Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Lissadel House Shut down

24

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭slapbangwhallop


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 771 ✭✭✭dardevle


    "
    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:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    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....?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 242 ✭✭Jabby


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭AKK


    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".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 842 ✭✭✭dumbyearbook


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭Macroom Man


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 771 ✭✭✭dardevle


    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".;)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 974 ✭✭✭redarmyblues


    "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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,085 ✭✭✭Xiney


    Off topic, but if people could stop spelling "decent" wrong, my twitching will probably go away.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭slapbangwhallop


    Xiney wrote: »
    Off topic, but if people could stop spelling "decent" wrong, my twitching will probably go away.

    you havent got a dacent Sligo accent thats why!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,273 ✭✭✭EuskalHerria


    The government were given the oppertunity to come ina nd preserve the house, they didn't and now the family that have bought it have used their right to close the house off.

    To be honest there are probably people maing a fuss about it that never went to the house when it was open, the fact it is now closed or is going to be closed then people will make a fuss. I couldn't care either way as i never really seen the thrill in visiting a home that embodies everything about inequality in those days.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    I couldn't care either way as i never really seen the thrill in visiting a home that embodies everything about inequality in those days.

    Hi EuskalHerria. Your name reminds me of Donostia.

    The house is only a curiosity and tourist attraction now, the original family are gone.

    I was driving to Raghley onle last weekend, and came out at Grange, before heading back towards Sligo. I commented to my Dad on all the many one lane "boreen" roads, in that area.
    He called them "land commision roads" that were laid for the Land Commision when these estates were being broken down into more equitable sizes for small land owners.
    The knocknarea peninsula has similar type roads. It makes you think what a very different place Ireland must have been with these vast estates, worked by tiny tenant holders with no access roads to their rented land.

    Anyway, I wouldnt bother letting a big old house like that having any power over the likes of me anymore. But Id expect the council to do their bit in upholding public rights of way also.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    T runner wrote: »
    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.

    If the council believe there are public rights of way there, they have no choice and must enforce them.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 242 ✭✭Jabby


    dardevle wrote: »
    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".;)

    Exactly. I totally agree with this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 242 ✭✭Jabby


    Xiney wrote: »
    Off topic, but if people could stop spelling "decent" wrong, my twitching will probably go away.

    "dacent" is how a lot of the locals at that time (and still some today) would have pronounced the word 'decent' in years gone by. Its an Irish thing.

    Hope your twitching goes away soon.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭Essexboy


    Jabby wrote: »
    "dacent" is how a lot of the locals at that time (and still some today) would have pronounced the word 'decent' in years gone by. Its an Irish thing.

    Hope your twitching goes away soon.

    Like Sligonians still say "I seen" and "he done"? :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,085 ✭✭✭Xiney


    Jabby wrote: »
    "dacent" is how a lot of the locals at that time (and still some today) would have pronounced the word 'decent' in years gone by. Its an Irish thing.

    I think I've been in Ireland too long. These idiosyncrasies are beginning to have the same effect as nails on a chalkboard for me.

    Carry on, but be nicer to each other than in the Pamela thread.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 842 ✭✭✭dumbyearbook


    T runner wrote: »
    If the council believe there are public rights of way there, they have no choice and must enforce them.

    Sure it was the council that made them public with their recent decsion thats a fact now.

    Regardless the owners can't be expected to look after a public road through their land, it was feasible when they were private hence they have closed their gates.

    Way i see it as a private ROW the potential for harm was managable on the part of the owners now its public and through their land so there is way higher chance of injury etc which the owners would still have to cover for, Inusurance for the current must be way higher than the previous situation.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 66 ✭✭Cork4ever


    Look the man wants to shut down one way of accessing his property.....yes his property.....they have 7 kids, he wants to shut down one way of accessing the property so his family are more secure.

    He is not shutting off access to the beach, he is not stopping people from walking about, he just wants to shut down access in the interests of secuirty.

