Protecting road verges with rocks etc.

dense

Is it permissible for people to place large rocks on the grass verge between the road edge and their wall/fence?

I traverse a narrow road that's got bad potholes but rocks have been placed on the verges either side to prevent driving onto it to avoid the holes.

TheBoyConor

I would very much doubt that there is any law as such that would say you can't do it. However, I could see a situation arising where someone such as a cyclist or pedestrian hits it, trips or falls over them and gets injured or whatever and a claim for damages could be made against whoever owns the rocks or put them there for personal injury.
It would be a hard case to argue but it could be along the lines that the rocks are not an appropriate and safe roadside barrier, they were liable to fly if hit hard, at too low a level and a trip hazard, sharp edges made them dangerous etc etc and because of this they breached a duty of care to users of the public road.

If it were my house, I certainly wouldn't be putting rocks on my verge as I don't want to find out if the above argument could be made successfully!! If I had to prevent encroachment I would put up proper bollards complying with TII Spec.

dense

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I would very much doubt that there is any law as such that would say you can't do it. However, I could see a situation arising where someone such as a cyclist or pedestrian hits it, trips or falls over them and gets injured or whatever and a claim for damages could be made against whoever owns the rocks or put them there for personal injury.
It would be a hard case to argue but it could be along the lines that the rocks are not an appropriate and safe roadside barrier, they were liable to fly if hit hard, at too low a level and a trip hazard, sharp edges made them dangerous etc etc and because of this they breached a duty of care to users of the public road.

If it were my house, I certainly wouldn't be putting rocks on my verge as I don't want to find out if the above argument could be made successfully!! If I had to prevent encroachment I would put up proper bollards complying with TII Spec.

I had considering moving these back a bit (concrete blocks in this case) so I could mount the verge, in the interests of preventing damage to my vehicle on the grounds of health and safety, safety for my vehicle being at issue if I was to inadvertently hit them avoiding the potholes. But of course they're not mine to move!

TheBoyConor

If you go moving them be careful. I wouldn't advise it.

Just in my experience, the sort of people who put out stones to mind the grass on their verge would tend to be "precious" types and could be contrary about their grass and stuff.

the_syco

dense wrote: »

Is it permissible for people to place large rocks on the grass verge between the road edge and their wall/fence?

Maybe check if throwing said rubble outside their land is littering?

dense

TheBoyConor wrote: »

If you go moving them be careful. I wouldn't advise it.

Just in my experience, the sort of people who put out stones to mind the grass on their verge would tend to be "precious" types and could be contrary about their grass and stuff.

Agreed!

Markcheese

Reckon you'd have more joy getting onto the council to fix the potholes, than with getting the rocks moved...

TheBoyConor

dense wrote: »

Agreed!

At home we have a neighbour like this. Over the years he has had painted stones or reflector posts out there and seems obsessed with grass cutting and manicuring. A few years ago he began cutting the crass on the verge where it extends past his boundard and along our field ditch and we had to tell him to stop and that he had no business cutting the grass in our verge. Too much time on his hands.

my3cents

I have a strip of grass the I used to mow. As soon as I tided it up the speed of the cars on our narrow lane increased and cars would drive up over the grass without stopping. I needed to stop that asap because there is a 4 meter drop off the verge down to our property and a very old dry stone wall supporting the hillside.

I put some rocks out to keep the cars off and along came the council and took them away. One of the guys that regularly drove on the verge reported the placement of the rocks to the council.

Now I don't mow or do anything to the verge and neither do the council so cars stay off it because they have to scrape past a mass of brambles, hawthorn and quick thorn that have grown up and now over hang the road.

Just report it to the council they are responsible of the up keep of the verges and will probably just move take the rocks/blocks away.

GM228

dense wrote: »

Is it permissible for people to place large rocks on the grass verge between the road edge and their wall/fence?

I traverse a narrow road that's got bad potholes but rocks have been placed on the verges either side to prevent driving onto it to avoid the holes.

