Judge says High Court will hear Sandymount cycle route case, but will not make order delaying trial until council represented in court

A High Court judge, Justice Charles Meenan, has said the court will hear the case put forward against the Sandymount cycle Route trial, but he said this morning that he would not temporarily block the trail from going ahead without the council be present in court.

Breakingnews.ie reported that the judge said he would only deal with an application to put a stay on the work — which would temporarily halt work until the case was heard in full — when the council are represented in court after they are given 72 hours notice. The case today was heard ex parte, meaning only one side was in court.

The case is being brought by Peter Carvill, according to Breakingnews.ie who is representing the Serpentine Avenue, Tritonville and Claremont Roads (STC) group, and Cllr Mannix Flynn (independent), who is a councillor in the neighbouring area and is a serial objector to cycle routes.

Cllr Mannix Flynn and STC claim that the council are going beyond its powers by not applying for planning permission for the cycle route trial and by not catering out an environmental assessment. Today they stressed that this was especially needed because Dublin bay is a protected area.

Dublin City Council was not in court and has yet to respond to requests for comment, but it has previously published screening reports on its website from consultants which outline that an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required for the project.

UPDATED February 23: A spokesperson for Dublin City Council said: “No stay has been put on the works and Dublin City Council intend to continue working on this scheme to provide safe protected cycling along Strand Road.”

On the issue of planning permission, the council and the National Transport Authority rely on the the Road Traffic Act 1994 (Section 38) as amended by the Public Transportation Regulation Act, 2009 (Section 46).

The legislation allows for wide-ranging changes to existing roads and streets, including fully closing off streets to motorists.

Public Transportation Regulation Act, 2009 expands the meaning of traffic calming in Road Traffic Act 1994 to include the ability to “restrict or control the speed or movement of, or which prevent, restrict or control access to a public road or roads by, mechanically propelled vehicles (whether generally or of a particular class) and measures which facilitate the safe use of public roads by different classes of traffic (including pedestrians and cyclists).”

The primary legislation, enacted by the Dail, goes onto added that this “includes for the purposes of the above the provision of traffic signs, road markings, bollards, posts, poles, chicanes, rumble areas, raised, lowered or modified road surfaces, ramps, speed cushions, speed tables or other similar works or devices, islands or central reservations, roundabouts, modified junctions, works to reduce or modify the width of the roadway and landscaping, planting or other similar works.”


  1. So, the judge said he wouldn’t halt the trial until the council are represented at court? How long before the council have to present their case? And does that mean that the judge could then halt the trial (presumably this could be before the trial even begins) until such time as the case is heard and a decision given?

    FFS. Mannix Flynn is a full-blown anti-cyclist lunatic.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.