Would you give away 3 meters of road frontage to the community

kerryjack

A few of us have been asked to move back our fences to construct a cycle path along a fairly dangerous road. The council is not involved in this it is a community project and would benefit the community greatly. There is a few land owners holding out. What would you do.

Mooooo

Is it still yet ground after. If so insurance implications??

K.G.

Do you think this is the best option for the project.

How will this actually work?, is it footpath outside my garden gate then cycle lane then road for cars, are there bollards separating each section.

What if you have a car to park in the garden drive?

893bet

Probably not realistically. Talk is cheap by those in the community that are pushing this agenda I would assume.

B-D-P--

Have you analyised how much revenue the land is worth P/A?

Wildsurfer

10 feet wide for a bicycle?

lawred2

Wildsurfer wrote: »

10 feet wide for a bicycle?

?

two lanes plus kerbing would easily be three metres?

freedominacup

kerryjack wrote: »

A few of us have been asked to move back our fences to construct a cycle path along a fairly dangerous road. The council is not involved in this it is a community project and would benefit the community greatly. There is a few land owners holding out. What would you do.

A dangerous stretch of road that I'd use and my family use? No problem. Just make sure the legalities are sorted out. Basically that council become fully responsible for it from the beginning of construction.

Dakota Dan

lawred2 wrote: »

?

two lanes plus kerbing would easily be three metres?

Two cycle lanes on the same side of the road, hardly.

Akrasia

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Two cycle lanes on the same side of the road, hardly.

Why not? This happens all the time.

lawred2

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Two cycle lanes on the same side of the road, hardly.

other than city/town centres - where have you seen cycle lanes on either side of the road?

almost all cycle routes and greenways are bi directional..

lawred2

as for the OP- If you are in a position to donate that space to the community then I'd do it in a heartbeat..

Just make sure that the council are involved and that the legals are sorted etc etc

kerryjack

We have been trying for years to get council ivolved but its not classified as dangerous yet some one has to get killed first this is rural village with a few holiday home's so you get a lot of kids cycling in and out of village it would be like the 3 meter strip outside most homes in the country that nobody knows who owns it but this would ne maintained by the guys in the local rural scheme., there is some grant money available for concrete post and rail and a beach hedge.the path would be gravel.

ganmo

is it the council don't want to be involved in the organising of the transfer ie the negotiation with yourself and the other landowners or do they not want to have to upkeep the finished product.

if its the first i'd say to the organisers that i'm willing once the council are doing the upkeep.


I've often wondered how it would work if councils started approaching land owners for tiny bits of ground that'd straighten out a bad bend or improve a sightline.

kerryjack

B-D-P-- wrote: »

Have you analyised how much revenue the land is worth P/A?

No giving it to community some people foeget about the 6 by 3 plot we are all going to end up in

Say my name

kerryjack wrote: »

No giving it to community some people foeget about the 6 by 3 plot we are all going to end up in

Now you have a solution.

A straight land swap. Get it in writing from the council.

wrangler

Say my name wrote: »

Now you have a solution.

A straight land swap. Get it in writing from the council.

We gave 100 mtrs by 3 mtr to the council years ago, neighbours weren't able to get a combine to their land down a narrow road, It was never tarmac'd just the ditch taken out and a post and rail fence

cute geoge

I have seen plenty of places where roads have being widened ,footpath etc and a cheap timber fence put up in place of the ditch being replaced .My neighbour owned the field where the council wanted to take a dangerous bend but would not give permission unless his ditch was replaced ,the council built up his ditch again and everyone was happy .Any other place the council took ditches it is replaced with timber railing that the farmer is responsible for the upkeep!!!

Victor

Wildsurfer wrote: »

10 feet wide for a bicycle?

Cycle lane in either direction, plus footpath - you don't want to mix toddlers and dogs with bikes - they'll obey a kerb, but not a white line.

893bet

kerryjack wrote: »

We have been trying for years to get council ivolved but its not classified as dangerous yet some one has to get killed first this is rural village with a few holiday home's so you get a lot of kids cycling in and out of village it would be like the 3 meter strip outside most homes in the country that nobody knows who owns it but this would ne maintained by the guys in the local rural scheme., there is some grant money available for concrete post and rail and a beach hedge.the path would be gravel.