    The man purchased the property when no one else wanted it, has done a super job on doing it up, has brought 40,000 visitors to the place and a few serial objectors to anything to do with planning and premission and rights of way are making it impossible for a man, his wife and 7 kids to feel secure on property they own.

    i think he is spot on and more luck to the man


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭Essexboy


    Sure it was the council that made them public with their recent decsion thats a fact now.

    Regardless the owners can't be expected to look after a public road through their land, it was feasible when they were private hence they have closed their gates.

    Way i see it as a private ROW the potential for harm was managable on the part of the owners now its public and through their land so there is way higher chance of injury etc which the owners would still have to cover for, Inusurance for the current must be way higher than the previous situation.

    Sure it was the council that made them public with their recent decsion thats a fact now

    No, it is not. Do your homework before posting: the council are trying to confirm whether rights of way exist - that is all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 194 ✭✭shellyriver


    Hi to all on this thread -- know Lissadell area quite well and interested in the debate.

    Obvious there are many 'locals':eek:?? in Lissadell who labour under the idea that there is a right of way in the old Demense grounds of the Gore-Booths estate.

    It is without doubt that many used these roads in by gone days.

    Easements in there variety are many -- won't bother to go into detail.

    But net point concerning Rights of Way at Lissadell must consider that Lissadell Court was built by 1830s on a NEW SITE away from old castle Alpine Garden which had no road towards Maugherow -- so Time Immemorial argument for those who talk of ancient rights is flawed.

    In the past anybody walking on foot, driving donkeys and carts, or automobiles in the time that Gore-Booths had full control, up to Sir Josslyn's death in 1944 and/or under the Ward of Court committee -- was either with permission or on licence, it was not a private right. At best anyone traversing the land was done by secret, without permission or possibly by force (often verbal) - that does not consitute a right to cross.

    Anybody remotely acquainted with Lissadell will realise that the Gore-Booths in the 1950s/60s alleged that £thousands proceeds of commerical forestry etc were embezzled. With owner suffering from mental illness -- it was a 'free-for-all' with some people treating the Estate as they pleased. I'd imagine this is when those who claim a right will take advantage of the total mayhem in regards to management and access.

    I'm sure many people in the vicinity of Lissadell covered the various roads within the Demense grounds, believed they were permitted to do so because they were not literally chased off the grounds, but tolerated. As to how they legally defined the act of walking or driving across these lands can be detailed as they seem to have done in affidavits or statements for the Co Development Plan motion of December last.

    I listened to Ocean FM debate and Cllr Leonard said that Sligo Co Co are not trying to create any NEW public right of way. He seems to miss the point that it is either a right of way or it is not a right of way, if you are successful in court asserting it is a right of way what you are doing is getting legal sanction.

    If you believe you have a PRIVATE right of way -- which is blocked -- you ask your neighbour to stop, if they refuse, you go to your solicitor and take an action to assert this right and IF as Cllr Leonard articulates on behalf of disgruntled locals or those whose legal propreitorial rights are infringement the ATTORNEY GENERAL will assist you because it is a PUBLIC RIGHT.

    Of course none of the locals :eek: have done this -- but Sligo Co Councillors seem to believe the road (directly driving past an 1830s private house:eek:) is a right of way. How convenient for people after five years of the family in situ to take this course of action -- where they never have to dip into their pocket, take the risk of legal action, but are protected by a Planning Act which attacks the private rights of a family who paid for the House.

    Is it me -- or is the fact that the Local Elections are coming up this year that certain Councillors have decided to come out and seek this Motion?

    On this thread some person who wrote about Josslyn being in Australia -- does he recall or know of a tree dropped on the road in front of the house being left there to stop access and gates and barriers being vandalised and destroyed by anonymous people at night?

    Also where are these neighbours so inconvenienced? There are about three houses towards Lissadell C of I Church, it would appear that people living in the Gate lodges contacted the local paper to say they were not in favour of Lissadell Action Group LAG Lol.

