Lissadel House Shut down

jimmmy · 09-01-2009 7:01pm

luckat wrote: »

Surely this should be sorted out in an adult manner - the owners of the house, if they want to live with their neighbours, should be gracious about continuing the traditional right of way, and the neighbours should be equally gracious about using it properly.

Hear hear.

jimmmy · 09-01-2009 7:03pm

partyguinness wrote: »

jimmy...you are very preachy and high and mightly about "the law" which I suspect you know absolutely nothing about.

Why dont you answer my previous post about whether or not you have all the facts??

Both sides have put forward their arguments, and it is clear that in planning matters it is what the County Council decides that is important.

Essexboy · 09-01-2009 7:25pm

Jabby wrote: »

Thanks pg, I've just read about it now. Mainly about the right of way it seems. There is either a right of way through the estate or not. It should be easy enough to resolve.

Exactly! and as the owners are sucessful lawyers one would have expected them to take legal action if they had a strong case.
Is closing down the House a bargaining ploy?

magnumlady · 09-01-2009 7:51pm

I don't blame them for shutting the place down.
The council took the decision about the right of way at a meeting that the family weren't even told about.

Xiney · 09-01-2009 7:55pm

This, from the Lissadell House website (the link to which was posted above) makes the issue quite clear to me:

As part of the purchasing process Sir Josslyn Gore Booth, the vendor, gave a sworn declaration confirming that no public rights of way existed over the property. Additionally, Sligo County Council stated that the only roads in the charge of the Council were roads outside Lissadell. There was no suggestion by Sligo County Council that the internal roads or paths were subject to any public rights of way.

For a public right of way to exist, it must be expressly dedicated by the owner of the land. That is the law. There is no evidence that any such dedication was ever made over any part of the Lissadell Estate, either when it was a 4,000 acre estate, or when it was reduced to the current 400 acres in the 1970s.

It seems the Council are up their own holes. Surprise, surprise.

xxgrannygruntxx · 09-01-2009 7:57pm

As a local to the area i can say without any doubt there is a right of way .Some of the local farms have no choice but to cross that land to get to their fields as they have done for generations without any problems Now with these barriers they cannot use their own land so its lying bare Also it was good enough for hill farmers to be forced to make right of ways on their land where there never was a right of way This family are blocking a right that was always in existance which they have to have known of as they are trained barristers

Xiney · 09-01-2009 8:05pm

The council have produced no evidence of a right of way through the land, which is something that is required by law. As a matter of fact, they actually have evidence to the contrary.

Just saying it's so, and right of ways by word of mouth aren't protected by the law.

Essexboy · 09-01-2009 8:19pm

Xiney wrote: »

The council have produced no evidence of a right of way through the land, which is something that is required by law. As a matter of fact, they actually have evidence to the contrary.

Just saying it's so, and right of ways by word of mouth aren't protected by the law.

A right of way does not have to be recorded; it can be made by a period of use for at least 20 years without interuption. If people have walked through Lissadell grounds without hindrance - and lots of locals say they have - a right of way exists.
The County Council have not said definitely that there is a right of way: Councillor Patsy Barry told OceanFM the resolution was only the first step in a procedure to determine whether a right of way exists.

Xiney · 09-01-2009 8:37pm

But there is a sworn statement on record by the previous owner that says there is no right of way.

The fact that people have been contradicting this shouldn't matter, I wouldn't think. However, Right of Way legislation in Ireland is very vague, as far as I can tell.

xxgrannygruntxx · 09-01-2009 8:54pm

Sir Josslyn cannot know what right of way existed he lived in Australia and never visited i was a carer in the house at one time all Sir wanted was the money for the property as a few people in the area could tell Now one last remark as i think the family who purchased the property good luck Its a sad day the family of the Goor Booths died they were a dacent family

dardevle · 09-01-2009 8:57pm

landlord denying people access to land,
locking the gates,dismissing the workers....

and the year is??? anyone?

what would the countess say?:rolleyes:

slapbangwhallop · 09-01-2009 9:00pm

xxgrannygruntxx wrote: »

As a local to the area i can say without any doubt there is a right of way .Some of the local farms have no choice but to cross that land to get to their fields as they have done for generations without any problems Now with these barriers they cannot use their own land so its lying bare Also it was good enough for hill farmers to be forced to make right of ways on their land where there never was a right of way This family are blocking a right that was always in existance which they have to have known of as they are trained barristers

you might be local but there isnt a right of way - do you know what a right of way is??

