Fossa-gate case settled in high court

Will they allow access now since the access decision is finally sorted.?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/couple-win-challenge-over-gate-to-access-co-kerry-lake-1.4257251


A couple have won a High Court challenge to a Bord Pleánala decision over use of a laneway beside their home which has been at the centre of a long running row over access to a lake.

Cornelius and Suzanne Dennehy, who live and farm near Fossa village in Co Kerry, were entitled to an order quashing the August 2018 decision of the board declaring that a gate they erected at the entrance to lands they own requires planning permission.

The lane leads down to the shore of scenic Lough Leane and links to the N72 Killarney-Killorglin Road. It also provides access to a number of houses and to the Loch Lein Country House Hotel, owned by Dr Donal Coffey.

The Dennehys’ judicial review proceedings were against the board, the Minister for Housing Planning and Local Government and the State over the decision. Dr Coffey was a notice party.

Mr Justice Charles Meenan, in a judgment delivered on Tuesday, was satisfied the board erred in law in failing to correctly consider a Circuit Court decision which found there was no right of way of the Dennehy land.

The failure to consider the Circuit Court decision made the planning board’s decision unreasonable or irrational, he said.

The court heard that land on one side of a lane had been a traditional boaters’ access to the lake and is owed by the Dennehys and on the other side by Sir Maurice O’Connell.

In 1989, Mr O’Connell no longer wished to facilitate the activities of the local Fossa Rowing Club as he had done in providing access for the club.

Three members of the club approached Mr Dennhey and got permission to walk over the Dennehy land to get to the lake. “Unfortunately, this was the start of the trouble”, Mr Justice Meenan said.

Mr Dennehy claimed some members of the club exceeded their permission and insisted they had a right to use it. The Dennehys erected a gate to prevent trespass in 2010 and no trespassing signs were also erected.

But by 2012 there were increasing incursions which became confrontational and gardai had to be called.

Public events were organised seeking to establish the existence of a public right of way over the laneway, not only by the Fossa Rowing Club but also by other organisations such as the “Fossa Way Committee” and the “Men’s Shed”.

“These organised public events cannot have been anything other than frightening and intimidating for the applicants (Dennehys) and their family,” the judge said.

However, worse events occurred with the Dennehys getting an anonymous written threat warning them to leave Fossa. Shots were fired over their home, property damaged and their dog was shot.

The judge said some club members told the Dennehys they disagree with and apologised for what was happening.

Two Circuit Court cases were being brought by that stage, one by Maurice O’Connell, and the other by nominated members of the rowing club. Ultimately, they were both dismissed.

One of the other neighbours, the hotel owner Dr Coffey, then sought a declaration that the gate erected by the Dennehys was not exempt and required planning permission. When An Bord Pleala fnáound it did require permission, the Dennehys brought High Court proceedings which were settled.

The board reconsidered its decision but came up with the same answer and the Dennehys brought a second High Court challenge.

In quashing that second decision, Mr Justice Meenan said the board did not correctly consider the legal import of the decision of the Circuit Court.

Ths error arose from the view taken by the board that, whereas the Circuit Court was concerned with a right of way, the board was not.

The Circuit Court found no right of way and therefore the laneway was not “habitually open or used by the public” as the board had found.

It was not legally permissible for the board to make findings as to the use of the laneway by the public “by ignoring the facts”, as found by the Circuit Court, that people travelling over it without the Dennehys’ consent were trespassers.

newman10

Will they allow access now since the access decision is finally sorted.?

Doubt it, too much "bad blood" between everyone involved

Rodney Bathgate

Maybe if the scum who fired shots and made threats hand themselves in to the Gardai and the people who made their lives a misery give heart felt apologies then the family could consider it.

newman10

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Maybe if the scum who fired shots and made threats hand themselves in to the Gardai and the people who made their lives a misery give heart felt apologies then the family could consider it.

It not just that but the abuse harassment the extended family also received

Quackster

Alas, no winners in this case.

Until we have fair right-to-roam law like other civilised countries, the continuance of this kind of sh*te is absolutey inevitable.

newman10

Quackster wrote: »

Alas, no winners in this case.