    The road past the Coach house to the Beach is dangerous being narrow with embankments which means only one car can safely pass.

    There are have been instances of late night thefts around the Estate reported to the Gardai.

    Can anyone really be surprised that the family wish to secure a property they were told by Sligo Co Council before they bought the land that NO RIGHTS OF WAY (of whatever description exist) along with assurances by the VENDOR there was no such rights of way.

    The Avenue on the Carney side up past the Coach house is regularly used during the day by many, pedestrians use it -- to my knowledge those who own Lissadell have never stopped anyone.

    Some few, unrepresentative people, many dislike the owners of Lissadell erecting gates, fair enough. They might claim a right to walk and drive the lands, fair enough. Let the chips fall where they may.

    In the past when Lissadell was an absolute horrendous tragedy, many of the people who claim to have long associations with the grounds didn't nothing to help the place to be developed.

    Now the Councillors and those opposed to Lissadell have had their say (look at the state of Hazelwood House, the first and finest Palladian Mansion West of the Shannon, in the 1970s the Co Council, being the wonderful planners they are, allowed a Synthethic Nylon factory and then a Video Cassette Manufacturer to erect monumentally ugly plants literally a stone's throw away -- with the result that place falls into decay and fixtures stolen). Now its time for the owners of Lissadell to have their's.

    Yeats trail opened and visitors will be told sorry Lissadell is closed. Sligo has lost out.:(


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭slapbangwhallop



    Yeats trail opened and visitors will be told sorry Lissadell is closed. Sligo has lost out.:(

    well said ma'learned friend!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭darealtulip


    shellyriver what a first post! welcome to the boards. Well said if there is right of way get it in court, if not they can do as they wish.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 66 ✭✭Cork4ever


    Super post shellyriver


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    Cork4ever wrote: »
    Look the man wants to shut down one way of accessing his property.....yes his property.....they have 7 kids, he wants to shut down one way of accessing the property so his family are more secure.

    He and his family only use it as a holiday home / come here for holidays. He does not have to literally lock 400 acres to feel secure. He can lock the door of the house, the gate to the courtyard /containing the shop + cafe etc no problem.


    Cork4ever wrote: »
    he just wants to shut down access in the interests of secuirty.

    Why did the previous ownrers not "shut down access in the interests of secuirty" so ?

    Cork4ever wrote: »
    The man purchased the property when no one else wanted it,
    He was reported to have paid only 1.5 million for 400 acres of land in scenic north Sligo, and the price included Lisadell house + other buildings. Maybe if people did not use the right of way going through the lands the price would have been higher ?


    Cork4ever wrote: »
    has done a super job on doing it up,
    Pity he did not buy most of the antiques / contents of the house at the well publicised auction at the time so....it would be a more original package now if he had.

    Cork4ever wrote: »
    has brought 40,000 visitors to the place and a few serial objectors to anything to do with planning and premission and rights of way are making it impossible for a man, his wife and 7 kids to feel secure on property they own.
    lol. I think he has angered more than a " few serial objectors ". Many of the locals as well as visitors to the area are not impressed with the shoddy new barrier he erected, denying access on an often and well used right of way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 194 ✭✭shellyriver


    Re reply from the above - tnx

    I know the first blog was a bit of a tour de force -- but having searched web re the closure (having been in the House on Sunday afternoon the last day its open) I was genuinely amazed at some of the blogs.

    Anyways - lets hope the hope matter is resoved ASAP. Sligo is a small area, and with the exception of Markree and Annaghmore or Coopershill has little heritage in anything like good order. Tours around Sligo Abbey and Rourke's/Parke's Castle I leave a lot to be desired.

    Plans for Hazelwood have to be applauded, with a reservation over housing density -- again private finance.

    Look at the bigger picture re culture/history and tourism in the area, Sligo Co Co and Corporation finances -- they can't finish new Museum up the Mall (no money), don't have finance for new bridge at Cleveragh, are paralysed as what to do with O'Connell Street (no funds).

