Cyclists' advocate loses challenge to Galway apartments over cycling facilities
High Court Reporter
A cyclist's advocate who objected to a multi-million euro apartment development mainly over the failure to include a cycle path on both sides of the adjoining road network has failed in a High Court challenge to the project.
Shane Foran, a founding participant in the national alliance of cycling campaign groups, now known as Cyclist.ie, sought an order quashing an An Coimisiún Pleanála decision granting permission for the 227-unit apartment development in seven blocks up to five storeys high, at Gort na Bró, Rahoon, Co Galway.
The developer, Glenveagh Living Ltd, which was a notice party in the case, opposed the action along with An Coimisiún Pleanála, which was a respondent.
It was claimed, among other things, Mr Foran had pleaded grounds in the court case which had not been raised in his objections to the plan before An Coimisiún Pleanála.
A number of residents groups and other individuals had also objected to An Coimisiún Pleanála on multiple grounds including traffic.
In his arguments, Mr Foran, a Rahoon resident, said the proceedings "could have been avoided" if Glenveagh or An Coimisiún Pleanála had "chosen to employ engineering advisors who displayed an understanding of the general assumption that cyclists expect to travel on both sides of urban roads and the reasons for this assumption.”
Having them on both sides is in accordance with best practice, he said.
He said in his experience of the Irish Road Safety Audit, "Irish educated engineers cannot be assumed to have an understanding of the literature, or practice of road design, around avoiding conflicts between motor vehicles and cyclists.”
Mr Foran said he has participated in a number of committees which had "led me to a personal policy, as an active travel advocate, of treating Irish-educated civil engineers as being unsuitable to advise on the design of public roads until proven otherwise".
He also tended to take the same approach with civil engineers educated in England, Wales or Scotland.
Rejecting his challenge, Mr Justice David Holland said he formed the strong impression that Mr Foran was "entirely genuine, convinced and civic-minded" in his disagreement with the An Coimisiún Pleanála decision on its merits as to provision for cyclists.
But, the judge said, he never got mentally to grips with a number of issues including the fact that the law makes the comisiún, not the courts, the final decision-maker in planning appeals and the only exception is where the decision is in some way illegal.
In his view, Glenveagh was not unfair in asserting that the “key issue” in Mr Foran’s “case is about a design choice … to provide a two-way cycle facility on one side of the road" rather than cycle facilities on both sides.
Mr Foran had failed to adduce admissible evidence of a flaw in the decision, he said.
Mr Foran should have made, but failed to make, many of the complaints he made to the court, to the comisiún, he said.
He provisionally considered that there should be no order as to costs and listed the case for final orders next month. Mr Foran represented himself in the case.
