Rathgar residents urged to ‘calm down’ as judge orders school not to fell trees – The Irish Times

A High Court judge has appealed for some residents of Rathgar, south Dublin, to “calm down” their response to a local school’s now-stalled plan to fell mature trees around Kenilworth Square.

Judge David Nolan made the comments on Wednesday afternoon as he granted local campaign group Protect Kenilworth Square and resident Martin Joyce an injunction that prevents St Mary’s College in Rathmines from cutting down the trees.

He warned his decision should not be “weaponised” as a win by the group as he granted them the order “on the thinnest of grounds” that these trees “of such beauty” would take “many centuries” to replace.

The judge said it was “unacceptable” that a match between St Mary’s and Blackrock College scheduled for Wednesday had to be cancelled due to about 15 people protesting around the square.

“No picketing,” he said, adding that any actions will be “taken into consideration” when he later hears the residents’ application for permission to appeal against his rejection of their main case.

Nolan said: “I do want everybody, particularly the residents, to calm down about this.”

Last week Nolan “reluctantly” dismissed the residents’ case seeking to overturn a Dublin City Council finding that the school does not need planning permission to make changes to its rugby pitch.

Although he had a “significant degree of sympathy” for the residents, as the St Mary’s College development of its pitch “will be disruptive to the beautiful square”, he found the council’s grant of a planning exemption was valid.

The proposed redevelopment at the Victorian-era square involves changing the existing grass to an artificial all-weather surface, altering the orientation of existing pitches, installing a fence around the reconfigured pitch and the felling of eight trees to make way for the pitches. The project website says 74 new trees would be planted in the square.

The injunction was sought on Wednesday in the context of the residents seeking to appeal against the judge’s findings.

Lawyers for the group told the court there would be an application to appeal directly to the Supreme Court if the residents are refused permission to appeal to the intermediary Court of Appeal.

Granting the residents the injunction on Wednesday, Nolan said he was “uncomfortable” with his decision as he was “not at all certain” he was correct in his findings. He suggested the school might want to appeal his ruling in short order.

Earlier, barrister John Kenny, instructed by FP Logue solicitors and representing the residents, submitted the proposed tree-felling forms as part of his clients’ intended appeal.

He contended he has an “arguable” case for appeal, and the balance of justice favours his clients as the 19th century trees could not be reinstated if removed as planned this week.

The “only rational explanation” for why the school wanted to urgently press ahead with the felling in advance of restrictions of such activities from March 1st, he contended, was that it feared a tree preservation order could soon be granted to prevent the move.

He said the residents were “upset” by the court’s previous decision but have “no intention of acting unlawfully” and “no intention of obstructing any works”.

The school’s senior counsel, Jarlath Fitzimons, instructed by Mason, Hayes and Curran solicitors, said tree felling of this kind was exempt from requiring planning permission regardless of whether the council granted an exemption certificate.

His client has undertaken not to carry out any other works on this project pending the residents’ application for appeal but, due to restrictions on felling from March 1st and restraints due to school terms, he submitted it would be September 2027 before his client next has a chance to remove the trees.

Nolan said he “cannot ignore” that tree felling of this kind was exempt from requiring planning permission. These trees are the property of St Mary’s but they are also of importance to the locality, he said.

Given the application was urgent, he said he had to make his decision based on what causes less harm and granted the injunction.