All,
Thought this may be of interest:
Labour publishes bill to deal with access issue
Submited by Roisin Finlay
02 May 2007
The Labour Party recently published draft legislation which, if passed, could give hillwalkers and other outdoor enthusiasts access to all land in the Republic of Ireland that is 150m above sea level that is not being actively farmed and is not a private garden. The legislation would also indemnify the owners of such land against injury or accidents on their land. No payment will be given to landowners if their land is deemed ‘access land’.
Under the legislation, entitled the Access to the Countryside Bill 2007, local authorities would be responsible for putting on show draft proposals regarding what land should be deemed ‘access lands’. Any owner would then be able appeal against the inclusion of their land to An Bord Pleanála.
Local Authorities would be also charged with developing routes to gain entry to this designated ‘access’ land, and amenities such as off road car parks and toilets where necessary.
Under the Bill, the Minister for the Environment would establish an Access to the Countryside Advisory Council. This council would publish an Amenity Lands Access Programme every six years and there would be the opportunity for the status of land to be revised.
The Labour Party has described the bill as a “creative and constructive legal framework and Bill to provide certainty and security for both land owners and recreational walkers”.
When launching the Bill, Labour TD Ruairi Quinn’s said if Labour was returned to power following the election, they would aim to have the legislation passed. However, he stressed that the party would be open to any amendments. “We’ve offered this as a basis for a discussion. We didn’t consult with the farmers in advance because we knew what their formal position was as they have published their own documents and also from our contacts in Comhairle na Tuaithe.”
The IFA has proposed the Countryside Walkways Management Scheme as a way to resolve the conflict between recreational walkers and farmers. The scheme would create either linear walks or shorter looped walks in the countryside by opening a national network of walks. The proposed scheme involves a payment to farmers of €1,000, plus €5 per metre annually.
Quinn also that under the Labour Party Bill, land under 150m could be deemed ‘access land’, for example coastal walks and certain beaches for surfers. He conceded that this could cause some problems as gaining entry to such land might involve passing over private land. “If there was say a question of getting from the road to a beach via a series of fields, then you’d have to negotiate with the owner for an access route and that would be covered by the local authority entering into negotiations with the owner and agreeing to take a stretch of land, paying for it and providing for the upkeep of stiles etc.” No money however will be paid for access land above 150m or entry to it as this land will still be owned by the landowner and people will only have received permission to walk over it providing they don’t damage it, Quinn states.
Reaction from farming organisations was negative. In a piece in the Irish Times (Saturday, April 7, 2007), the Irish IFA and the ICMSA were reported to have said that the proposed new law was unconstitutional and tantamount to nationalisation of the land.
Responding to the farmers’ groups reactions, Quinn said, “It’s not unconstitutional, we’ve had that checked. And it’s not nationalisation. All we want is the right to walk on it and the rights of the owners have to be respected. There’s no question of entering into enclosed spaces or private dwellings or gardens or areas that are clearly marked off as being for private use above that 150m or below that 150m line.”
Quinn believes that farmers are merely motivated by possible financial benefits. “It’s just about money and nothing else,” he stated.
Quinn is adamant that there will be no payment to landowner for access. “No other European Union country pays for access and the farmers are in receipt of a large amount of money already from the European taxpayer… ”, adding, “The land belongs to everyone in the country in the emotional sense not just the tiny proportion of the population that owns it. It’s nearly like a reversal of the old days of the landlords.”
Quinn also said that that he believes this legislation would be good for the rural economy. “Wales gets two million visitors a year who go there to walk. While they are not paying farmers directly, they are creating a vibrant rural economy which has to be good for any farmer that’s living in rural Ireland,” he stated. “Forty-six per cent of the population live in rural Ireland, that’s outside towns of 1,500 or more, and less than 10 per cent of the population are directly or indirectly involved in agriculture. So there’s a big community out there and rural tourism is one of the things that could help to sustain that rural economy which faces the decline of agricultural numbers and incomes.”
He added, “We are now losing rural tourism. There were over 350,000 walkers coming to Ireland annually about seven to nine years ago. And when these problems of access started to emerge the numbers dropped. It’s now less than 240,000 and falling.
Quinn hopes that there will be a change of attitude from farming organisations. “I hope the IFA will give leadership on this front because they haven’t so far …”, he stated.
