Anti-tolling groups claim victory against roads body

Campaigners against tolling on the proposed M4/M6 motorway have claimed a victory in their battle against the procedures under…

Campaigners against tolling on the proposed M4/M6 motorway have claimed a victory in their battle against the procedures under which the National Roads Authority holds toll inquiries.

The campaigners, who oppose the NRA plans for a toll plaza at Enfield say legal issues raised at a similar inquiry into the proposed tolling of a new Suir bridge in Co Waterford, have given them cause to hope the procedure may be struck down.

According to Ms Sarah Carey, who represented residents and traders at the M4/M6 inquiry, the fact the NRA conducts the inquiry into its own plans effectively means it is "sitting as judge and jury into its own proposals".

At the Suir inquiry some three hours of legal evidence were presented to the inspector, Mr Kevin O'Sullivan, after which Mr O'Sullivan opted to adjourn the proceedings to give himself time to consider the arguments.

READ MORE

No date has yet been set for the resumption of that inquiry but The Irish Times understands it has not been shelved.

"'Postponed indefinitely' is not a description I would have used and it will probably reconvene within a few weeks," a source close to the parties said.

But the Enfield campaigners have now also written to the inspector to "trust this means that the proceedings into the M4/M6 scheme will also be suspended while these legal questions are sorted out".

According to Ms Carey the Enfield group voiced similar objections to the NRA "sitting as judge and jury" on its plans and she has expressed "outrage" that the Enfield hearing was not suspended when these concerns first arose.

"When it was raised by a barrister in Waterford it was finally taken seriously," she said. "This means ordinary people can make perfectly legitimate legal points but unless they pay thousands of pounds to retain legal representation they will get nowhere. This underlies the entirely undemocratic nature of the proceedings."

The legal submissions against the tolling inquiry were: that NRA is in violation of the principle of not being a judge in one's own court, since the inspector is appointed by the NRA and his report is forwarded to them; and that the proposals laid before the inquiry were incomplete as they did not contain the precise terms of the contract between the concessionaire and the NRA.

However, a spokesman for the NRA said yesterday the authority did not believe the points of law raised at the Enfield and Waterford inquiries were the same. The NRA said tolls were a vital element in financing the national roads.

The Automobile Association has also come out against the tolls saying they are fundamentally flawed. According to the AA spokesman, Mr Conor Faughnan, the decision to put toll plazas in the vicinity of towns will cause traffic to divert to the towns in order to avoid the tolls, thus reducing the effectiveness of the new roads.

Mr Faughnan said it appeared the toll plazas were positioned to gain the maximum amount of money for the concessionaire, rather than to relieve the towns or the maximum congestion.

He said this went against practice in other countries and was a move which would be regretted by the NRA in time.