COMHAIRLE CONTAE ÁTHA CLIATH THEAS
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL

MEETING OF RATHFARNHAM/TEMPLEOGUE-TERENURE AREA COMMITTEE

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

MOTION NO. 7

MOTION: Councillor F.N. Duffy

"Cllr Francis Noel Duffy courteously calls on the Chief Executive to investigate establishing a right of way under 9.4.0 of the development plan along the existing river side walk in Massy’s wood, between the entrance off Cruagh Lane and Cruagh Road. The route of this proposed right of way is illustrated with red dots on the attached map.

9.4.0 Public Rights of Way and Permissive Access Routes

The Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended) requires each County Development Plan to include an objective for the preservation of public rights of way that give access to places of natural beauty or utility and for such rights of way to be listed in an appendix and identified on Development Plan maps. The identification of a public right of way requires verification and the burden of proof rests with the Local Authority. The Council will endeavour to identity and list public rights of way as they come to the attention of the Planning Authority. The creation of Permissive Access Routes to high amenity, recreational and scenic lands in partnership with landowners, adjoining local authorities, public bodies and other state agencies is considered to be an achievable mechanism to secure access to places of natural beauty or utility. Permissive Access Routes such as the Dublin Mountains Way and the Western Greenway in County Mayo are successful examples that have yielded significant tourism, recreation and amenity benefits

HERITAGE, CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPES (HCL)

Policy 16 Public Rights of Way and Permissive Access Routes

It is the policy of the Council to continue to promote and improve access to high amenity, scenic, and recreational lands throughout the County and within adjoining counties, including places of natural beauty or utility, for the purposes of outdoor recreation, while avoiding environmental damage, landscape damage and impacts to Natura 2000 sites.

HCL16 Objective 1: To promote the preservation of public rights of way that give access to mountain, lakeshore, riverbank or other places of natural beauty or recreational utility such as parklands, geological and geo-morphical features of heritage value and to identify and map such public rights of way as they come to the attention of the Council.

HCL16 Objective 2: To promote and facilitate the creation of Permissive Access Routes and heritage trails that will provide access to high amenity, scenic and recreational lands including rural areas, forests, woodlands, waterways, upland/mountain areas, the Grand Canal, the Dodder Valley, the Liffey Valley and between historic villages (utilising modern technology), in partnership with adjoining local authorities, private landowners, semi-state and other public bodies such as Coillte and the Forest Service. Permissive Access Routes should not compromise environmentally sensitive sites.

HCL16 Objective 3: To promote and facilitate the continued development of the Dublin Mountains Way and the Wicklow Way in association with the Dublin Mountains Partnership, particularly Permissive Access Routes that provide access to regional and local networks of walking, running, hiking and mountain bike trails and other recreational facilities. The routing of new trails and rerouting of existing trails on public roads is encouraged.

HCL16 Objective 4: To promote and improve access, in partnership with the relevant landowners, to all the historic sites in the County and seek to maximise their tourism potential in partnership with the relevant landowners.

HCL16 Objective 5: To bring mountain amenities closer to residential communities by promoting the establishment of a network of formal footpaths, o?-road paths and cycle ways that facilitate casual walkers and cyclists

Action To investigate relevant areas of the County including Dublin-Wicklow Border, Kilakee, Lucan Village Cemetery and Brittas for the purpose of creating possible public rights of way"

REPORT:

Coillte own and maintain existing publicly accessible waymarked walking routes along the extent of the suggested public right of way (see attached map). This approach is consistent with HCL16 Objective 2 of the South Dublin County Council Development Plan 2016 – 2022 (the Development Plan) which seeks to promote and facilitate the creation of permissive access routes through partnership with land owners.

The wording of the motion seeking the establishment of a right of way has significant legal implications in terms of compensation, maintenance and burden of proof. As a result, seeking the establishment of a public right of way along an existing permissive access route risks the withdrawal of the landowner’s cooperation. This would put at risk the maintenance of existing routes and their future extension as well as undermining the creation of a strategic network of walking routes such as the Dublin Mountain Way.

It is noted that HCL16 Objective 1 of the Development Plan seeks to promote the preservation of public rights of way and to identify and map such as they come to the attention of the Council. It is not policy to seek to establish existing public rights of way on permissive access routes which are already waymarked, maintained and publicly accessible.

Furthermore, as stated under Section 9.4.0 of the Development Plan, the identification of a public right of way requires verification with the burden of proof resting with the local authority. Section 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) requires that, where a planning authority proposes to include for the first time, a provision in a development plan relating to the preservation of a specific public right of way, it shall serve notice on any owner and occupier affected. Such parties have a right of appeal to the Circuit Court.

Within this context of the above, a search of the Property Registration Authority reveals that no public right of way has been recorded along the route refer to by the subject motion. Therefore, the existence of a public right of way along the suggested route has been investigated and cannot be verified.