Who is to own each strip? Does ownership stay with each landowner? Or transfer to where? If the council don’t own it then who is covering the insurance claim in a few year?

Sounds like a pipe dream tbh.

Angus2018

If the council isn't paying then who would be in charge of moving ditches, hedges, fencing etc in 3m? What about building it? Then the upkeep and insurance costs?

I'd gladly give land to widen roads around my farm, they are getting busier every year with people driving in the middle who turn last second to avoid oncoming cars.

kerryjack

We haven't seen a council worker around these parts with years all work been carried out is with lads on local rural scheme and Communuty employment schemes and they do a good job in fairness.

freedominacup

893bet wrote: »

Who is to own each strip? Does ownership stay with each landowner? Or transfer to where? If the council don’t own it then who is covering the insurance claim in a few year?

Sounds like a pipe dream tbh.

The ownership/responsibility issue is massive here. There's a walk along a river valley here. Funding was organised by local community development committee, land donated (kind of) by landowners. Development was done. Shortly after it was complete there was a collective sigh of relief from everyone once council took responsibility for insurance. Maintenance is still on locals but at least if it all goes curly in the event of a claim they are indemnified by council. Get council agreement on this.

Hagimalone

This is normally carried out through a land dedication agreement with the land owner & the council. ie. land donated to the council for public use.

Aravo

cute geoge wrote:

I have seen plenty of places where roads have being widened ,footpath etc and a cheap timber fence put up in place of the ditch being replaced .My neighbour owned the field where the council wanted to take a dangerous bend but would not give permission unless his ditch was replaced ,the council built up his ditch again and everyone was happy .Any other place the council took ditches it is replaced with timber railing that the farmer is responsible for the upkeep!!!

Dealing with farmers would be tricky. One farmers digs the heels in and gets one thing and another just agrees and then feels bad when they see that the neighbour got something extra.

Figerty

Aravo wrote: »

Dealing with farmers would be tricky. One farmers digs the heels in and gets one thing and another just agrees and then feels bad when they see that the neighbour got something extra.

This was done locally here, by the Council. Local community group pushed it as it's leads to schools etc. If you give away the road frontage you need to be careful about implications for planning exits, sites etc.

I'd agree with the earlier poster that said, you could give it on the condition that the Council are involved.
Has the council got money from the Leader type project? If so, then this is a community project.

TomOnBoard

If your arrangement is with the council directly (as in a specific gifting for that purpose only in perpetuity - so they can't then use it to just widen the road-), and it doesn't compromise your site in the future (as in you won't always be the owner), and your land registry is updated at the council's expense, then it sounds like an admirable thing to do. Just remember that the council must replace your boundary with an acceptable alternative and accept responsibility for all future maintenance.

Aravo

TomOnBoard wrote:

Just remember that the council must replace your boundary with an acceptable alternative and accept responsibility for all future maintenance.

Councils accept maintenance responsibility on only TII funded schemes on national and motorway routes. Not on local and regional roads and not likely on some smallscale local measure and not on land dedication. No harm to look for the bees knees and sees what happens.

TomOnBoard

Aravo wrote: »

Councils accept maintenance responsibility on only TII funded schemes on national and motorway routes. Not on local and regional roads and not likely on some smallscale local measure and not on land dedication. No harm to look for the bees knees and sees what happens.

So then liability, together with maintenance responsibilities will rest with owners? Sadly, that would answer the question for me!

If a person's willingness to gift land into public ownership cannot/is not met with equivalent magnanimity by the public authority who is responsible outside my gate for safety of road users (incl cyclists) then its an appalling state of affairs and should be dealt with by firing the local councillors in the next election. In the meantime, make it an issue of public policy in your local area.

BarryD2

The OP says it's a local community initiative, they want to do it because presumably Kerry CoCo can't or won't.. I think the best of these initiatives come from local community effort, so fair dues to them for doing this. As for those who are holding out, well surely a little community encouragement will sort matters. Even if it costs local people a bit, they'll have the satisfaction of seeing it used and put to good purpose and perhaps an accident or accidents avoided.