    Sligo Co Co had chance to buy Lissadell -- choked or didn't have money.

    To me it seems that aside to what I wrote previously, there would appear to be a sense of grievance with the Co Council (by either Executive or Elected Representatives) to get back at 'de Landlord class'.

    Will be interested in statement from the County Manager et al.

    Pity only half decent local paper didn't run a more extensive article regarding the County Council meeting, which according to Cllrs was a torrid and hotly contested affair -- they all seemed like pussy cats when asked on radio 'why and what exactly they did what they did'.

    This affair just reeks of the worst time of typically Irish, typically Sligo small-minded parish pump nonsense, allied with so-called libertarians who essentially without any real entitlement think they can dictate to anybody who fails to be convinced by their prejudice, disregard and often small-minded ignorance.

    UP DA ROVERS!!!!!:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 650 ✭✭✭blackiebest


    Shellyriver,

    I sincerely hope you will become a frequent poster. Absolutely 'nail on the head' in both your post's and a big +1 from me. It appears though that unless Ed Walsh is a bluffer, the game is up; "But lawyers Eddie Walsh and his wife Constance Cassidy, who bought the 400-acre estate more than five years ago, claim that irrespective of the outcome of legal action they want to wash their hands of the project." Taken from the Indo, full article here http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lissadell-owners-plan-court-action-1597829.html

    Now a mate speculated the end result would always be a break up and sell off of the property in order to make €€€€€ and he may be right, but I think Walsh has enough money and his true motive in purchasing this estate was a combination of a type of lifestyle and a love of our history and old houses.

    If this facility is to remain closed then shame on all involved, having being there when it was more or less abandoned and decaying and after the work done by this family I could only say that once again the people of Sligo have shot themselves in the foot.

    Walsh will probably return to his other 'manor' in Kildare or Meath and recall with bitterness the process of acquiring, restoring and eventually breaking up the historic estate. The irony is that he will probably make millions at the end of it all.

    He will end up having the last laugh and Sligo will end up with ......

    You could'nt make it up!:confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    To me it seems that aside to what I wrote previously, there would appear to be a sense of grievance with the Co Council (by either Executive or Elected Representatives) to get back at 'de Landlord class'.

    Cannot see how you make that out. While 'de Landlord class' was treated shamefully in much of 20th century Ireland ( the carving up of the estates etc ) the country council has nowadays more to do than "get back at 'de Landlord class'" by upholding peoples right of way. Pity the new owners erected that new barrier etc


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    People seem very certain about the law in this matter. I doubt if there is anyone the who knows all the facts.

    I am sure there is alot more to it than what we read about in the paper or hear via local pub gossip.

    In other words unless we know all the facts we should be very slow to pass speculation about Rights of Way off as fact.

    Where were the Sligo CC in 2003 when the place was up for sale. It appears now that the property is a success that the Council want to get a free ride on the back of the owners.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,307 ✭✭✭T runner


    People seem very certain about the law in this matter. I doubt if there is anyone the who knows all the facts.

    I am sure there is alot more to it than what we read about in the paper or hear via local pub gossip.

    In other words unless we know all the facts we should be very slow to pass speculation about Rights of Way off as fact.

    Where were the Sligo CC in 2003 when the place was up for sale. It appears now that the property is a success that the Council want to get a free ride on the back of the owners.

    In fairness, Its not the county councils job to purchase and turn huge houses into tourist attractions. There money is far better spent on more everyday service maintenance and they have no right to invest speculatively in stuff like this using public money. It would actually be outrageous.

    As regards the right of way, the owners are claiming that there are legally no rights of way. Thats a fact. If they don't want to take the council to court they should at least explain why.

    The rights of way to a property and that property closing because it is not viable to continue are two distinct issues.