Until we have fair right-to-roam law like other civilised countries, the continuance of this kind of sh*te is absolutey inevitable.

That will not happen, all you have to do is look at the McGillicuddy Reeks, people asked not to bring dogs onto the mountains, but the still persist causing danger to livestock, gates left open, rubbish on the ground etc

https://www.macgillycuddyreekskerry.com/guidelines

whisky_galore

newman10 wrote: »

That will not happen, all you have to do is look at the McGillicuddy Reeks, people asked not to bring dogs onto the mountains, but the still persist causing danger to livestock, gates left open, rubbish on the ground etc

https://www.macgillycuddyreekskerry.com/guidelines

I have to agree. Places here with signs "no dogs", or "no cycling" , you always have a gobsh1te on a bike or with a dog who thinks the rules are for other people. And then you have folks that can't stop falling and hurting themselves and blaming someone else, not to mention the explosion of fly tipping and casual litter.

With attitudes like that, I don't know why any landowner would tolerate strangers traipsing around their property.

Quackster

whisky_galore wrote: »

I have to agree. Places here with signs "no dogs", or "no cycling" , you always have a gobsh1te on a bike or with a dog who thinks the rules are for other people. And then you have folks that can't stop falling and hurting themselves and blaming someone else, not to mention the explosion of fly tipping and casual litter.

With attitudes like that, I don't know why any landowner would tolerate strangers traipsing around their property.

Human nature is what it is. Just look at the amount of gobsh*tes not obeying the current lockdown restrictions.

Landowners are just as prone to gobsh*tery as any other group of people; they are not possessed of some special kind of immunity.

The solution to the Reeks is incorporation into Killarney National Park, where it belongs, and have it policed by rangers. Farmers can keep grazing rights.

Sacrolyte

Quackster wrote: »

Human nature is what it is. Just look at the amount of gobsh*tes not obeying the current lockdown restrictions.

Landowners are just as prone to gobsh*tery as any other group of people; they are not possessed of some special kind of immunity.

The solution to the Reeks is incorporation into Killarney National Park, where it belongs, and have it policed by rangers. Farmers can keep grazing rights.

That would involve compulsory purchase orders.
The area you would be talking about is massive. Who would pay for it.
That’s not gonna happen.
There’s plenty of national park there already for people to be roaming around.
No need to be interfering with people on privately owned land.

whisky_galore

Quackster wrote: »

The solution to the Reeks is incorporation into Killarney National Park, where it belongs, and have it policed by rangers. Farmers can keep grazing rights.

Lol.
Good luck with that.

Truckermal

whisky_galore wrote: »

Lol.
Good luck with that.

Yes idiotic comment!

Quackster

Truckermal wrote: »

Yes idiotic comment!

Wow. Very constructive post there pal. That must have taken some considerable effort on your part!

Quackster

Sacrolyte wrote: »

That would involve compulsory purchase orders.
The area you would be talking about is massive. Who would pay for it.
That’s not gonna happen.
There’s plenty of national park there already for people to be roaming around.
No need to be interfering with people on privately owned land.

That's what you think but considering the vast majority of the country's mountains are privately owned, those of us who enjoy climbing mountains spend much of our time crossing privately-owned land.

Fortunately, the vast, vast majority of farmers I've dealt with in my travels are very decent folk who show the utmost respect to those of us who show the utmost respect for the countryside.

Those who engage in scummy behaviour like fly-tipping, damaging property, poisoning wildlife etc are our common enemy.

whisky_galore

Quackster wrote: »

Wow. Very constructive post there pal. That must have taken some considerable effort on your part!

How would you like if I bought your house for a paltry sum whether you liked it or not and allowed you just to live in it?

Quackster

whisky_galore wrote: »

How would you like if I bought your house for a paltry sum whether you liked it or not and allowed you just to live in it?

I'm not sure what the point of your argument is? We have a constitutional right to private property but it's not an absolute right. It's subservient to the common good.

Do you think that someone should be allowed to block the construction of a new road because they're unhappy about their home being CPOed in the process?

newman10

Quackster wrote: »

I'm not sure what the point of your argument is? We have a constitutional right to private property but it's not an absolute right. It's subservient to the common good.

