Agricultural Land next to Major Arterial road. Can Local Auth deny access/egress?

M

mercman

Guest
If a person owns land zoned agricultural, next to a Major Arterial Route, with one Gate for entering and exiting the said lands, can the local council deny access to the owners or in fact stop agricultural supplies from gaining access ??
 
I think this is one for the law forum, since its a matter of rights of access, as opposed to planning.

For example, I understand that most of the dodgy u-turns on the Stillorgan by-pass had to be put in because under Irish Law the Council couldn't deprive landowners and businesses of their access.
I think that there's one north of the Stillorgan Park Hotel and another north of the Wyattville Estate junction past Cabinteely heading for Dublin - to serve a filling station.

At least, that's what I was told many moon ago and the law may have changed since then, however, there are still laws protecting Public Rights of Way
L.and law has just been revised with the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009.

Interested parties should review the National Roads Authority's terms of reference, as they may have overbearing rights in the interest of the public good.

FWIW


ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
 
Thanks onq for the reply. I was under the impression that for agricultural use, and as the lands had been denied rezoning, that farm use could not be denied.
 
You're welcome Mercman,

I think the matter may rest with acquired rights of gaining access to the land, as opposed to rights to traverse the land, which amounts to a right of way.

I'd put it to whoever owns the land that there is a difference between

(i) owning a field and using it for grazing livestock - a farming use

and

(ii) claiming the access to this field is necessary for the continuance of a business - a farm as a going concern.

The law may see things differently to the owner of the field.

Another issue arising is that a farm may have several pointos of access, so closing off one access may not seriouisly affect the running of the farm.
Another issue arises if the owner had been invovled in trying to get the field rezoned and is now crying "foul".

Because let's face it a rezoning in this day and age isn't the pot of gold it once was.

Mind you, neither is grazing sheep!

:)

Later.

- there's one north of the Stillorgan Park and another north of the Wyattville Estate junction past Cabinteely heading for Loughlinstown -
 
Hi Mercman,

What kind of road is it (National Primary etc)? Is there an existing entrance/exit or is this a new proposal?

aj

onq said:
I think this is one for the law forum
Click to expand...
Better leave it here for the moment. aj
 
aj, its a National Primary Road. There is an existing entrance there already, previously used in the past and by the same Council for access and rebuilt in road widening approx ten years ago.
 
Has the entrance been in continuous use by the landowner/farmer over the last 10 years? Did the road widening have any impact on the land in question?
 
No, in the main not in use as there was a CPO on the lands as the council were laying a water main through them.

Again No the road widening had little impact on the lands although the Council rebuilt and replaced both the fence and the Gate.
 
Is the landowner being stopped from using the gate provided?

Also the IFA is well versed in these matters and the landowner could contact them.
 
Another NO, has not been stopped from using the Gate, but owner acknowledges the dangers which could cause a serious accident if things went wrong entering or exiting the lands. Massive amount of traffic use the road. Have been told verbally that use of the Gate will not be allowed. Waiting for a written warning. Then it will be off to the IFA.
 
mercman said:
Have been told verbally that use of the Gate will not be allowed.
Click to expand...
By whom? The LA Roads Dept, the NRA or perhaps the Planning Authority?

If the landowner has enjoyed use of the gate (which was provided by the council) over the last number of years and nothing else has changed then I cant see how the landowner could be deprived of the right to continue to use the gate. How wide is the gate?

How large is the farm? are there any farm buildings? Are there any alternatives for entrance/exit? What type of equipment/vehicles are we talking about?
 
Told verbally by the Roads Department of the Planning Authority / Council.

As already mentioned, was unable to gain access to lands as Council contractors were laying a new Watermain. The gate might be a new gate but is located in the same position as has always been in their possession. It is a standard width gate used for agricultural purposes.

No farm buildings and the area is approx 10-12 acres. There is only one entrance to the lands. In the past the lands were used for cattle grazing and the likes of same.
 
mercman said:
Told verbally by the Roads Department of the Planning Authority / Council.
Click to expand...

In their verbal communication did the council representative indicate on what grounds they would seek to deny the land owner access to his lands from the National Primary route? Was the communication from the planning department or the local area road engineers department?

How would they enforce such a denial?

Has the council negotiated a wayleave agreement with the land owner giving them (the water authority/LA) permission to access the lands for the purposes of laying and maintaining the watermain?

Should the water main burst how would the water authority/LA gain access to the lands to effect repair? Presumably through the gate I imagine!
 
ajapale said:
In their verbal communication did the council representative indicate on what grounds they would seek to deny the land owner access to his lands from the National Primary route? Was the communication from the planning department or the local area road engineers department?
Click to expand...

In this case it was the traffic department and road engineers department .

The other points are noted. However the Council departments do enforce scare tactics and to fight their points takes deep pockets. In this case the case and possibility of serious accidents would be of serious concerns and the present owners do not wish to test the bylaws by causing an accident. If the lands had of been even partially rezoned, it could have saved all of these headaches now and future testing of these lunacy rules. According to the owners, agricultural lands do hold certain rights concerning access etc.etc.
 
How would a rezoning have addressed some or all of the problems?

Surely it would intensify the use and the site's problem is already one of access?


ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
 
If (a) the entrance has always been there, (b) is being used solely for agricultural purposes & (c) the Local Authority has not issued a notice in writing then I wouldn't worry about it.
 
Update:: The County Council were written to concerning the boundary fences been broken down on both sides of neighbouring lands, a massive heap of rubbish remains and the gate is completely banjaxed and all the council have said that the original contractor has gone out of business but they will make provision that if the new contractors are paid cash by the owner, then that is that.

The owner has an appointment with the solicitor in the morning to have this problem sorted.
 
Temporary segration and storage of materials in a prepared compound on site may be in accordance with whatever contract was signed by the parties.
I am assuming that these parties were - inter alia - the Council and the Contractor, who is no longer in business.
With the Contract fundamentally breached, the current and future status of the spoil heap is unclear.

If left untended it may amount to unlawful deposition of materials - i.e. "dumping" under the Waste Management Act 1996.
Councils and the EPA are not as thick as thieves on matters like this, and the EPA has taken action against Councils in the past on Waste Management issues.
I'm happy to stand corrected on this, but fail to see why any new Contractor should be paid in cash by the owner as opposed to paid money over-the-counter by the Council.

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top