The council only tried to bring the right of way in in December - there was no official ROW before that - that is a fact!

locals may have used it and have been given the right of passage across the land but there wasnt a Right of Way

slapbangwhallop · 09-01-2009 9:06pm

Essexboy wrote: »

A right of way does not have to be recorded; it can be made by a period of use for at least 20 years without interuption. If people have walked through Lissadell grounds without hindrance - and lots of locals say they have - a right of way exists.
The County Council have not said definitely that there is a right of way: Councillor Patsy Barry told OceanFM the resolution was only the first step in a procedure to determine whether a right of way exists.

well there definately was a restriction on access over the past 5 years - that is way the new owners purposefully erected the gated because the did not want a Right of Way to be created - which is perfectly OK by me - if I bought a house for over a million quid then I would want the right to choose who I let come on to my private property as well

slapbangwhallop · 09-01-2009 9:08pm

dardevle wrote: »

landlord denying people access to land,
locking the gates,dismissing the workers....

and the year is??? anyone?

what would the countess say?:rolleyes:

1. Private land

2.Locking their own gates, just like most would shut their own gates, lock their garage and bolt their front door

3. if effect Cllr Leonard had these people sacked because he made a struggling business which was employing local people untenable!

Scoobydoobydoo · 09-01-2009 9:22pm

slapbangwhallop wrote: »

1. Private land

2.Locking their own gates, just like most would shut their own gates, lock their garage and bolt their front door

3. if effect Cllr Leonard had these people sacked because he made a struggling business which was employing local people untenable!

From what I've read so far, I agree with the above in general. It's extremely disappointing that this house ended up in the hands of a private family in the first place, but since that is the case, and they seem to have done such positive things with it, and most importantly, opening it in to the public - I would think that they should be allowed have control over it. I should think they would be concerned particularly about the security aspect, that anyone should be able to be around outside the house at any time, I wouldn't like that.
I don't understand why this is only an issue now, five years on. I don't have a proper understanding of the situation of how it came to be that people have land which is only accessable by passing though someone else's. Surely these people could have ensured that this was pointed out at the time of the sale anyway?

blackiebest · 09-01-2009 10:24pm

I expected this would be heavily debated. I have good friends who live very close to Lisadell house and use the contested route almost daily, they have been fighting against the route closure for the last five years along with most of the other local residents. Recently I walked from their home to the beach along this route and really felt very uncomfortable. Many reasons for this but mainly because of the anomisity which exists betwen the Cassidy's and the people who want to access the beach using the route.

I think it is fantastic what the Cassidy family have done to the estate and for sure it has benefited Sligo greatly.

I think they handled the situation really badly by allowing the locals to become so incensed when they closed the route.

The route passes within feet of the front door of the house and could not possibly allow any feeling of privacy or security for the owners

The day I walked to the beach I felt terrible passing so close to these peoples home and could clearly see into their home.

I really believe that an alternative non-vechile route should have been created away from the family home and open to the local families who do wish to be able access the shore line or go for a walk.

The Cassidy family are entitled, IMO, to privacy adn security but not to the manner and percieved arrogance displayed when they closed the route and bullied the local people shocked at their actions.

It is terrible the house is now closed and it seems there are only losers as a result.

Lets hope common sense prevails...

T runner · 09-01-2009 11:42pm

slapbangwhallop wrote: »

Yes you can if there was no Right of Way!Its THEIR property THEY paid for it - local people - Sligo people - the council all had f@ck all interest in the place for years. If you have a problem with the barrier THEY erected with THEIR money then why dont YOU help pay for a prettier one!

I think right of access laws apply to everyone and have to be applied without exception.

If the owners believe that there are legally no rights of way, as they implied on their website, then they should be able to challenge for this in a court of Law.

A FG councillor on the radio said the council had requested several meetings with the owners, all turned down.

I dont buy the owners claim that they are shutting the place because of this.
They are barristers and business people and if a place is making a profit, they would keep it open.

They arent making money and are closing for that reason. The other reason they stated is to put pressure on the council to reverse the decision.

They havent said the family is moving out due to safety considerations and they havent said they would reopen if the rights of way werent there.

A compromise in the form of a 5 kph speed limit and/or a motor vehicle ban on the right of way might be a compromise.

jimmmy · 10-01-2009 12:09pm

T runner wrote: »

.

I dont buy the owners claim that they are shutting the place because of this.
They are barristers and business people and if a place is making a profit, they would keep it open.

They arent making money and are closing for that reason. The other reason they stated is to put pressure on the council to reverse the decision.

I agree. In fact I think its an insult to the locals and to the workers for these new absentee landlords to close the route and try to link the closure of the business with the new closure of the route. The previous owners never blocked access, they were "dacent people" as a previous poster pointer out. Pity the new owners have closed / attempted to close a long established right of way, increase rents substantially etc etc. Most of the contents of Lisadell house were sold at a well publicised auction about five years ago, and I think the place has never been the same since. Ye can bring in a few new bits and pieces but the place has not the same spirit. I have great sympathy for the locals there, some of whom I know well.

