Tempers flare as Westport greenway row shows no signs of abating

The general consensus on greenways is that they confer great favour on those areas chosen to house them in the form of fantastic recreational assets that bring welcome pedestrian and cycle traffic along their route, which in turn opens opportunities for local businesses to capitalise on. Or so we are told.

The ongoing saga over the extension of the Westport-Louisburgh section of  the Great Western Greenway between the leafy suburb of Belclare and the picturesque village of Murrisk suggests, however, that it might be time to press pause on this messaging loop around the greenway idyll.

It was roundly acknowledged and agreed by members of the Westport-Belmullet Municipal District at their monthly meeting last week that greenways do indeed draw the crowds and have opened up the townlands between Westport and Achill to a new global audience that is lapping up everything Mayo from culture and arts to history. However, the broader theme at the meeting was one of horror at the actions of Mayo County Council and Transport Infrastructure Ireland in their thrust towards commandeering and slashing open the lands owned by farmer families and private citizens to plop a sturdy strip of infrastructure in place so that all the world can breeze by on their walks and cycles.

With temperatures in the room rising to the level of a good Sunday roast, it has to be noted that the council also deserves acknowledgement and recognition here as a number of very brave senior staff who are n the direct firing line of all those opposing the development turned up on the day of the meeting and stood their ground.

Special mention must go here to senior executive engineer (SEE) with the National Roads Office in Mayo County Council, Paul Hyland, who was the subject of a blazing attack by Westport Fianna Fail councillor, Brendan Mulroy, who raged at the audacity of the SEE for having disclosed that 12 landowners in the contentious Murrisk area had so far entered talks with the council regarding the proposed route - and this just minutes after the SEE had outlined a national Code Of Practice local authorities must follow on greenway developments, that include multiple criteria, with confidentiality at the top of the list.

“We talked earlier about a land grab and then you mentioned a dozen landowners," declared Cllr Mulroy, adding: “Fine. I would also mention the word confidentiality. That’s a very big word. If you say you have spoken to 12 landowners already, that is not confidentiality. That is divide and conquer, to say that at a public meeting, with the media also present. That is a way to drive a wedge through that community out there, and people will say, it’s not me, not me, or me. You have sown a seed of doubt with people.” 

The Westport councillor further opined: “We talk about land like it’s flippantly land. Do you know the first person involved in this route is 86 years old, and the pain he is going through? You have thrown those 12 people to the wolves. This has now taken a new twist. For you to come in here and talk about confidentiality and then say 12 people, that is not confidentiality. You would never name or number people in these discussions. 

"You have tried to put a divil between the people of Belclare and Murrisk this evening. Why mention the number of people you have spoken to? I am staggered you would say it. If you had said you are just negotiating with people I would have accepted that, but now you have created a problem.” 

Taking Cllr Mulroy squarely on, the SEE contended: “How is it confidential? We will deal with anyone who wants to deal with us. We are willing to speak to anyone who wants to talk to us."

Mr Hyland then added: “I don’t think I have breached any confidentiality but that is your business to interpret it whatever way you want.” 

With the Sunday roast now truly cremating, Cllr Mulroy thundered: “How dare you say it is none of my business. It IS my business, I am an elected representative, I was elected to represent the people and that is my job. You threw a curve ball in here. You are all about confidentiality and then you tell us you are talking to 12 people. It is unbelievable.” 

To which the SEE replied: “I did not say anything about anyone. I said we are talking to people and would continue to do so, in confidence. Mentioning a number does not expose anyone. Every one of the landowners affected is welcome to talk to us and they can retain their views and opinions. All we are trying to do is assess facts, not divide and conquer.” 

For the purpose of clarification, the SEE added: “We are obligated and funded by TII and their remit is the rollout of national greenways and active travel and new roads. It is part of the condition of funding that these greenways are built to a particular standard and on land that will be owned by the local authority.

“There has been a lot of information put out there about eight-metre and 10-metre greenways being put down but that is not a fact. The offline route here, which is our preferred route, will be three-metres wide, nothing else.” 

With the debate veering into even more controversial territory following the mention of potential compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) of land where owners would not agree to sell, Cllr John O’Malley charged: “Ye seem to think it is no problem to just decide you are going to go through people’s farms that have been there for years and years. These people’s fathers and grandfathers grafted through that. This is the connection to land that farmers have. You don’t seem to have any problem ploughing through this land just to get your greenway.

“You say you spoke to 12, but how do we know you did? You just put that out so people will talk about that. I guarantee you, if it goes to CPOs, that greenway will be a failure. It won’t work and will be the worst thing that ever happens for a greenway project.

He elaborated: “For you to think you can bulldoze people’s lands because you say you have to go up the middle of their land to avoid the rivers and floodlines. One man told me his clothesline would have to be removed. What is this to do to people, to railroad them through a bloody greenway? I can tell you I have been talking to people who said, 'If you continue doing this, we will close the greenway from Westport to Achill'.” 

The SEE contended: “Just to explain, the CPO is the last instrument of resort available to local authorities, But even if we have to go down that road, as part of it we also have to look at alternatives, so it is also about having considered options. An Bord Pleanála could then refuse to make the CPO or propose changes, so it is not a give,  and at this stage, we are not even contemplating that as we do not want to do that.”

To which Cllr Mulroy replied: “You can dickie it up however you want but ultimately if a person doesn’t agree with it, that land will be taken.” 

Evidently, in terms of those involved in the proposed greenway extension project through scenic Murrisk, Cloonagh and Croagh Patrick, both public representatives and council staff are simply doing their jobs. You might wonder though, are not farmers in the greenway target area also entitled to continue doing their jobs, without undue interference to their place of work ie their beloved land?