According to Quinn the Green Party support what Labour is doing and many Fine Gael TDs also do although the party has not adopted a formal position on the Bill and many local councillors have come out against it.
To read the full version of the Bill together with explanatory notes and planned ways of implementation, visit: http://www.labour.ie/policy/listing/117 ... 60487.html
New Access bill...
Re:New Access bill...
Sounds wonderful...
Just one question. From a seakayaking point of view, how are we to get from sea level to the 150m contour without trespassing?
On a more serious note, what is the position re: coastal access? I\'ve noticed a proliferation of private slipways around here recently, some with big \"PFO\" notices!
My understanding was always that the inter-tidal zone is public ownership. Does this mean I can land on a \"private\" slipway to stretch my legs, have a cuppa etc. as long as I don\'t cross the green slime line?
Steve
(Ceegee)
Just one question. From a seakayaking point of view, how are we to get from sea level to the 150m contour without trespassing?
On a more serious note, what is the position re: coastal access? I\'ve noticed a proliferation of private slipways around here recently, some with big \"PFO\" notices!
My understanding was always that the inter-tidal zone is public ownership. Does this mean I can land on a \"private\" slipway to stretch my legs, have a cuppa etc. as long as I don\'t cross the green slime line?
Steve
(Ceegee)
Re:New Access bill...
Sounds wonderful...
Just one question. From a seakayaking point of view, how are we to get from sea level to the 150m contour without trespassing?
On a more serious note, what is the position re: coastal access? I\'ve noticed a proliferation of private slipways around here recently, some with big \"PFO\" notices!
My understanding was always that the inter-tidal zone is public ownership. Does this mean I can land on a \"private\" slipway to stretch my legs, have a cuppa etc. as long as I don\'t cross the green slime line?
Steve
(Ceegee)
Just one question. From a seakayaking point of view, how are we to get from sea level to the 150m contour without trespassing?
On a more serious note, what is the position re: coastal access? I\'ve noticed a proliferation of private slipways around here recently, some with big \"PFO\" notices!
My understanding was always that the inter-tidal zone is public ownership. Does this mean I can land on a \"private\" slipway to stretch my legs, have a cuppa etc. as long as I don\'t cross the green slime line?
Steve
(Ceegee)
Re:New Access bill...
Yes.
Generally. Private ownership excludes the inter-tidal area below (recollection) MHWN. The salt water marshy area below MHWS can I think be owned.
Exceptions are worth noting. Maritime orders may be made regulating piers and slips, so that you can\'t land a kayak at a working pier where trawlers or the HSS comes in, perhaps in places like Dunlaoire Pier. Jet Skis are outlawed in other places. Aquaculture orders can be made giving exclusivity for shell and finfishing, and the relevant policing rights to an individual. The likes of Shell can be given the right to run a pipe out of the sea onto the land. But for the 99% of cases, just plain - YES.
Note also that \"riparian\" landowners may husband stock appropriately even if it means running a fence down below the MHWN mark. This confuses some landowners into believing that means they do own below the MHWN line, but not so. It is not illegal to cross such a fence below the MHWN mark, but it is illegal to damage it. An island that is owned by a single owner is dangerous. He will feel you CANNOT land, period, e.g. Lambay, but again, wrong.
No permission needed below the (lower) slime line.
David Walsh.
Generally. Private ownership excludes the inter-tidal area below (recollection) MHWN. The salt water marshy area below MHWS can I think be owned.
Exceptions are worth noting. Maritime orders may be made regulating piers and slips, so that you can\'t land a kayak at a working pier where trawlers or the HSS comes in, perhaps in places like Dunlaoire Pier. Jet Skis are outlawed in other places. Aquaculture orders can be made giving exclusivity for shell and finfishing, and the relevant policing rights to an individual. The likes of Shell can be given the right to run a pipe out of the sea onto the land. But for the 99% of cases, just plain - YES.
Note also that \"riparian\" landowners may husband stock appropriately even if it means running a fence down below the MHWN mark. This confuses some landowners into believing that means they do own below the MHWN line, but not so. It is not illegal to cross such a fence below the MHWN mark, but it is illegal to damage it. An island that is owned by a single owner is dangerous. He will feel you CANNOT land, period, e.g. Lambay, but again, wrong.
No permission needed below the (lower) slime line.
David Walsh.