TomOnBoard

BarryD2 wrote: »

As for those who are holding out, well surely a little community encouragement will sort matters.

Mmmm! I've seen some of that in my time! Why would ppl need any community encouragement just to come around to someone else's point of view, when they may have perfectly valid reasons for not doing so?

I really think that so-called "community encouragement" can quickly form a very slippery slope!! :eek::eek:

Aravo

TomOnBoard wrote:

So then liability, together with maintenance responsibilities will rest with owners? Sadly, that would answer the question for me!

Even if a council maintained the fence and your animal got out at this fence. You may be deemed liable if the fence was fit for purpose. Ultimately it would be a judges decision. And sure if an animal just went mad one day and broke out through a good fence sure how could you pin it on a farmer.

Gael23

Don’t see any issue once the council accept responsibility for insurance purposes and you are not liable for accidents that may happen on the piece of land.

gozunda

freedominacup wrote: »

The ownership/responsibility issue is massive here. There's a walk along a river valley here. Funding was organised by local community development committee, land donated (kind of) by landowners. Development was done. Shortly after it was complete there was a collective sigh of relief from everyone once council took responsibility for insurance. Maintenance is still on locals but at least if it all goes curly in the event of a claim they are indemnified by council. Get council agreement on this.

Wouldn't trust the local development group to dig a Jacks around here tbh. They are more interested in making money and keeping themselves in jobs than anything else imo. Tbh if that crew asked me to give them some land for free - I'd have some serious questions as to the obscene amounts of money paid in salary to the CEO and other 'staff' ...

BarryD2

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Mmmm! I've seen some of that in my time! Why would ppl need any community encouragement just to come around to someone else's point of view, when they may have perfectly valid reasons for not doing so?

Because it might possibly be to the benefit of all in the community? Sometimes local groups just have to do these things. If they sat around waiting for the LA to implement them, very little would often be done.

Aravo

Gael23 wrote:

Don’t see any issue once the council accept responsibility for insurance purposes and you are not liable for accidents that may happen on the piece of land.

+1
I would not hand over a square inch of land unless the insurance matter was sorted for the bit to be handed over. And if it's a community group who looks after this.

kerryjack

gozunda wrote: »

freedominacup wrote: »

The ownership/responsibility issue is massive here. There's a walk along a river valley here. Funding was organised by local community development committee, land donated (kind of) by landowners. Development was done. Shortly after it was complete there was a collective sigh of relief from everyone once council took responsibility for insurance. Maintenance is still on locals but at least if it all goes curly in the event of a claim they are indemnified by council. Get council agreement on this.

Wouldn't trust the local development group to dig a Jacks around here tbh. They are more interested in making money and keeping themselves in jobs than anything else imo. Tbh if that crew asked me to give them some land for free - I'd have some serious questions as to the obscene amounts of money paid in salary to the CEO and other 'staff' ...

CEO don't think there is one. Not in our group anyway all are voluntary . The workers are all local guys some small farmer's themselves and tip away there upkeeping local village and comunity centre .

TomOnBoard

BarryD2 wrote: »

Because it might possibly be to the benefit of all in the community? Sometimes local groups just have to do these things. If they sat around waiting for the LA to implement them, very little would often be done.

I totally get the objective. No argument. However. when the notion of "persuasion" is introduced, where something is not self- explanatory and obvious as to its merits, I have concerns. I've seen dreadful community fragmentation take place and isolationism practices and worse deployed when community interests become mobs..

If the public interest is not being served by the local authority, that's where the focus needs to be placed to change attitudes, not neighbour on neighbour, which is a relationship that is almost always quite fragile anyway.

_Brian

kerryjack wrote: »

CEO don't think there is one. Not in our group anyway all are voluntary . The workers are all local guys some small farmer's themselves and tip away there upkeeping local village and comunity centre .