It depends, placing anything on the road (a public road) which could be a hazard (or potential hazard) is an offence under the Roads Act 1993.

foxy farmer

This type of carry on boils my piss. It's getting to the stage where the ground outside some peoples property is more important and valuable than anything else. Around here it's getting ridiculous. One new house owner this week put half a dozen big stones and 2 flowerpots at his entrance to stop vehicles pulling in to pass. Making it difficult for themselves getting in their own entrance too. I'd put up some prime examples but they'd be easily identified. The council or the guards should put the foot down.

nuac

The highway is from fence to fence. No obstructions should be allowed there except council traffic signs

Victor

dense wrote: »

I traverse a narrow road that's got bad potholes but rocks have been placed on the verges either side to prevent driving onto it to avoid the holes.

It is an offence to drive on a verge.

Report the potholes to the council. They actually do respond to reports.

NUTLEY BOY

What rights do the public have in relation to the public highway ? Principally, the right of passage.

I would imagine that placing rocks on the highway would probably constitute trespass, nuisance and more probably an act of negligence where the rocks constituted a danger which caused or contributed to an accident. Creating a hazard on the highway attracts a fairly strict liability where it causes or contributes to an accident.

That said, I have seen rocks aplenty deposited on the margins of public roads by local authorities to prevent people setting up camps ! The rocks are usually deposited on the margins of the roads.

dense

Victor wrote: »

It is an offence to drive on a verge.

Report the potholes to the council. They actually do respond to reports.

Looks like someone has, the holes are filled and there's even a drainage channel in the verge to dispose of water that was pooling on the section.

Thanks to all for the replies.

About it being an offence to drive on the verge, I didn't know that (or perhaps I used to, but had conveniently filed it away in the depths).

Who's responsible for keeping gate entrances to fields (often used as places to pull in on narrow roads) clean and without the risk of getting wheels bogged down, as an alternative to driving on the verge, or are they private property? Farmer or council?

Peregrinus

dense wrote: »

Looks like someone has, the holes are filled and there's even a drainage channel in the verge to dispose of water that was pooling on the section.

Thanks to all for the replies.

About it being an offence to drive on the verge, I didn't know that (or perhaps I used to, but had conveniently filed it away in the depths).

Who's responsible for keeping gate entrances to fields (often used as places to pull in on narrow roads) clean and without the risk of getting wheels bogged down, as an alternative to driving on the verge, or are they private property? Farmer or council?

Generally, they are not part of the highway. The council is not required to maintain them, and usually doesn't. You don't have a legal right to use them as passing bays, etc, though this is commonly done and generally doesn't bother anyone.

Doltanian

I know people who kept their wall back a good distance from their actual boundary with the road effectively creating a lay-by.

During the boom years it became a free for all effective car park as the house is at a junction where lads would meet and drops vans and trailers and lorry’s would even park there over night, this would make noise outside his house in the early hours, with boyracers parking and going off to work in crew cabs were his biggest complaint due to wide exhaust noise outside the house at 6:30am.

Anyway yer man in the House was instantly regretting his decision to keep his wall back so far and started shaking out screws and nails and punctured enough vans and cars that they got the message and soon stopped parking there. I heard one fellow confronted him after a second puncture and he was told the screws must have fallen out of a builders van parked there the other morning. It got results and the parking stopped.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Generally, they are not part of the highway.

It's a road! Detailed discussions on this point were had.

Doltanian wrote: »

Anyway yer man in the House was instantly regretting his decision to keep his wall back so far and started shaking out screws and nails and punctured enough vans and cars

This is littering and/or criminal damage.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

It's a road! Detailed discussions on this point were had.

Ooh, nitpicking! I like this!

In terms of being taken in charge by the local authority, yes, it's a road. I agree.

But in terms of the public having a right of passage over it, it's a highway, no?

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

But in terms of the public having a right of passage over it, it's a highway, no?

Actually, what is the basis of right of passage? Common law?

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

Actually, what is the basis of right of passage? Common law?

Dedication by the landowner. The landowner has to dedicate his land to the public as a right of way, and the public has to accept the dedication.

