The High Court has granted Áine Kelly leave to challenge An Bord Pleanála’s approval of the Clongriffin to City Centre Core Bus Corridor Scheme, on grounds concerning the impact of a proposed bus stop outside her home and the board’s reasons for approving it.
The decision, delivered by Mr Justice Humphreys on 19 June 2024, is at the leave stage of a judicial review. It does not decide whether the approval should ultimately be quashed. The court granted leave on standard terms, directed Ms Kelly to amend and add particulars to her statement of grounds, and refused leave in all other respects.
The proposed stop would be on Malahide Road directly outside Ms Kelly’s front door, which opens onto the footpath without a front garden or other buffer. Two existing stops are to be removed. The National Transport Authority (NTA) told the board that the new location best met its bus-stop review criteria, including stop spacing, links to the Kilmore Road junction and passenger safety. It said alternative locations would bring difficulties, including the need for a crossing and possible interference with driveways.
Residents’ submissions raised concerns about privacy, safety, accessibility, footpath width and the loss of shelters at the existing stops. Ms Kelly argued that people waiting for buses could congregate beside her doors and windows, affecting her household’s privacy and use of its home. The board’s inspector acknowledged that a stop would bring people together there, but considered the effects outweighed by the wider transport benefits.
For the constitutional property-rights challenge, the judge found substantial grounds to argue that the board may have understated the effects on Ms Kelly by describing them as “potential annoyance” and weighed them against the benefits of the whole scheme. He said the challenge could argue that the relevant comparison was the benefit of this particular stop location over alternatives, including retaining existing stops, weighed against the impact on her.
The judge also found substantial grounds to challenge the adequacy of the board’s reasons about the personal impact on a resident whose home opens directly onto the footpath. He stressed that the issue was whether the board had given sufficient reasons, not whether the NTA’s response to submissions was itself a ground for judicial review.
Leave was refused on the complaint that residents were not notified during earlier, non-statutory consultations. The judge held that alleged shortcomings in that pre-application process did not, in this case, establish a basis to challenge the board’s later approval following statutory consultation. An Aarhus Convention argument about pre-application consultation was not properly pleaded; no amendment was sought, and a broader challenge would have required State respondents to be joined.
Ms Kelly was directed to file and serve an amended statement of grounds within two weeks, and an originating notice of motion within a further two weeks, for return on 9 September 2024. The judgment invited the parties to raise any concerns about the directed particulars at the next hearing. The court reserved her expenses.