Two local residents will apply to the High Court next month for a stay halting works on the €365 million redevelopment of Lansdowne Road stadium.
The stay application by Kevin McMahon and Mariaelena Byrne, of O'Connell Gardens, Sandymount, Dublin, will be heard by Mr Justice Peter Kelly in the Commercial Court on July 12th next. They want the stay pending the outcome of their application for leave to bring a judicial review challenge to the development.
The hearing of that leave application will be in October next, also in the Commercial Court, but Mr Justice Kelly adjourned to July 12th a decision on whether it should be heard either at the same time as, or immediately after, a separate leave application by two other residents, Brian O'Keeffe and Rosemarie Loftus, both of Lansdowne Road, Dublin.
The judge yesterday fixed October 4th for the hearing of the leave application by Mr O'Keeffe and Ms Loftus and also said that, if leave was granted, the court would then proceed immediately to hear the full judicial review action.
The judge proposed that the leave application by Mr McMahon and Ms Byrne should be heard on October 4th, after which, if leave was granted, a full hearing of the judicial review issues would then immediately take place.
If Mr McMahon and Ms Byrne were unsuccessful on the ordinary judicial review issues, only then would the court proceed to decide constitutional issues and European Convention on Human Rights issues raised by them, he said.
In addition to an order quashing the planning permission for the redevelopment, Mr McMahon and Ms Byrne want declarations that certain sections of the Planning and Development Act 2000 are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights because they fail to provide for payment or compensation to property owners whose property will be devalued by the implementation of the planning permission. They are also seeking damages of €630,000.
The judge had earlier expressed the view that the simultaneous hearing of both leave applications by a single judge would save both court time and costs, but lawyers for the residents said they wanted to consider whether a concurrent or consecutive hearing would be in the best interests of their clients.