The second bit is easy - evidence of public use of the land to pass and repass shows that they have accepted any dedication that the landowner has made.

It's the first bit is usually the problem. Explicit, documentary dedications are rare, so dedication usually has to be inferred from the conduct of the landowner, or of successive landowners. And there's a subtle difference between conduct which evidences an intention to dedicate, or an acceptance or ratification that a dedication taken to have been made in the past, on the one hand, and conduct which amounts to not objecting to people passing over the land in, say, the interests of good neighbourly relations on the other.

In the case a few years back in which Sligo CC asserted a public right of way over laneways on the Lissadell estate, the evidence was that the (then) landowner had put up bollards in 1993 to prevent new age travellers from coming onto the land. Local people who used the lanes removed the bollards, and they were not re-erected.

Sligo CC argues that the fact that local people removed the bollards and the landowner did nothing about it evidenced an acceptance by the landowner of people's right to use the lanes. The (present) landowners argued no, the fact that he put up the bollards in the first place showed that he didn't accept that there was a public right of way, and his later acquiescence in the face of their removal was simply a prudent forbearance in the interests of good relations with his neighbours.

The High Court agreed with Sligo CC, but the Supreme Court agreed with the landowners. Which just shows that the difference between conduct evidencing a dedication and conduct not evidencing a dedication can be a pretty fine one.

gozunda

I had considering moving these back a bit (concrete blocks in this case) so I could mount the verge, in the interests of preventing damage to my vehicle on the grounds of health and safety, safety for my vehicle being at issue if I was to inadvertently hit them avoiding the potholes. But of course they're not mine to move!

dense wrote: »

Who's responsible for keeping gate entrances to fields (often used as places to pull in on narrow roads) clean and without the risk of getting wheels bogged down, as an alternative to driving on the verge, or are they private property? Farmer or council?

Perhaps look at what you are suggesting in an alternative light.

1. If there is a problem with a road surface- contact your local coco and lodge a complaint.
The absence of due care or maintenance of a road surface does not provide an excuse for potentially or deliberatly damaging road verges imo

2. As far as I am aware responsibility for the maintenance of roadside verges rests with the local authority. In general most roadside verges are not designed to be driven on and are reserved for amongst other purposes - sight lines - sign posts / bollards - drainage etc

3. Is it safe to assume that you should have the privilege of driving on a verge* that is not an actual road surface - at the risk of potentially damaging the verge in the interests of not damaging your own property?

4. Health and Safety concerns are usually in the interest of people not "your car"

5. If by driving on the verge as outlined above and create a hazard for other road users through for example impeded drainage running over road signage or by stones thrown further out on the passageway who becomes liable for that?

6. Gateways to fields are (usually) provided by landowners themselves as access to their private property. They are not designed as stopping places or turning places for the public.

7. Normal courtesy / consideration would dictate you do not plough up the verge outside someones house or elsewhere in the interest of keeping your car 'clean' etc. Doing so creates a mess and potentially a danger to others

"Verge" as distinct from "roadway" is defined as
Meaning "that part of a public road which is not a footway, a grass margin, a median strip or a roadway;" by S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997

dense

gozunda wrote: »

Perhaps look at what you are suggesting in an alternative light.

1. If there is a problem with a road surface- contact your local coco and lodge a complaint.
The absence of due care or maintenance of a road surface does not provide an excuse for potentially or deliberatly damaging road verges imo

2. As far as I am aware responsibility for the maintenance of roadside verges rests with the local authority. In general most roadside verges are not designed to be driven on and are reserved for amongst other purposes - sight lines - sign posts / bollards - drainage etc

3. Is it safe to assume that you should have the privilege of driving on a verge* that is not an actual road surface - ar the risk of potentially damaging the verge in the interests of not damaging your own property?

4. Health and Safety concerns are usually in the interest of people not "your car"

5. If by driving on the verge as outlined above and create a hazard for other road users through for example impeded drainage running over road signage or by stones thrown further out on the passageway who becomes liable for that?