Yea there’s a CEO ok, probably on about €100-120k

Lads on the scheme aren’t volunteers, Rural Social Scheme is an income support scheme so they get a small top up on their Farm Assist for their 19.5hours. They aren’t compelled to be on the scheme though it’s their choice to get involved.

kerryjack

No local authority gone out of here with 10 years and they have been more done here in last 10 years than the last 100 with LO. The pathway is only a small step to try and keep a rural village alive. Now it would be nice if each land owner could get a little compensation say 10 grand there is 9 land owners 90 grand not a large figure, some lad in dublin got that for 1 meter of his front garden but if we had the 90 grand we probably would build a playground with it in the village .

kerryjack

_Brian wrote: »

kerryjack wrote: »

CEO don't think there is one. Not in our group anyway all are voluntary . The workers are all local guys some small farmer's themselves and tip away there upkeeping local village and comunity centre .

Yea there’s a CEO ok, probably on about €100-120k

Lads on the scheme aren’t volunteers, Rural Social Scheme is an income support scheme so they get a small top up on their Farm Assist for their 19.5hours. They aren’t compelled to be on the scheme though it’s their choice to get involved.

What CEO are you on about no cCEO around here anyway

_Brian

kerryjack wrote: »

What CEO are you on about no cCEO around here anyway

Lads were referring to the CEO of the Decelopment company that oversees the Employment scheme that does the village maintenance. Not the LA,

Base price

A few years ago a relative was asked to donate about an eight of an acre to his local national school so that they could extend and make safer their very small car parking/drop off area. His solicitor advised him to sell the plot for a nominal amount thereby negating any possible insurance claims. He "sold" the piece for €200 and the school board paid for the legal fees/change of maps. They also built a new wall and planted hawthorn hedging.

no.8

lawred2 wrote:

two lanes plus kerbing would easily be three metres?

Great initiative. Given how narrow and imposing much of our R-roads are, it really makes sense. You see separated walk/cycleways in numerous countries near to us, it may makes it so much easier for people to move around safely (specifically those with children). Road is officially not for motorised vehicular use only, but it sure as he'll doesn't look that way in our setup. 3m is not much for a great local amenity (village to village connection) which reduces risk of fatalities on the road significantly.
Having said that, the way land ownership is setup here, it's unlikely to be a fix in the short term.

no.8

893bet wrote:

Sounds like a pipe dream tbh.

Not exactly rocket science tbh, sorry but it's pretty common

gozunda

_Brian wrote: »

Yea there’s a CEO ok, probably on about €100-120k

Lads on the scheme aren’t volunteers, Rural Social Scheme is an income support scheme so they get a small top up on their Farm Assist for their 19.5hours. They aren’t compelled to be on the scheme though it’s their choice to get involved.

The Dev company around here and I know some elsewhere get paid to run RSS schemes - The monies for the top up are in fact paid by the government. Scheme itself is ok but shouldn't be run by what are in effect private companies with CEOs with huge saleries ...

893bet

no.8 wrote: »

Not exactly rocket science tbh, sorry but it's pretty common

Who said it was rocket science?

I said it was a pipe dream that they would convince everyone to give up land then fund the actual project.

Odds are this won’t happen based on the information supplied so far.

_Brian

gozunda wrote: »

The Dev company around here and I know some elsewhere get paid to run RSS schemes - The monies for the top up are in fact paid by the government. Scheme itself is ok but shouldn't be run by what are in effect private companies with CEOs with huge saleries ...

The CEOs of development companies range from €70k to €130k, serious money.
And then the lads are workinng 19.5 hours a week and getting from €25 a week top up, less than €2/hr

schemingbohemia

There could be funding available for this under the Rural Regeneration Fund - though I think this year's applications are closing soon.

https://drcd.gov.ie/about/rural/rural-regeneration-development-fund/rural-regeneration-and-development-fund-frequently-asked-questions/

If you could get the council on board asap it would help. There is funding as part of this for studies that could get the planning and land transfer sorted first.

148multi

A farmer in this county donated a site for a prefab to be erected for a school, couple of class rooms, very rural area. By and by closed and eventually knocked. Bishop puts site up for sale in the boom, the farmer offers the going rate for the site. Bishop refused offer. I would get good advice before donating property or the use of it.