DAA takes case to have Travellers moved from airport runway exclusion zone

Dublin airport operator DAA is seeking in court proceedings to have Traveller families moved from lands in an exclusion zone around a proposed new runway.

On Wednesday the authority secured permission from the High Court to join Fingal County Council to the proceedings seeking vacant possession of lands in Collinstown previously leased to the council to house Traveller families.

The DAA claims the lands are occupied by several members of the McAleer family who, the authority claims, have no entitlement to be there. It claims it needs the lands vacated as a matter of urgency.

Work on the new runway has been allowed to continue despite the general ban on construction during the Covid-19 Level 5 restrictions because the Government deemed the project a limited exception.

The family members, represented by Quinn & Reynolds Solicitors and by the Free Legal Advice Centres, deny any wrongdoing and oppose the DAA’s action.

The DAA claims it has no option but to join the council to the proceedings because more than three years after the DAA served it with a notice to quit the council has not handed over vacant possession of the site.

The court heard the council has taken steps to provide alternative housing for Traveller families still on the site, and will vigorously oppose any application for orders against it.

The DAA claims the minister for transport, who previously owned the lands, granted a licence in the 1980s allowing the council use the site as accommodation for Travellers.

The DAA subsequently acquired the lands and continued the licence to Fingal County Council until 2017, when it issued a notice to quit. The lands were required as part of the DAA’s plan to construct a third runway at Dublin Airport. The DAA claims vacant possession of the site was not handed over, and it issued proceedings against Fingal County Council in 2018.

Halting site

Those proceedings were discontinued to allow the council engage with and seek alternative accommodation for those living at the halting site. Arising out of that engagement, the DAA claims several of the Traveller families have left the site but some remain.

As a result the DAA last year initiated fresh proceedings against those still on the site. In seeking to add the council to those proceedings, the DAA claims the local authority has had an indirect involvement in matters due to its statutory housing obligations to the families involved in the action.

It also claims the council was invited to join a mediation process aimed at resolving the dispute, but no resolution has been achieved.

When the case was mentioned before Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds on Wednesday, the judge granted the DAA permission to join the council to the proceedings and adjourned the matter to later this month.

The judge also heard concerns raised by the McAleer’s lawyers over an alleged failure by the DAA to provide them with certain documentation, including a copy of the construction contract for the new runway.

This material has been referred to by the DAA in its sworn statements and the defendants’ lawyers would like sight of them, the court heard.

The judge said that any motion relating to that particular issue can be considered when the case returns before the court.