6. Gateways to fields are (usually) provided by landowners themselves as access to their private property. They are not designed as stopping places or turning places for the public.

7. Normal courtesy / consideration would dictate you do not plough up the verge outside someones house or elsewhere in the interest of keeping your car 'clean'. Doing so creates a mess and potentially a danger to others

"Verge" as distinct from "roadway" is defined as
Meaning "that part of a public road which is not a footway, a grass margin, a median strip or a roadway;" by S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997

In the real world it is necessary to use verges and gateways.

If a road is not wide enough to permit two vehicles to pass what should one do when one meets an oncoming vehicle?

Petition the council to widen it?

Throw lots to decide who should reverse until they reach a point where the road is wider, every time you meet a vehicle?

padser

Victor wrote: »

This is littering and/or criminal damage.

Im not sure that putting nails on the ground within the confines of your own property would be considered littering.

It might be criminal damage (I'm not sure what the definition of that is)

It's probably a tort though anyway

gozunda

dense wrote: »

In the real world it is necessary to use verges and gateways.
If a road is not wide enough to permit two vehicles to pass what should one do when one meets an oncoming vehicle?
Petition the council to widen it?
Throw lots to decide who should reverse until they reach a point where the road is wider, every time you meet a vehicle?

None of that address your original points re driving on the verge to avoid a pothole

Certainly it may be unavoidable to use the verge in an emergency but not to expect to use it as a course / not to inform the coco that the roadway is in bad repair

On your seperate point - when two vehicles meet - my preferred option is to reverse if needs be to a wider part of the road - as to who reverses - I've never had a problem with that tbh

Drivers take their lives in their hands pulling onto verges which may contain hidden drains etc.

It remains it is inconsiderate to others to deliberatly drive on a verge thus making shyte of it and the adjacent road surface.


You didn't reply to my question is it safe to assume that you should have the privilege of driving on a verge* that is not an actual road surface - at the risk of potentially damaging the verge in the interests of not damaging your own property?

dense

gozunda wrote: »

None of that address your original points re driving on the verge to avoid a pothole

Certainly it may be unavoidable to use the verge in an emergency but not to expect to use it as a course / not to inform the coco that the roadway is in bad repair

On your seperate point - when two vehicles meet - my preferred option is to reverse if needs be to a wider part of the road - as to who reverses - I've never had a problem with that tbh

Drivers take their lives in their hands pulling onto verges which may contain hidden drains etc.

It remains it is inconsiderate to others to deliberatly drive on a verge thus making shyte of it and the adjacent road surface.


You didn't reply to my question is it safe to assume that you should have the privilege of driving on a verge* that is not an actual road surface - at the risk of potentially damaging the verge in the interests of not damaging your own property?

For absolute clarity, rest assured that I'll take my chances and will certainly not be deliberately driving into any potholes if there's a verge that I can use to avoid them

(I hope that doesn't upset too many keepers of verges.)

Pretty much the same for gateways and entrances if the road width won't accommodate two passing vehicles.

In my experience drivers take their lives (and the lives of others) into their own hands not when doing that, but when reversing.

gozunda

dense wrote: »

For absolute clarity, rest assured that I'll take my chances and will certainly not be deliberately driving into any potholes if there's a verge that I can use to avoid them (I hope that doesn't upset too many keepers of verges.)Pretty much the same for gateways and entrances if the road width won't accommodate two passing vehicles.
In my experience drivers take their lives (and the lives of others) into their own hands not when doing that, but when reversing.

Like this guy?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/young-driver-killed-walker-after-swerving-on-to-verge-1.28925

Whatever about your question whether is it "permissible for people to place large rocks on the grass verge between the road edge and their wall/fence?"

It remains grass verges were never designed for driving on and it is hazardous to do so.

Report the 'potholes' to the coco if they are on a regular route - they are the de facto "keepers of verges" in this country...

Victor

padser wrote: »

Im not sure that putting nails on the ground within the confines of your own property would be considered littering.

Just because it is your own property doesn't mean it isn't littering - in particular if it is visible from a public place.

endacl

TheBoyConor wrote: »

If you go moving them be careful.

