The High Court yesterday turned down an application to continue an injunction preventing Wicklow County Council removing trees, shrubs or other vegetation from the Glen of the Downs to clear the way for a controversial dual carriageway. However, after counsel for the applicant, computer programmer Mr Dermot Murphy, asked for a stay on the order until today again at 2 p.m. today.
On Friday evening, Mr Murphy, of Neale Road, Ballinrobe, Co Mayo, had secured a temporary injunction which prevented tree and vegetation removal until yesterday.
Before Mr Justice O'Sullivan yesterday was an application by Mr Murphy for an interlocutory injunction - an order continuing until the determination of legal proceedings between the sides.
In an affidavit, Mr Murphy said that on August 14th last, the Glen of the Downs had been placed on a list of sites to be designated as special areas of conservation in accordance with the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations.
He believed the glen was, therefore, a site protected by these regulations and should also be protected by a directive of May 1992 on the conservation of habitats, fauna and flora.
On December 7th, the council recommenced tree felling in the glen, he said. That was contrary to the regulations and the directive.
In another affidavit, Mr Michael Looby, the Wicklow county engineer, said the road project was estimated to cost £35 million and would take 21/2 years to complete. The average daily traffic on the road was 25,600 vehicles and this was expected to double in 15 years.
Mr Looby referred to earlier proceedings in the dispute and said that at no stage during those proceedings were the points at present under consideration raised by Mr Murphy or anybody else. The council was of the view that Mr Murphy deliberately chose to hold back making this point until after he had failed in the Supreme Court so as to use the point afresh with the sole purpose of delaying the roadworks.
Giving his decision on the interlocutory application, Mr Justice O'Sullivan referred to the Supreme Court's decision last week. It had said the application before it on that point could not be said to have been made promptly and no affidavit had been filed to explain the grounds of delay.
Mr Justice O'Sullivan said it seemed unreal to suggest the exercise by the Supreme Court of its discretion last week was substantially different from the discretion he was now being asked to exercise. He would follow the Supreme Court and refuse to grant the order sought.