A legal challenge by An Taisce, which, if successful, could have stopped the development of the M3 Clonee to Kells motorway as a tolled road, was mounted in the High Court yesterday.
Mr Justice Brian McGovern refused the national heritage group leave to bring a judicial review seeking a declaration that the National Roads Authority (NRA) cannot implement a tolling scheme or take any steps to implement one to facilitate a public-private partnership in the construction of the motorway.
An order was being sought quashing the tolling scheme approved by the NRA on March 13th last.
Mr Justice McGovern said an application to seek leave for a judicial review must be brought within three months after the grounds for the application arose.
John Rogers SC, counsel for An Taisce, when asked by Mr Justice McGovern if it was An Taisce's intention to stop the building of the motorway, said he was not going to answer any further question. It was An Taisce's intention to see that the motorway was developed in accordance with the law.
Mr Rogers said An Taisce's application related to a mandatory statutory requirement on the NRA under Section 18 of the Roads Act 1993 to prepare a National Roads Plan for the construction and maintenance of national roads.
The Act required the NRA to prepare a draft plan at least once every five years to be submitted to the Minister for Transport for his approval, along with information of all objections to the plan.
The Minister may approve the plan, approve it with modifications or refuse it. He said the Act set out procedures to be followed by the NRA involving publication of certain matters, including where a copy may be bought or inspected, and stating that objections may be made in writing to the authority. The Section 18 requirements had never been complied with in relation to this or any other road or motorway in the country. Mr Rogers said Meath County Council, in its draft development plan, saw fit to state that there should be a motorway but there was no question of it being a tolled motorway.
He said An Taisce had objected in correspondence with the Department of Transport to tolling of certain motorways but had not previously taken legal action to stop it. An Taisce had attended a tolling scheme inquiry relating to the M3 and had objected to it.
Mr Rogers said An Taisce was not seeking to stop the development of the M3 at the moment, but a point would come where, if the courts declared the NRA had acted beyond its powers, there would be "certain consequences" in relation to the construction of the motorway.
When he said An Taisce was simply seeking to have the law enforced, Mr Justice McGovern said one would have to be living on another planet not to know that controversy had existed over the construction of the M3.
The court wished to know if the purpose of An Taisce's application was in effect to stop the M3 proceeding. If An Taisce wished to stop it and required a legal process to do so, they were absolutely entitled to apply for it.
Mr Rogers said the content of the reliefs sought, where An Taisce was seeking an order prohibiting the taking of any steps to introduce a tolling scheme, were absolutely clear. It could be that people within An Taisce could have a variety of views, but they were absolutely united in saying "this should not be done" save in accordance with the law.
Brian Murray SC, for the NRA, said the An Taisce application for a legal challenge to the tolling scheme was being "used as a Trojan horse to attack the construction of the motorway".
Colm Ó hOisín SC, for the Minister of Transport, told the court that a Bill was being put through the Oireachtas repealing the Section 18 requirements, and had already been passed by the Seanad.