Keep your back straight and bend your knees.

dense

gozunda wrote: »

Like this guy?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/young-driver-killed-walker-after-swerving-on-to-verge-1.28925

Like someone pissėd out of their head?

No, nothing like that at all.

gozunda

dense wrote: »

Like someone pissėd out of their head?
No, nothing like that at all.

Deflection?

More like someone who ended up on the verge and lost control. Grass verges are not designed to be driven on and to do so is dangerous. Consideration be dammed but sure go ahead ...

But anyway you didn't reply to my question is it safe to assume that you should have the privilege of driving on a verge* that is not an actual road surface - at the risk of potentially damaging the verge in the interests of not damaging your own property?

Carawaystick

How would a person establish who put rocks on a verge? Or that they were placed there?

Victor

Carawaystick wrote: »

How would a person establish who put rocks on a verge? Or that they were placed there?

That's a matter of fact, not law. You'd be amazed what people admit.

Robbo

Victor wrote: »

That's a matter of fact, not law. You'd be amazed what people admit.

"Those rocks that are placed along my verge and painted alternately in the same two colours as my wall, in the exact same paint? No idea how they got there."

gozunda

Robbo wrote: »

"Those rocks that are placed along my verge and painted alternately in the same two colours as my wall, in the exact same paint? No idea how they got there."

Either way they can be damn dangerous - things like this could happen ... :eek:

my3cents

gozunda wrote: »

Either way they can be damn dangerous - things like this could happen ... :eek:

...

But if the rock had been painted the same colour as Robbo's house it would have been so much safer

Johnboy1951

There seems to be one thing missing from this discussion and that is who actually owns the land between a wall in front of a house, and the space left between that wall and the roadside.

It is (or was) common practice for CoCos to grant planning permission for builds, with a specification that the boundary wall should be set back a distance ...... often because of some intention to widen the road at some future date.
The site on which the house is subsequently built, still includes that section between wall and road. The CoCos would only take ownership of that section of the site if and when they needed it.

So is the owner not entitled to 'fence' his property?
Is there some stipulation he must do so with particular hardware?

Victor

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It is (or was) common practice for CoCos to grant planning permission for builds, with a specification that the boundary wall should be set back a distance ......

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So is the owner not entitled to 'fence' his property?

The property only extends to the boundary.

Johnboy1951

Victor wrote: »

The property only extends to the boundary.

Can you explain what you mean?

What 'boundary' are you referring to?
The normal boundary of a site is that specified on the folio map, which goes to the road.

Are you referring to some other boundary?

GM228

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

There seems to be one thing missing from this discussion and that is who actually owns the land between a wall in front of a house, and the space left between that wall and the roadside.

It is (or was) common practice for CoCos to grant planning permission for builds, with a specification that the boundary wall should be set back a distance ...... often because of some intention to widen the road at some future date.
The site on which the house is subsequently built, still includes that section between wall and road. The CoCos would only take ownership of that section of the site if and when they needed it.

So is the owner not entitled to 'fence' his property?
Is there some stipulation he must do so with particular hardware?

Ownership would not necessarily be relevant, maintenance and weather or not there is public access would be more important.

Many areas for which a coulcil take in charge or rather maintain for example are not always their property, but they are public roads if they maintain them for example meaning they are public places.

Johnboy1951

GM228 wrote: »

Ownership would not necessarily be relevant, maintenance and weather or not there is public access would be more important.

Many areas for which a coulcil take in charge or rather maintain for example are not always their property, but they are public roads if they maintain them for example meaning they are public places.

I am unsure what exactly you have i mind by "public access".
I would regard such parts of a site (outside a specified wall, but owned and maintained - even badly - by the site owner) as being easily accessible to the public, just as my driveway is. I do not see that as inferring any rights for others to make use of it.

I can think of about 10 sites in my locality like I describe.
Some owners have gravelled the area between road and wall, while other have an 'exterior lawn' and yet other use it for flower beds.
Some have large stones, mostly painted white, near the outer edge where it borders the road.

