Last-ditch court plea to save trees in Glen of the Downs

A last-ditch effort to stop Wicklow County Council felling 600 trees in the Glen of the Downs to make way for a dual carriageway…

A last-ditch effort to stop Wicklow County Council felling 600 trees in the Glen of the Downs to make way for a dual carriageway will come before the Supreme Court today.

The High Court yesterday refused an application by Mr Dermot Murphy, a computer programmer, for leave to take new proceedings challenging the tree felling.

Mr Murphy last week failed in his effort to stop the £18.5 million road scheme when the Supreme Court ruled there were no statutory obstacles to the scheme going ahead.

After being refused leave to take new proceedings against the tree felling and failing to get an interim order stopping the felling, Mr Murphy yesterday went to the Supreme Court seeking to appeal the refusal. The Supreme Court said lawyers for Mr Murphy could raise the case today when the court's list to fix dates is being dealt with.

READ MORE

The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, said the court's list was fairly full and he could not guarantee that the appeal could be dealt with before the Christmas break.

The Chief Justice also said that notice should be given to the other parties - Wicklow County Council and Minister for the Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands - about the application.

The latest court challenge had been taken on a new ground, according to lawyers for Mr Murphy. Mr Paul Sreenan SC, for Mr Murphy, said that on August 12th last a ministerial order had placed the area at the Glen on a "candidate list" to be a special area of conservation under the European Communities (Natural Habitats) regulations.

He submitted that before roadworks or tree felling could be carried out, it was necessary for the council to consult the Minister. If the Minister took the view that the effect of the works would be significant, she would carry out an appropriate assessment. That had not been done. His side had contacted the Department and it had stated it was not required to do that.

Mr Sreenan said that in the High Court earlier yesterday Mr Justice Geoghegan had refused the application on the basis that it should have been raised in the course of the appeal taken by Mr Murphy to the Supreme Court in relation to his earlier proceedings.