    The only connection between those two issues are being made by the owners. It is up to them to explain exactly how they are related otherwise we should assume they are still unrelated.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    It wldnt be the owners who wld take the Council to court over rights of way.

    The Council wld have to initiate proceedings which I doubt they have the appetite for.

    Asserting public Rights of Way in Irish law via Court is incredibly difficult.


  • Registered Users Posts: 194 ✭✭shellyriver


    Hi Blackbestie -- thanks for the update from the Indo concerning Eddie Walsh's expressed interest in selling Lissadell -- real shame in the short and long term.

    Going back in time I was in favour of State purchasing the house -- but they didn't.

    Lissadell gets kicked from both sides, one side says all the original artefacts are gone, the house is a form of shell which embodies only relicts of oppression/landlordism etc.

    Others in favour of a more pro-British friendly (revisionist) history say they are not interested in the house because countess markievicz was a 'bloody thirsty murderess'.

    But in my humble opinion, these are the extremes of views expressed re Lissadell -- the vast number are just genuinely interested in it as a curious relict of our shared past and a day out, along with any particular interests they may hold.

    If Eddie Walsh sells the house -- best of luck to him. But I think its a pity and it's a pity there weren't 10 more couples in North Sligo like he and his wife to promote this area (like them or loathe them they did the job wonderfully).

    If, as suggested, the breakup of the estate part of their exit strategy then the gombeens who offered him this, as you and your 'informed'? mate predict(ed), a very lucrative compensation package (if he is the machievellian character some view him) then he must be laughing up his sleeve at the stupidity and blundering of Sligo Co Co, as representatives of their electorate, who offered him this golden opportunity.

    However maybe, just maybe, he had a love of the area, the house, ALL the characters associated with that historic home and wanted to undertake the project because he is a wealthy, ambitious and talented human! Maybe that is hard for some to understand who shuffle through this mortal coil, filled with venom and bile. None of us know everything about the place, but its important to be fair and balanced.

    Those who are informed, intuitive and reflective just might entertain the prospect that there is another side to the avalanche of infective that people, including this blog, such as Jimmy hold (by the way its nothing personal, Jimmy, I don't know you -- the above is mere crystallised theorising).

    But back to the real world, Lissadell is closed. If its for sale -- its a bad time to sell. There are only 400 acres at Lissadell its mostly forestry and foreshore. I suppose some in cyberworld will say he will ride back to Kildare suffering this sheckles in his back pocket, god help them!, as if is is part of a grand master plan.

    Now if he sells it lets see if the State, with a second opportunity and bite of the cherry will go for Lissadell -- however, considering the shortage of available cash outlined for current projects outlined in Sligo; allied with inglorious Government killing of Cancer services in Sligo and our local reps inability to a great deal about this life-and-death matter allied with others, I very much doubt it.

    There are more important things in life that all this -- 2,000 in Dell have lost their jobs, that's mind-blowing. They can't pick up a canvas and try and sell some art for inflated sums, they live in the real world.

    As for local yokels, when the Gore-Booths were threatened with imprisonment by the State in the 1950s for keeping 200 people employed and looking after their non compis mentis brother, locals and local politicans invited members of the Land Commission down to CARVE UP the estate under these elderly ladies' noses! This was when the Gore-Booths had alreay released 28,000 acres of land to tenants -- under the Wyndham Act, Sir Josslyn Gore-Booth, being the first in Ireland to do this reducing the Estate to about 3,000 acres. By the way, the local farmers were only able to buy back this land after a £100,000,000.00 Million buy-out with money provided by the British Exchequer, because tenants didn't have the proverbial pot (with payments staggered over 60 years).

    When they got land around the Gore-Booth estate, what do many of these beneficiaries they do apply for planning permission and sell off their sites at vastly inflated prices.

    This is the mentality of some of the people you are dealing with -- either etheral and transient or reactionary post-peasantry!

