Councillors warn over greenway CPOs in Mayo

Landowners who provided permissive access to facilitate the development of the Great Western Greenway from Westport to Achill must not become the subject of retrospective compulsory purchase orders (CPOs), members of Westport-Belmullet Municipal District have warned. 

The issue came to the fore at the recent monthly meeting of councillors after Achill-based Cllr Paul McNamara sought confirmation from Mayo County Council's management that the planning permission granted for the third and final section of the route between Saula and Bunacurry would be subject to the same rules of permissive access that had been agreed on the other sections.

Cllr McNamara stated that the Part 8 planning permission for the Bunacurry section was granted  in 2020, but that in 2021, Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) had taken charge of greenway development nationally and introduced a new code of practice that required acquisition of land.

Head of the district Seamus Ó Mongain confirmed that the same Part 8 planning permission passed in 2020 would be used to develop the project, adding: “However, the permissive access element is not a condition and does not invalidate it in any way. The Part 8 is merely the planning permission for the facility to be built, so while previously permissive access was used, under TII, who now have the remit for the greenway development, funding is contingent on their code of practice and under this it is by land acquisition now.” 

Cllr McNamara argued long and hard with the manager that the Part 8 planning had been passed by members on the basis of permissive access and that what he was talking about was a “totally different document”.

Cllr McNamara recalled that under permissive access, the agreement was for the council to get permission to go through someone’s lands and that there may have been fencing and works done as compensation, but that “the land did not change hands and stayed in possession of the owner".

“The big difference with permissive access was if the landowner did not want to let you through, they could say no, and TII or Mayo Co Council then had to find another route. What you are telling me now is that the last step is CPO. These are two completely different things. If that is the case, this needs to come before us because we did not vote on that."

Cllr Brendan Mulroy agreed, stating: “At no stage was the best practice code or CPO ever mentioned in the negotiations with landowners. I could not see this being legally binding. We are being blindsided here, the rules have changed. I have talked to people legally on this and would think Mayo Co Council and TII are taking a test case and on that basis, I ask that members be given legal advice from the council on this because I think it will end up in the High Court.

"I am sure the landowners themselves will be looking for advice. You can hardly go back to those people and say, 'sorry, the rules have changed'. I see this as fundamentally and morally wrong. People have been led up the garden path and we don’t want to end up in a long, protracted and expensive legal case."

Mr Ó Mongáin countered: “We have already sought and received legal opinion on this and that confirms the Part 8 approval for the development of Achill Sound to Bunacurry was not based on permissive access.” 

Cllr McNamara responded: “With what you are saying, this will probably go all the way to the Supreme Court by the landowners. You are saying permissive access was never in play, despite the fact that for 175 landowners the precedent had been set to get it as far as Achill 14 years ago, all the way through Mulranny and Tiernaur. But now you are saying people have no say really in what is happening to their land, it’s going to be CPO’d, whether the greenway is going through your front door or your land. 

"This is not as it was in the past. The greenway was built on goodwill and full cooperation between landowners and Mayo Co Council and that is what makes it the Great Western Greenway it is today.” 

Cllr Gerry Coyle asked whether the CPO guideline could be applied retrospectively to landowners who had given permissive access along the existing greenway route. 

“We are in very dangerous territory here. You are saying planning permission wasn’t subject to permissive access. It might not have been mentioned but we were dealing with it on that basis. Where we are going to end up is, can TII now take over the existing greenway that was given on permissive access? We need to be very careful how we deal with this. This is the same Part 8 planning permission that was coming all the way down from Westport.” 

Cllr Mulroy said his colleague had just “opened up a complete can of worms”, adding: “Where does that leave the existing greenway from Westport to Achill then, that was developed in different stages? Are TII going to come in and take land left, right and centre, because they can? Where do we stand with TII on that?"

Cathaoirleach Cllr Peter Flynn interjected: “When the original greenway was done there was no Part 8 on it. It was quite literally done on a wing and a prayer and a verbal agreement with landowners. So we are really just talking about the piece from Achill Sound here.” 

Cllr Chris Maxwell said it appeared that TII is "just after the dilution of our ownership of our land". 

Cllr John O'Malley said he could not support CPOs for greenways but understood the need in relation to roads.

With the debate raging on, Mr Ó Mongain sought to calm councillors by telling them that "every possible avenue is explored to ensure the land is handed over by agreement".

"A CPO is not entered into lightly, because it is cumbersome. 

“It is very important no alarm or hysteria or any concern goes out over the existing greenway. I have never heard anything said about acquiring it, beyond what I have heard said in this room today.” 

At this, Cllr McNamara proposed that “the last third of the greenway be delivered under the Part 8 2020 permissive agreement access that was passed here”, saying that people are in favour of greenways and want the Saula to Cashel section delivered. His proposal was seconded by Cllr John O’Malley.