I know of no reason those owners cannot 'fence' their property with whatever they chose, provided doing so is not contrary to planning regulations.

The description in the OP seems to be one such site.
There are thousands of them around the country.

my3cents

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I am unsure what exactly you have i mind by "public access".
I would regard such parts of a site (outside a specified wall, but owned and maintained - even badly - by the site owner) as being easily accessible to the public, just as my driveway is. I do not see that as inferring any rights for others to make use of it.

I can think of about 10 sites in my locality like I describe.
Some owners have gravelled the area between road and wall, while other have an 'exterior lawn' and yet other use it for flower beds.
Some have large stones, mostly painted white, near the outer edge where it borders the road.

I know of no reason those owners cannot 'fence' their property with whatever they chose, provided doing so is not contrary to planning regulations.

The description in the OP seems to be one such site.
There are thousands of them around the country.

But are those 10 sites on single track roads where the exterior lawns are in ideal locations for passing points or turning?

AndrewJRenko

dense wrote: »

I traverse a narrow road that's got bad potholes but rocks have been placed on the verges either side to prevent driving onto it to avoid the holes.

Have you considered slowing down enough to allow you get through the potholes safely without driving onto the verges?

Johnboy1951

my3cents wrote: »

But are those 10 sites on single track roads where the exterior lawns are in ideal locations for passing points or turning?

I don't see the relevance ..... unless the CoCo take over the space and designate it as a 'passing' place and maintain it.

my3cents

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I don't see the relevance ..... unless the CoCo take over the space and designate it as a 'passing' place and maintain it.

The relevance is that if the road has space anyway for cars to pass then they don't need to go up on the verge and householders don't need to put rocks on their verge.

As I mentioned earlier the CoCo can and will remove and rocks on the verge if they feel the need, ie the rocks have been reported as dangerous.

Johnboy1951

my3cents wrote: »

The relevance is that if the road has space anyway for cars to pass then they don't need to go up on the verge and householders don't need to put rocks on their verge.

As I mentioned earlier the CoCo can and will remove and rocks on the verge if they feel the need, ie the rocks have been reported as dangerous.

I questioned the relevance of

But are those 10 sites on single track roads where the exterior lawns are in ideal locations for passing points or turning?

which has no relevance to the entitlement to fence a property.

The owner is entitled to fence their 'land' to the roadside.
Regardless rocks or other method used to 'fence' it.
If the CoCo take that piece of land into their responsibility they can do as they wish with it.
If the type of 'fencing' used by the owner is deemed dangerous to other road users or is contrary to planning, the fencing can be removed.

You can see lots of different 'fencing' on such pieces of land around the country ...... some with small posts; others with large stones/rocks; others with some posts and wiring and yet others have been gravelled.
(personally I consider gravel in such places to be dangerous)

It is common for such low fencing to be painted white so that it is noticeable by drivers.

P. Breathnach

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

...
The owner is entitled to fence their 'land' to the roadside.
Regardless rocks or other method used to 'fence' it....

I'd have my doubts about that - or, at least, the clarity of the claim.

Rural roads often run through land that is registered as part of the property of the owners of the land alongside the road. It has been conceded for public use many years ago. I suspect that the conceded land is not just the road itself, but includes the road margin back to established boundary markers such as fences or walls. Perhaps somebody with professional knowledge would comment on my view.

Road margins are important for a number of reasons, including serving as pedestrian paths. It is, at best, anti-social to force pedestrians onto the roadway.

I also see road margins as safety zones. By that I mean that I should be able to drive on the margin to avoid a collision; better to damage my suspension than suffer a head-on with a mindless idiot (yes, I once had to make that choice at the cost of a good deal of money).

What if, in seeking to avoid colliding with a vehicle, I drove into a bloody great rock intentionally placed there by the neighbouring landowner? I'd certainly think of looking for legal redress. Do the specialists here think I would have much chance of success?

Peregrinus

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'd have my doubts about that - or, at least, the clarity of the claim.