    That's about it, I have my say -- looks like Lissadell is closed as far as the Walshs are concerned. I don't believe its bluster or brinksmanship -- he is independently wealthy of Lissadell, best of luck to the new owner, whoever they are. However, next time it might not just be roads that people claim they are entitled to pass that will be closed but the house and general grounds itself. When dust settles and matter goes to court, could go to the Supreme Court, I don't believe the roads will be made public.

    But back to the real world -- the locks are up, 11 people have lost their jobs, local businesses are now not going to benefit, Sligo no longer has a promotional and cultural asset and we are made look like a bunch of reactionary fools, cutting off our collective nose to spite our face (for the benefit of a handful of faceless individuals how either had the wherewithal, finance, brains, ability or courage to assert a right of way themselves, in which they could have been assisted (as mentioned earlier) by none other than the Attorney General.

    By striking a blow against tyranny, these snivellers sought a new master, the Local Authority, and cowered under the cloak of a tax-payers blundering democrarcy. Edward Said, quoted: 'The oppressed in turn become the WORST oppressor'. What an abuse of such privilege!

    Again, take a bow Sligo Co Co.:cool:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    T runner wrote: »
    In fairness, Its not the county councils job to purchase and turn huge houses into tourist attractions. There money is far better spent on more everyday service maintenance and they have no right to invest speculatively in stuff like this using public money. It would actually be outrageous.

    As regards the right of way, the owners are claiming that there are legally no rights of way. Thats a fact. If they don't want to take the council to court they should at least explain why.

    The rights of way to a property and that property closing because it is not viable to continue are two distinct issues.

    The only connection between those two issues are being made by the owners. It is up to them to explain exactly how they are related otherwise we should assume they are still unrelated.

    Excellent post, you hit the nail on the head there....and you have done so without personally criticising another poster. Judging by the poor visitor numbers at Lisadell - certainly in the tea rooms, and by the lack of turnover in the sizeable shop there - the 11 jobs in Lisadell were not sustainable. Even the staff themselves there will tell you that. If the place was a money-making business, then certainly nobody other than a fool would shut it down in this day and age.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    The owners said last week that numbers had increased from around 4000 per annum to around 40000 per annum under their ownership. Were they lying or exaggerating?

    Marketing is not my field but that seems like an impressive increase.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    It appears though that unless Ed Walsh is a bluffer, the game is up; "But lawyers Eddie Walsh and his wife Constance Cassidy, who bought the 400-acre estate more than five years ago, claim that irrespective of the outcome of legal action they want to wash their hands of the project." Taken from the Indo, full article here http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lissadell-owners-plan-court-action-1597829.html

    I read that article as well. People would not be surprised if the estate went back on the market. I have been told from a reliable source rents were increased a lot 5 years ago, after it changed hands. It is reported to have cost only 1.5 million , or 3750 euro per acre, so it would not be surprising to see it split up, as the ground itself alone must be worth at least that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    they want to wash their hands of the project.

    Typical Indo sensationalist bull****..:(

    "They" claimed no such thing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    The owners said last week that numbers had increased from around 4000 per annum to around 40000 per annum under their ownership. Were they lying or exaggerating?
    I am sure the present controversy will do their business no harm when it reopens ( during the peak summer months - there is money there for the picking , showing people around the house + charging well for it ) to buy the amount of free publicity they have got nationally would easily cost hundreds of thousands.

    Is the 40,000 figure since they opened or per annum ? Is it visitors to the house, or does it include visitors who may visit the cafe / shop / courtyard area only ?

    Either way the 40,000 is a nice little figure. What else is in the area of historic importance for people to visit ? If it was properly managed, and if the contents of the house were all authentic Lissadel, and people were not sometimes discouraged by a barrier, I am confident visitor numbers could be higher. It is in an area of great natural beauty, not far for the main "west coast highway" full of tourists in the summer.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    they want to wash their hands of the project.