Jabby · 10-01-2009 1:28pm

xxgrannygruntxx wrote: »

Sir Josslyn cannot know what right of way existed he lived in Australia and never visited i was a carer in the house at one time all Sir wanted was the money for the property as a few people in the area could tell Now one last remark as i think the family who purchased the property good luck Its a sad day the family of the Goor Booths died they were a dacent family

"a dacant family"???
Have you read Joe McGowan's book The shadow of Ben Bulben?

He has an interesting chapter on that 'dacant' family and their history.

jimmmy · 10-01-2009 2:16pm

Thats one persons opinions only.

I agree with xxgrannygruntxx that the previous owners of Lisadell house were "a dacent family.".
As I wrote, its a pity the new owners have closed / attempted to close a long established right of way, increase rents substantially etc

slapbangwhallop · 10-01-2009 2:46pm

jimmmy wrote: »

Thats one persons opinions only.

I agree with xxgrannygruntxx that the previous owners of Lisadell house were "a dacent family.".
As I wrote, its a pity the new owners have closed / attempted to close a long established right of way, increase rents substantially etc

"dacent" - dacent enough not to give a sugar about the place and let it fall into ruins.

The new owners were "dacent" enough to pump millions into the place when locals did nothing and dacent enough to provide much needed jobs for locals - now thats what I call dacent.

dardevle · 10-01-2009 3:03pm

slapbangwhallop wrote: »

"
The new owners were "dacent" enough to pump millions into the place when locals did nothing and dacent enough to provide much needed jobs for locals - now thats what I call dacent.

and the new owners were also "dacent" enough to use those
same workers as pawns in a dispute with the local authority..

afaik this dispute has been ongoing since the house changed hands
in 2003...i remember in 2005 when all the 'rights of way' were chained
and barricades erected and in the dead of night the gates were vandalised
(don't condone this).what i think has changed in the meantime is that since the increase in visitors the owners bargaining position has gotten stronger and they have decided to try and 'checkmate' there way to a
resoloution that suits them.

if they feel so strongly that no right of way exists in law then as
legal professionals why not get a legal opinion that would once and for all put an end to this?perhaps because they feel that their case in law is not strong enough:rolleyes:

jimmmy · 10-01-2009 3:07pm

I was in the house before the new owners bought it, and it was better than it is now. If the new owner wanted to buy and keep it, he should have bought all the contents of the house, instead of seeing it dispersed at that well publicised auction....it was even on the RTE news at the time. The house was not " in ruins" when it was sold 5 years ago, although it would have ended up that way had the previous owners not reluctantly sold it, as they had little or no income.

As regards providing "much needed jobs for locals"... why does the new owner deny people access ( where they had access for generations ), erect + lock crude looking barrier, and dismiss the workers....?

Jabby · 10-01-2009 6:40pm

jimmmy wrote: »

Thats one persons opinions only.

I agree with xxgrannygruntxx that the previous owners of Lisadell house were "a dacent family.".
As I wrote, its a pity the new owners have closed / attempted to close a long established right of way, increase rents substantially etc

I think that you should arm yourself with some facts about the families of Lissadell House both past and present before you make any more of your comments. I suspect you know nothing whatsoever about the history of Lissadell and even less about the present owners.

As I advised you earlier on, In the Shadow of Benbulben by Joe McGowan would be a good place for you to start.

As for "that's one persons opinion" It is generally accepted that Joe McGowan is a very eminent historian who is widely read on such matters.

T runner · 10-01-2009 7:37pm

jimmmy wrote: »

I agree. In fact I think its an insult to the locals and to the workers for these new absentee landlords to close the route and try to link the closure of the business with the new closure of the route. The previous owners never blocked access, they were "dacent people" as a previous poster pointer out. Pity the new owners have closed / attempted to close a long established right of way, increase rents substantially etc etc. Most of the contents of Lisadell house were sold at a well publicised auction about five years ago, and I think the place has never been the same since. Ye can bring in a few new bits and pieces but the place has not the same spirit. I have great sympathy for the locals there, some of whom I know well.

"For a public right of way to exist, it must be expressly dedicated by the owner of the land. That is the law. There is no evidence that any such dedication was ever made over any part of the Lissadell Estate."

This is from their site. They are barristers (They made their few quid from the tribunals in Dublin, I heard) claiming that something is against the Law and their reaction is to close their business and blame the "law breakers". They must feel they cant win in a court. They are going the public pressure route now.

Are they still renting land in the area?