Rural roads often run through land that is registered as part of the property of the owners of the land alongside the road. It has been conceded for public use many years ago. I suspect that the conceded land is not just the road itself, but includes the road margin back to established boundary markers such as fences or walls. Perhaps somebody with professional knowledge would comment on my view . . .

This is correct. The land presumed to be dedicated as a public highway isn't just the bit covered with asphalt; it's everything between the boundary markers (hedges, fences, ditches, whatever) on each side. It includes the carriage way, the footpaths (if any), the verges.

If I remember rightly this was established in the nineteenth century, when the Land League used to erect huts on roadside verges to accommodate evicted tenants. It was held that the verges were part of the highway, and the huts were obstructions, and therefore nuisances which could be removed. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the case.

Thus if there is currently a fence, ditch etc dividing your property from the road, that's taken to mark the extent of the highway, and you can't "reclaim" your land from the highway by moving your fence outwards, or by putting up other boundary markers outside the fence.

It may not be a good practice for motorists to use the verges, but SFAIK the neighbouring landowner has no particular right to stop them. The verges are part of the highway.

Johnboy1951

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is correct. The land presumed to be dedicated as a public highway isn't just the bit covered with asphalt; it's everything between the boundary markers (hedges, fences, ditches, whatever) on each side. It includes the carriage way, the footpaths (if any), the verges.

If I remember rightly this was established in the nineteenth century, when the Land League used to erect huts on roadside verges to accommodate evicted tenants. It was held that the verges were part of the highway, and the huts were obstructions, and therefore nuisances which could be removed. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the case.

Thus if there is currently a fence, ditch etc dividing your property from the road, that's taken to mark the extent of the highway, and you can't "reclaim" your land from the highway by moving your fence outwards, or by putting up other boundary markers outside the fence.

It may not be a good practice for motorists to use the verges, but SFAIK the neighbouring landowner has no particular right to stop them. The verges are part of the highway.

I can see that applying if the land abutting the road has effectively been abandoned by the owner.
But in the case in question, it is 'fenced' by the placement of rocks, and maintained by grass cutting etc.
I see no legal difference between this 'fencing' and the erection of poles and wire or walls. It allows clear view to road users, and also someplace for a pedestrian to step out of traffic on a country road, so is beneficial in that way.

In other words, if after the original 'fence/ditch/whatever' was removed during development of the site, some form of marker/fence was put in place along the original boundary, then the land has remained fenced and was never abandoned.
We are not speaking here of a couple of feet, but maybe up to 20 feet between roadway and the inner wall erected for planning purposes.

I am of the opinion the land is the property of the land owner who retains the right to fence it in an appropriate manner, provided it has not been abandoned (and even then I am not sure).

I would be interested in reading some references that contradict that, if available.

nuac

The Land League were active in the Westport - Aughagower area back in the day. In the townland of Sraheen, Aughagower, the local League Committee built a cabin for a tenant evicted by the local landlord. They built the cabin on the wide margin of the public road on the basis that that was not the landlords property and that therefore he could not do anything about it.

It seems he couldn't do anything about it as a landlord, but he was able to get the powers that were at the time to act. Result was an action AG v. Mayo County Council reported at IR Vol 1 1902 p.13. Held that the highway was from fence to fence ( or ditch to ditch ). Court ordered removal of the cabin.

Johnboy1951

nuac wrote: »

The Land League were active in the Westport - Aughagower area back in the day. In the townland of Sraheen, Aughagower, the local League Committee built a cabin for a tenant evicted by the local landlord. They built the cabin on the wide margin of the public road on the basis that that was not the landlords property and that therefore he could not do anything about it.

It seems he couldn't do anything about it as a landlord, but he was able to get the powers that were at the time to act. Result was an action AG v. Mayo County Council reported at IR Vol 1 1902 p.13. Held that the highway was from fence to fence ( or ditch to ditch ). Court ordered removal of the cabin.

Not the same thing as being presently discussed it seems ..... the above were using that space between road and land owned by the landlord, which is often used these days for water drainage and such, or on more developed wider roads for footpath.