    Typical Indo sensationalist bull****..:(

    "They" claimed no such thing.


    lol How are you so certain ? Are you related to the owners ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    jimmmy wrote: »
    I am sure the present controversy will do their business no harm when it reopens ( during the peak summer months - there is money there for the picking , showing people around the house + charging well for it ) to buy the amount of free publicity they have got nationally would easily cost hundreds of thousands.

    Is the 40,000 figure since they opened or per annum ? Is it visitors to the house, or does it include visitors who may visit the cafe / shop / courtyard area only ?

    Either way the 40,000 is a nice little figure. What else is in the area of historic importance for people to visit ? If it was properly managed, and if the contents of the house were all authentic Lissadel, and people were not sometimes discouraged by a barrier, I am confident visitor numbers could be higher. It is in an area of great natural beauty, not far for the main "west coast highway" full of tourists in the summer.

    The point I was getting to was...you said that "Judging by the poor visitor numbers.."

    Have you got figures to back that up? I doubt it.

    Which brings me back to my original point...there is a lot of bluster and opinion flying around when clearly nobody here knows all the facts. No doubt there is propaganda from all sides as they court public sympathy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    jimmmy wrote: »
    lol How are you so certain ? Are you related to the owners ?


    Read the article...carefully.

    Where did the owners say they would "wash their hands"?

    They didnt say it. So the journalist put his own spin on the interview using tabloid speak. Thats sensationalist and self serving on the part of the Indo. Stirring it up.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 842 ✭✭✭dumbyearbook


    Essexboy wrote: »
    Sure it was the council that made them public with their recent decsion thats a fact now

    No, it is not. Do your homework before posting: the council are trying to confirm whether rights of way exist - that is all.

    Ah relax will you. The CC have passed a resolution to amend the status of the routes.
    So unless they change their minds it will be changed if they dont then everything can go back to normal and its resolved.


  • Registered Users Posts: 194 ✭✭shellyriver


    Hi Dumbyear

    Re right of way: Matter is very straight forward:
    County Co seek to have road put on Co Development Plan:
    Notice is sent to owners
    If they object they go to Circuit Court..in Ireland this can be appealed by either side to the Supreme Court.

    If Co Council feel they wish to create a new right of way owners will have to be compensated.

    For anyone interested familiarise yourself with Ireland's planning legislation.

    That's the situation in a nut-shell. That's net point.

    All the rest is background.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    Read the article...carefully.

    Where did the owners say they would "wash their hands"?

    They didnt say it. So the journalist put his own spin on the interview using tabloid speak. Thats sensationalist and self serving on the part of the Indo. Stirring it up.


    I read the full article in Saturdays paper. "lawyers Eddie Walsh and his wife Constance Cassidy, who bought the 400-acre estate more than five years ago, claim that irrespective of the outcome of legal action they want to wash their hands of the project."
    Maye you think its a big conspiracy, between all the people who are at loggerheads with the actions of the new owners : the locals, the councillors, the county council, the newspaper etc


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    And were they quoted as saying they wanted to "wash their hands"???

    No they were not.

    Where did they "claim" this? They didnt.

    That is my point.

    That phrase was inserted by the journalist. It was sensationalist and typical Indo tripe. All it does is stir matters up and provides a nice cheap little catchphrase for people to throw around and to quote on internet sites:rolleyes:.

    Your last post quotes the article not the owners. There is one hell of a difference.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    lol. If they did not make the claim in Saturdays paper then no doubt, being barristers, they can take that up with the Irish Independent. The newspaper journalist did not suggest the owners may like to wash their hands of it : he wrote that they claimed that irrespective of the outcome of legal action they want to wash their hands of the project. You have written that they claimed no such thing. Were you at the interview ?

    On a lighter note, whats the bets the place will be on the market within the next 5 years ? It must be quite a costly holiday home to maintain, the neighbours ...well, enough said.....and if its not making money ( well if it was why would 11 staff be let go , and would'nt the cafe and shop have been busier ...)...why would they not want to wash their hands of it ? When the paper says " "lawyers Eddie Walsh and his wife Constance Cassidy, who bought the 400-acre estate more than five years ago, claim that irrespective of the outcome of legal action they want to wash their hands of the project.", I believe the paper. I do not always believe papers, but knowing some people in the area ( and having visited the estate many times ) I do believe that article in the paper.

