The planning hearing into proposals to redevelop Greystones Harbour ended yesterday amid legal argument that Wicklow County Council was acting beyond its powers in using the compulsory purchase scheme to acquire public facilities and dispose of them for a private housing scheme.
However, the contention, made by John Fox for opponents to the development scheme the Greystones Protection and Development Association, was contested by Dermot Flanagan SC, who said the council would retain title to the land and the parts of the foreshore which it was seeking to acquire.
The council and its private-sector partners, the Sispar consortium - made up of John Sisk and Park Developments - are seeking approval to compulsorily purchase privately owned land in the harbour area, including the foreshore, which is held in the name of the Minister for Finance.
It is also seeking permission to proceed with the scheme, which includes replacing the Victorian harbour and building a mixed-use development including 375 new houses.
In his closing submission, Mr Fox said there was "no such power afforded to the local authority with regard to disposal of the foreshore once acquired by the local authority" in respect of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
But Mr Fox also contended that there were 11 other major reasons why the development should be rejected. These included rejecting the plan as the Minister for Finance as owner of the foreshore was not present or represented during the hearing.
Mr Fox also maintained the Dublin Transportation Authority had stated in evidence that a railway bridge, under which one lorry every two minutes travelled at peak times, was an unsatisfactory route.
He also said the public-private partnership documentation had never been fully "opened to public scrutiny", so the public could not see if it was getting value for money.
He said there was a major issue of safety and traffic associated with the sole access route to the development; and contended that modelling data for coastal protection schemes was inadequate; that the development will encroach on the known Rathdown archaeological site, and will not stop sea erosion of the area north of the harbour development.
In response, Mr Flanagan said the development was rooted in proper planning and development. He cited the 1954 Planning Act to indicate that the council had the right to acquire the land and foreshore and this power had been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
He said it was "factually totally wrong" to assert that the council was using the compulsory purchase system to transfer the land to a private developer. The council would retain title to the land, he insisted.
He said the environmental impact assessment had gone further than was required by the EU directive on such matters.
A decision on the project is expected in about four months.
