Protesters commit to not interfering with housing project

Co-operative Housing Ireland had sought interim injunction in High Court

The residents said they did not object to houses but were concerned that work over the years converting an area which had been used for anti-social behaviour into an amenity would be destroyed by the housing project.

The residents said they did not object to houses but were concerned that work over the years converting an area which had been used for anti-social behaviour into an amenity would be destroyed by the housing project.

 

Residents who were involved in a protest over the building of 72 homes on a memorial park they had created in their area have given an undertaking before the High Court not to interfere with the work.

Edward Fitzpatrick and Matthew Kelly agreed to provide the undertakings concerning protests which took place at a site for a €12 million social housing project in Cherry Orchard Park, west Ballyfermot, Dublin.

Co-operative Housing Ireland (CHI) had obtained an interim injunction preventing interference by the two men, along with two women, Angela Fitzpatrick and Marie Hartigan, all of whom live in the Cherry Orchard area.

Following a hearing concerning whether the injunction should be continued, Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds said she was accepting undertakings from the two men, who represented themselves. She also accepted undertakings on behalf of the two women, who were not in court, but had instructed Mr Fitzpatrick to represent them.

Adjourned

The judge adjourned the matter generally, with liberty to re-enter if there are any difficulties, after counsel for CHI said, on the basis of the undertakings, his client would not be taking the case further.

Both men denied there had been interference as alleged by CHI and said they had a right to protest peacefully.

The court heard there had been an agreement with the residents a committee would be set up to monitor the building project so a memorial garden and trees in memory of deceased locals would be re-located.

The residents said they did not object to houses but were concerned that work over the years converting an area which had been used for anti-social behaviour into an amenity would be destroyed by the housing project.

The court heard the site had long been designated for housing and work was due to commence on the project after permission was obtained in 2007. Because of funding problems created by the economic crash, that did not proceed until this year.

Ms Justice Reynolds commended the residents for the “exemplary” way in which they carried out their civic duty.