    I wish luck to whoever tries to run it in the future, it would not be an easy task.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    If the owners said "we want to wash our hands on it..." then it would have been quoted. It wasnt so I think it is reasonable to conclude that it was never said. The pharse came before an actual quote so it was the journalist putting his own spin on a quote for his own purposes.

    Yes they said that after the court proceedings they may leave but its not like they are abandoning the place in ruins without having done a tap wth the place over the past 5 years?? That would be washing their hands;)

    The have pumped millions of their own money into it and improving the place. I dont think anyone doubts for one second or disagrees.

    Yes you believe the paper because it suits you. If it said the opposite you would not be making any reference to it...:p

    In light of all the work they have done, they should be given the benefit of the doubt that they have the best interests of the property in mind even if some dont agree at this moment in time:cool:.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭jimmmy


    The have pumped millions of their own money into it and improving the place.

    The were reported to have bought the place, inc 400 acreas of land in this highly desirable location, during the celtic tiger for only 1,500,000 euro. That would have bought only a nice semi detached house in a nice area in Dublin. At the auction of the contents they let most of the stuff go rather than buying all the contents. That, to me, does not smack of having the " best interests of the estate " at heart. Putting up a crude new barrier to keep people out , where they have travelled unhindered for generations, does not smack of " improving the place".

    Obviously he put money in to stock a sizeable shop, and establishing tea rooms / the cafe. Judging by the ( lack of ) numbers there when I visted ( which was in reasonable weather last year ....I can only imagine what its like in bad weather mid-week in January ! ), and the numbers there when friends visited, and from someone who works there, that does not appear to have been a commercial success....so its hardly surprising its closing down. I wish it was, it is a nice setting, and I gave it a turn, so to speak. However, nice as the architectural ambience is, if I owned it I would imagine my accountant or bank manager would want me to wash my hands of it !

    You can give the current owners "the benefit of the doubt " if you want, but others do not have to do so eg many locals, councillors, the county council, the newspaper etc. I gave them the benefit of the doubt for a while. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,203 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    jimmmy wrote: »
    The were reported to have bought the place, inc 400 acreas of land in this highly desirable location, during the celtic tiger for only 1,500,000 euro. That would have bought only a nice semi detached house in a nice area in Dublin. At the auction of the contents they let most of the stuff go rather than buying all the contents. That, to me, does not smack of having the " best interests of the estate " at heart. Putting up a crude new barrier to keep people out , where they have travelled unhindered for generations, does not smack of " improving the place".

    Obviously he put money in to stock a sizeable shop, and establishing tea rooms / the cafe. Judging by the ( lack of ) numbers there when I visted, and the numbers there when friends visited, and from someone who works there, that does not appear to have been a commercial success....so its hardly surprising its closing down.

    You can give them "the benefit of the doubt " if you want, but others do not have to do so eg many locals, councillors, the county council, the newspaper etc


    For only €1,500,000.00..so what? That was the asking price and they paid it. That is hardly a stick to beat them with.

    Sure thats nothing...do you have that in your back pocket?maybe you should have bought it yourself...:D and what..they havent spent anything on it since..as for the contents..who knows..what contents were there or what state they were in..they obviously decided that some of the contents were not worth keeping or perhaps were not in keeping with the historic tone of the place...

    So you have decided not to give them the benefit of the doubt...why is that exactly?

    I get the impression that you are delighted that it does not appear to be commercial success..or at least hope the jackeens have failed...your posts reek of begrudgery..the type of begrudgery that keeps the likes of Sligo/Mayo/Roscommon/Donegal down as small back waters...nothing personal.

    Christ man...have a good look at yourself and get real.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement