An urgent legal bid to halt work around the demolition of a bridge as part of the new £340m Grand Central Station in Belfast is “doomed to failure”, a High Court judge ruled.
The Ulster Architectural Heritage Society (UAHS) sought an emergency injunction amid concerns that dismantling of the Boyne Bridge was set to begin on Saturday.
But the charity’s challenge was dismissed following assurances from Translink that there are no immediate plans to start bringing down the structure.
Work over the weekend will instead be limited to closing the road on which the bridge is located, Durham Street, and putting up security fencing to ensure safe public access to the new transport hub.
Mr Justice McAlinden held: “It is quite clear that this application… is doomed to failure.”
With rail services due to begin operating at Grand Central Station on Sunday, the nearby Durham Street is due to be closed for the next 12 months.
The society launched legal action following media reports that the demolishing of Boyne Bridge will also be getting underway this weekend.
Built in 1936, the structure’s origins stretch back to the 17th Century.
According to folklore, King Wing William of Orange rode over the bridge on his way to the Battle of the Boyne in 1690.
The UAHS contend that it should be preserved due to its importance in the history of Belfast. Counsel for the society sought an emergency injunction to prevent any dismantling work as part of a wider application for judicial review brought against Translink and the Department for Infrastructure.
Ronan Lavery KC claimed conditions related to the granting of planning permission for the redevelopment of the area have not yet been fulfilled.
He told the court that dismantling work was set to begin with “indecent haste”.
“Front and centre of the society’s concerns is the retention of the bridge,” Mr Lavery acknowledged.
During earlier exchanges it was suggested that the society was attempting to “put a spanner in the works” of a major infrastructure project which received planning approval up to seven years ago.
The judge also questioned why legal action was being mounted at the last minute.
“This has been in the pipeline since 2017, it’s a bit rich to come along the day before it’s due to be demolished and say you want it listed,” Mr Justice McAlinden said.
“I have no sympathy for you trying to argue the issue of listing when this has been bubbling along since 2017.”
But Mr Lavery insisted news that the bridge was to be taken down came out of the blue. “Nobody thought this was imminent until it was trailed in the media,” he added.
Stewart Beattie KC, for Translink, claimed proceedings were really about delaying the ongoing programme of work indefinitely so that the charity could attempt to gain listed status for the bridge.
“Demolition and reprofiling of the Boyne Bridge was known to all and sundry in 2017,” he submitted
Crucially, Mr Beattie confirmed any work over the weekend will be restricted to closing the street and erecting security fencing for ensuring safe public access to the transport hub when rail services begin.
There is no intention to commence any demolition at this stage because that work will require time to bed in, the court was told.
Disputing the alleged failures to comply with planning conditions, Mr Beattie stressed: “This is a £340m project, two years in construction, with a train station due to open to the public on Sunday and a road closure not subject to any challenge due to take place over the weekend.
“The balance of convenience here lies overwhelmingly against the (UAHS).”
Following submissions, the judge found no evidence of any planning breaches related to the bridge.
“In those circumstances the claim is bound to fail, I refuse leave (to seek a judicial review) and the issue of injunctive relief does not therefore arise,” he confirmed.
No order was made for either side to pay legal costs in the case.
Mr Justice McAlinden explained: “Bearing in mind the [public interest in relation to this particular bridge, the sensitivities involved and the cultural significance of the site, it’s important that the matter was brought before the court.”