Dont remember the auction, but I was there as a youngster and the house was filled with very old fashioned stuff. It was a very good example of an authentic period house. I remember two very old giggly ladies (it was after I dropped something so maybe they were crying!). They may have been 2 old Gore Booth sisters.

AKK · 10-01-2009 7:43pm

T runner wrote: »

"

This is from their site. They are barristers (They made their few quid from the tribunals in Dublin, I heard) claiming that something is against the Law and their reaction is to close their business and blame the "law breakers". They must feel they cant win in a court. They are going the public pressure route now.

I'm sure simply closing the business is far easier than pursuing the legal route, regardless of their profession. Asserting their rights in court could potentially be a long drawn-out, (and very costly), process involving numerous appeals from either side. It doesn't necessary flow from their decision not to take the court option that "They must feel they cant win in a court".

dumbyearbook · 10-01-2009 8:07pm

T runner wrote: »

This is from their site. They are barristers (They made their few quid from the tribunals in Dublin, I heard)QUOTE]

lol @ "their few quid" he's one of the best barristers in Ireland, he'd have money even if there had been no tribunals at all.

The council have slipped up badly here and its a real shame fair play to the owners they had the guts and foresight to take on this mammoth project and can't fulfill all they want to with it, loss of these jobs is a big deal for the area too and the spin off money for the town - must have been millions for restraunts and shops. Hopefully the decsion of the council will be overturned and all can go back to the 40K in visitors each year.

Macroom Man · 10-01-2009 9:18pm

T runner wrote: »

"For a public right of way to exist, it must be expressly dedicated by the owner of the land. That is the law. There is no evidence that any such dedication was ever made over any part of the Lissadell Estate."

This is from their site. They are barristers (They made their few quid from the tribunals in Dublin, I heard) claiming that something is against the Law and their reaction is to close their business and blame the "law breakers". They must feel they cant win in a court. They are going the public pressure route now.

Are they still renting land in the area?

Dont remember the auction, but I was there as a youngster and the house was filled with very old fashioned stuff. It was a very good example of an authentic period house. I remember two very old giggly ladies (it was after I dropped something so maybe they were crying!). They may have been 2 old Gore Booth sisters.

"where there has been a long history of use of a pathway by members of the public then this will be evidence of a public right of way. A public right of way can be enjoyed by any member of the public. At common law the right is established by showing use from time immemorial, or it may have been created by Statute or expressly or impliedly dedicated by the owners with the acceptance of use by the public."
That is the law.

I was told by one of Joe Leonard's supporters that the procedure adopted by the County Council means that the Walshs have to prove there is not a right of way rather than the Council proving that a right of way exists ie the onus is on them not the Council. I cannot say if this is correct but Joe Leonard is confident that it is.

It looks strange that two barristers should use jobs as a weapon, rather than go to court; county councils hate going to court even when they should.

dardevle · 10-01-2009 9:31pm

while i don't see there being much loss of revenue
on the part of the owners from closing the house down
in the second week of january(i maybe wrong but i don't believe that many of the 40,000 visited at this time of the year),
to have the opportunity to lay off all the staff and the accompanying
wage bill in a time of economic crisis and get to blame the local authority
for the layoffs is quite the stroke....i also note that they will reopen later in the year(high season?)to "fulfill obligations".;)

redarmyblues · 10-01-2009 9:44pm

"For a public right of way to exist, it must be expressly dedicated by the owner of the land. That is the law. There is no evidence that any such dedication was ever made over any part of the Lissadell Estate."
This is the Cassady's view of the law, it may be or may not be the law.
They have not quoted any statute or judgement to support this view on their website. It seems that the former owner Jocelyn Gorebooth swore an affadavit that no right of way existed at the time of sale and the Cassady's intend to rely on this. However if this matter is contested in a court supporters of the right of way may be able to introduce testimony where witnesses swear to their own and their antecendents unimpeded access to the routes in question. The issue of rights of way are highly fraught and complex as many landowners can testify and this issue will not be solved on here.

I am amazed at the willingness of posters here to support the rights of the Cassadys/landowners over the right of public access. We enjoy very little access to the countryside in ireland this has had a serious impact on Irish Tourism. If denial of access to private lands was universal it would be impossible to visit the summit of Knocknarea or fish in many rivers. Most farming in Ireland is uneconomical and many landowners who are subsidised by the public purse deny the public any access to their property.

Since the Cassady's are more then willing to allow paying customers access to the lands I suspect their motivations are entirely commercial. I would tend to believe that there are public rights of way to estate at Lissadell since I have enjoyed unimpeded access for as long as I can remember and it is my conclusion that the Cassady's are behaving like any other Landlording family in striving to increase the value of the land by extinguishing traditional access.

Lissadel House Shut down

Comments