Tallaght residents lose road case against county council

DUBLIN County Council is not to blame for the problems of residents on a Tallaght housing estate where the volume of traffic …

DUBLIN County Council is not to blame for the problems of residents on a Tallaght housing estate where the volume of traffic exceeds the roads' capacity, the Supreme Court has decided.

Residents of the Springfield Estate(Alderwood Park, Alderwood Avenue and Alderwood Way) had their claims for nuisance and negligence against the council dismissed.

A year ago, residents claimed the traffic volume caused cracks in houses and noise levels were unbearable.

They brought their case to the High Court where Ms Justice Carroll directed the council to abate the nuisance.

READ MORE

The High Court judge later made an order compelling the council to close Alderwood Way. The council asked for a stay and has successfully appealed to the Supreme Court to have Ms Justice Carroll's order set aside.

Mr Justice Keane said the problem would be alleviated by the decision of the Department of the Environment to make funds available for a new Cookstown/Old Bawn road to which Maplewood Road, Tallaght, would be connected.

He said congestion on the estate's roads had increased significantly as a result of the development of The Square shopping centre.

Residents anticipated that without action it would deteriorate further given there was now a new hospital, a Dublin Bus headquarters and a leisure centre.

In regard to the residents' "nuisance" claim, the judge said traffic had not originated in premises owned or occupied by the council and was not generated as a result of any activities carried on by them on land in the area.

The most obvious factors which caused the traffic volume "increase were the large scale residential and commercial projects by private interests; the decisions of thousands of drivers to use this particular route; and the failure of central government to allocate funds for the infrastructure needed.

The decision of the council to which objection was taken, was only one of several factors which resulted in the present position.

Mr Justice Keane said that to treat the council in those circumstances as the legal author of a public nuisance would be contrary to principle and unsupported by authority.