[Feljin Jose] Ho trascorso la giornata in High Court ascoltando la Lissan Coal Company contro Bord Pleanála. Questa è una revisione giudiziaria della decisione di ABP di approvare BusConnects Blanchardstown allo schema del centro città.

Ho boy, this is a long one:

>This is one of at least six JR cases challenging the construction of bus lanes, cycling infrastructure and pedestrian improvements across Dublin.

>Lissan Coal Company operates [an unmanned petrol station on Old Cabra Road](https://maps.app.goo.gl/eTt2bS2tiELwt2QX8). It was approved in 2019 and built in 2020-2021.

>ABP approved the National Transport Authority’s BusConnects Blanchardstown to City Centre scheme in 2024. Public consultation and publication of drawings began in 2018.

>LCC is seeking to have ABP’s approval for the project quashed. The scheme aims to improve bus journey times through increased bus priority as well as safe cycling infrastructure and improvements for pedestrians along a 10km route.

>One of the many measures in the approved scheme is the introduction of bus gates on and around Old Cabra Road to improve bus priority without widening the road to put in bus lanes. Local access would be facilitated albeit through different routes but there will be no through route for private cars.

>Commercial damage
LCC says they’re reliant on passing traffic and that this would damage the commercial viability of their business. The judge is in agreement. The NTA admits in its environmental impact assessment that this particular business wouldn’t be able to operate successfully.

>The ABP inspector states that it would have a significant negative impact on the business but, on balance, she considered it to be acceptable given the wider positive impacts. She stated that they would still be able to operate but not as conveniently.

>The judge didn’t seem to like the description “not as conveniently” vs the NTA accepting that business couldn’t operate successfully.

>In approving the scheme, the board of ABP concluded that the scheme wouldn’t have residual significant long-term negative impacts on the environment. The judge asks if commercial damage is considered a negative effect on the environment. He’s not sure.

>Loss of value
LCC claims loss of value to their site due to the inability to conduct their business there. Judge Holland says that’s disputable. The site’s value as a petrol station may be reduced but the site could be more valuable for other uses such as residential with less traffic outside.

>This wasn’t mentioned but the site is actually zoned for housing by Dublin City Council.

>Compulsory Purchase process
Lissan Coal Company argued that they were shut out of the compulsory purchase order process and were only entitled to make an observation on the project itself.

>LCC itself is not being CPOed but they argue they are especially affected by the CPOs of other properties which interfere with the public right of way and therefore should have a say in the process. Trying to establish if they have a right to be heard in the CPO process despite not being CPOed.

>Two hours of this. It’s not clear to me which particular CPO they’re referring to. There are no CPOs listed anywhere near the petrol station.

>Right to earn a livelihood
Lissan Coal Company argued that the they have a constitutional right to earn a livelihood. The judge asked if this right extends to companies. He didn’t seem convinced.

>Why not sue?
Judge Holland asks a very interesting question — Why not just sue and claim damages in tort? Why quash the decision?

>This is a judicial review of the legality of ABP’s decision and they are seeking to quash the decision. They’re not seeking compensation here. LCC says they would be criticised when claiming damages if they didn’t challenge the decision.

>Map 28
LCC argues that the letter sent to LCC by the NTA in 2018 did not explicitly say that there would be a bus gate which would reduce traffic outside their petrol station and that the map that was attached isn’t clear to a layperson. The petrol station was constructed in 2020-2021.

>Judge Holland isn’t buying it. “But you’re not a layperson, you’re a business” and asks why they didn’t acquire the services of an engineering firm to make sense of the map before building a petrol station. He holds up the map, starts describing its contents and says it makes perfect sense to him.

>LCC argued that the drawings published by the NTA in 2018 aren’t what were finally approved in 2024. The judge says it was clearly labelled as an “emerging preferred route” and not a final proposal and, in any case, there were bus gates proposed outside LCC’s petrol station in the 2018 design.

>Overall, a very scattergun approach.

>The implications of some of this could be big. Nevermind the comic book villain name of the company taking the action against a sustainable transport project.

>We’re back tomorrow morning. Five more hours.