Motorway protesters ordered to leave cottage due for demolition

A number of environmental protesters have been ordered to leave a cottage which Fingal County Council is proposing to demolish…

A number of environmental protesters have been ordered to leave a cottage which Fingal County Council is proposing to demolish as part of the planned northern motorway scheme.

But Ms Justice Macken said the council was prohibited from demolishing the house - Seaview Cottage, Seatown Road, Seatown, Swords, Co Dublin - pending the matter returning to court on April 12th next.

She made that order after Mr Michael Hammond, one of the persons in the cottage, said he wished to get legal advice as to what steps he was entitled to take in relation to "the utilisation" of the premises.

In the High Court yesterday, Mr Dermot Flanagan, for Fingal County Council, said Mr Liam Kindregan, an official with the council, went to the cottage on February 22nd last and spoke to Mr Hammond. It appeared Mr Hammond and others had gained entry by forcing a side window.

READ MORE

Mr Flanagan said Broadmeadow Estuary Action Group Ltd had brought judicial review proceedings challenging the northern motorway scheme and the cottage occupants had informed Mr Kindregan they wished to remain in possession until the Broadmeadow proceedings were decided. But none of the cottage's occupants had a legal interest in those proceedings, Mr Flanagan said.

Counsel added that Mr Hammond had been a co-defendant in the proceedings regarding the planned dual carriageway through the Glen of the Downs. While Mr Hammond might have a conscientious objection to the motorway scheme, that did not entitle him to enter the cottage, it was submitted.

Mr Hammond asked for an adjournment so that he could get legal advice. He said he was served with papers just last Friday and was one of a group of people who had occupied the cottage to highlight the estuary campaign.

He told Ms Justice Macken he did not know the legal basis for his occupation but wished to get legal advice as to whether he and his friends could "get this cottage utilised properly".

Ms Justice Macken said they did not require to be in occupation in order to see whether it was properly utilised.

She granted the council an interlocutory injunction restraining Mr Hammond, his servants, agents, or anyone with notice of her order from occupying the cottage or its lands and also issued an order requiring them to leave the premises forthwith.