin' killins on Twitter over this, provided some entertainment last night.

Thelonious Monk

https://www.breakingnews.ie/amp/ireland/legal-challenge-to-dublins-sandymount-strand-road-cycleway-1085166.html

Looks like it's going ahead anyway for the time being

Yep, ploughing ahead. Looks like it will be fully implemented by next week rather than concrete being poured to restore mini RAB's lol

2 dates of importance

The one-way trial will start next week.

The judicial review will happen sometime in April

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/council-to-press-ahead-with-sandymount-cycleway-despite-legal-challenge-1.4491806?mode=amp

Dublin City Council said it intends to press ahead with work on the Strand Road cycleway in Sandymount, despite a legal challenge and a submission to An Bord Pleanála to stop it.

daragh_

The submission also noted that the cyclists in computer generated image of the track “are not wearing a face covering of any description”.

Bloody imaginary cyclists.

magicbastarder

maybe the council can promise that computer generated cyclists won't be allowed use the real thing.

Chips Lovell

Also, do not copy/paste entire articles.

Grassey

daragh_ wrote: »

The submission also noted that the cyclists in computer generated image of the track “are not wearing a face covering of any description”.

Bloody imaginary cyclists.

The only reason that was noticed was because of the mandatory builder jackets

Larbre34

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.breakingnews.ie/amp/ireland/legal-challenge-to-dublins-sandymount-strand-road-cycleway-1085166.html

Looks like it's going ahead anyway for the time being

There'll be an application made on Thursday to stay the works, as the Council will have had their 72 hours notice to appear in Court.

Its pretty clear what way this is going. The judge has approved grounds for judicial review in April, the Bord Pleanála application for determination has been lodged and a stay on the works is pretty much certain. The City Law Agent will be as aware of that as anyone, so for the City Council to throw good money after bad by continuing work until Thursday is reckless and negligent. In fact I'd expect big pressure on Owen Keegan's position in the aftermath.

buffalo

Larbre34 wrote: »

In fact I'd expect big pressure on Owen Keegan's position in the aftermath.

Is this before or after Brexit stops the trial? Or construction traffic access stops the trial? Or the Green Party splits at the seams and the coalition government falls apart?

At what point do you admit you haven't the foggiest what's going to happen?

Larbre34

buffalo wrote: »

Is this before or after Brexit stops the trial? Or construction traffic access stops the trial? Or the Green Party splits at the seams and the coalition government falls apart?

At what point do you admit you haven't the foggiest what's going to happen?

A week ago folks were on here, 'wheres all the court action, wheres all the Bord Pleanála appeals, you're spoofing!'

Show me how things aren't playing out over this "trial" more or less exactly how I said they would.