Is This Drainage Case Killing Housing Growth – And Threatening Our Future Prosperity?

Isn’t it curious how one judicial review can suddenly throw a €1.3 billion infrastructure project into jeopardy—and with it, the future of thousands of homes across north Dublin? Taoiseach Micheál Martin didn’t mince words yesterday, calling the review ‘unfairly and unduly’ risking the common good. Now, here’s where it gets sticky: the challenge, spearheaded by the environmental group Wild Irish Defence, questions whether the environmental impact assessment was thorough enough—yet this isn’t their first rodeo. With eighteen cases filed against the Greater Dublin Drainage Project and only one winning, the backlog and delays threaten to stall vital housing and infrastructure at a time when Ireland’s growth can ill afford it. Balancing constitutional rights with the urgent need for progress feels a bit like walking a tightrope, doesn’t it? But what if the process itself needs a reset—less red tape, fewer “technicality” stumbles, and a sharper focus on the bigger picture? With bespoke legislation and judicial reform on the horizon, the question remains: can we protect both the environment and the homes of tomorrow without tipping the scales? Let’s dive deeper into this unfolding story. LEARN MORE

A judicial review of a major water project in Dublin is ‘unfairly and unduly’ jeopardising the common good, Taoiseach Micheál Martin said yesterday, writes Muiris Ó Cearbhaill.

The review – which was launched by a serial objector – of the €1.3bn Greater Dublin Drainage Project in north Co Dublin has put the future delivery of thousands of homes at risk.

If the project’s construction is blocked or prevented, it will put the construction of thousands of homes at risk due to a lack of water and waste connections.

Martin said: “I was dismayed to see the [judicial review] in respect of the Greater Dublin Drainage project because this could have very significant adverse consequences for housing.”

The challenge was launched by environmental NGO Wild Irish Defence, which is run by Catherine McMahon and Peter Sweetman. Both applicants have launched numerous similar bids against other national infrastructure projects and did not answer questions from the Mail last week.

The group claims an environmental impact assessment report for the water treatment and connection plant was not “complete, precise and definitive” enough.

Citizens can challenge new infrastructure through judicial reviews if they do not believe it properly reflects Article 43 of the Constitution, which allows the State to limit access to private property in the “interests of the common good”.

This clause has been challenged by others, who claim it should not be applicable in cases of national infrastructure such as the drainage project.

Referring to the case taken by Sweetman and McMahon, the Taoiseach said yesterday he did not believe the clause was being recognised fairly: “This is a classic case where the common good is being unfairly and unduly jeopardised by the judicial review. That’s my view and it’s a very strong view,” he said.

“We accept people have [Constitutional] rights, but there has to be balance.”

Martin previously pleaded with the public not to launch any judicial reviews against the major project, which has been delayed until 2032. He said “bespoke legislation on specific projects, so that government can assert its position on getting fundamental projects” completed is under consideration to stop numerous judicial reviews being launched against national plans in the future.

It is understood “significant changes” will be made to the judicial review process under the Civil Reform Bill, currently being drafted for Cabinet.

It’s believed the new legislation seeks to “dramatically reduce” judicial reviews. The legislation is aimed at putting an end to cases taken by those who want to “trip people up” on technical errors, such as incorrect or incomplete paperwork.

Eighteen cases have been launched against the Greater Dublin Drainage Project, only one of which has been successful.

Tánaiste Simon Harris said yesterday: “We have a couple of very, very key pieces of infrastructure that we don’t have an ability to deliver which is holding back the development of our country…”

He pointed to the delivery of housing, wind farms and energy infrastructure upgrades.

Niall Gleeson, Uisce Éireann CEO, has questioned “serial” objectors’ true affiliations to improving the environment. Its infrastructure director also said last week the project is “critical” to meet Ireland’s housing and population demands.

In his objection, Sweetman said the environmental impact assessment report for the project was not “complete, precise and definitive… The project description is incomplete in that no indication of biogas storage at the Clonshaugh site or spreading of sewage sludge on agricultural land is proposed,” he wrote.

McMahon submitted an objection to ACP on behalf of the Velvet Strand Concerned Sea Swimmers and Beach Users group. She said there hadn’t been an assessment of the impact of the outfall pipe releasing treated wastewater to a discharge point 6km out to sea at Baldoyle.

The Mail attempted to contact McMahon for comment. Sweetman told the Mail last week he didn’t comment on active cases.

(Pic: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images)