Do you think that someone should be allowed to block the construction of a new road because they're unhappy about their home being CPOed in the process?

I think you have strayed off your original statement regarding "Free to Roam" into the South Kerry Greenway

Whatever our opinions are, the landowners on the Reeks are doing a brilliant job when one considers the amount of people who traverse the mountains.
The right to roam is a UK system, which is Fuedal in concept alongside Tenant Farmers and not property rights of individual landowners which is in our Constitution

Have a look at what has happened in Tomies Woods, private landowner blocking an access to the woods and State Inaction

Fossa started because people abused the goodwill of a landowner.

You can forget the idea of a walkway around the Lakes, again due to disrespect shown to Landowners, not by the state but by individuals and some "Walking Clubs" who feel that parts of Kerry just a playground

whisky_galore

Quackster wrote: »

Do you think that someone should be allowed to block the construction of a new road because they're unhappy about their home being CPOed in the process?

All the common good stuff is great until it's YOUR house or YOUR land. I honestly don't know anyone who would be chuffed about their house being demolished.

Wrt rights of access, with rights come responsibilities and I think here is where those wishing to use others' land don't always cover themselves in glory.

two wheels good

newman10 wrote: »

I think you have strayed off your original statement regarding "Free to Roam" into the South Kerry Greenway

Whatever our opinions are, the landowners on the Reeks are doing a brilliant job when one considers the amount of people who traverse the mountains.
The right to roam is a UK system, which is Fuedal in concept alongside Tenant Farmers and not property rights of individual landowners which is in our Constitution

Have a look at what has happened in Tomies Woods, private landowner blocking an access to the woods and State Inaction

Fossa started because people abused the goodwill of a landowner.

You can forget the idea of a walkway around the Lakes, again due to disrespect shown to Landowners, not by the state but by individuals and some "Walking Clubs" who feel that parts of Kerry just a playground

Not exactly correct. In England and Wales Right to Roam came in around the year 2000 with a new Countryside Act. (I think Scotland had Right to Roam some years earlier)
The act also reduced access for some categories of users on some byways - eg. horse-riders, vehicles.

I assume you're referring to the long established English system of footpaths, bridleways, byways. Users are obliged to keep to a well-defined the path i.e not roaming.

My point it: Right to Roam is not some archaic right unsuited to modern times or modern legislation.
As for the wonderful network of footpaths/byway access enjoyed by UK and other european countries - we can only dream of such here in Ireland.

newman10

two wheels good wrote: »

Not exactly correct. In England and Wales Right to Roam came in around the year 2000 with a new Countryside Act. (I think Scotland had Right to Roam some years earlier)
The act also reduced access for some categories of users on some byways - eg. horse-riders, vehicles.

I assume you're referring to the long established English system of footpaths, bridleways, byways. Users are obliged to keep to a well-defined the path i.e not roaming.

My point it: Right to Roam is not some archaic right unsuited to modern times or modern legislation.
As for the wonderful network of footpaths/byway access enjoyed by UK and other european countries - we can only dream of such here in Ireland.

The UK law states,you need permission of the landowner, not a blanket right to roam, anyway it doesn't make any difference, we are in Ireland, not british subjects

https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/access-private-land

whisky_galore

two wheels good wrote: »

My point it: Right to Roam is not some archaic right unsuited to modern times or modern legislation.
As for the wonderful network of footpaths/byway access enjoyed by UK and other european countries - we can only dream of such here in Ireland.

I'd be all for this, like arrangements they have for roaming or camping in Scandinavia, Czech Republic or elsewhere, but in light of the fact that grown adults here can't conduct themselves on the public areas they have already; compo culture, littering, decorating trees with bags of dog sh1t, parking any old way at all, etc I don't hold out much hope for the status quo changing.

Not far from me is a section of hill walking trail, one reprobate used the access/parking area to dump broken household appliances and kids toys, further on, on the marked way itself, there's a burnt out car stuffed with rubbish. They've been there for months, probably years at this stage.

newman10

I know this is off thread but I think it gives an idea of some issues regarding "rights" and abuse of them, not by locals but by others

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/cork-landowner-may-ban-public-access-to-woods-after-rise-in-antisocial-behaviour-1001820.html

two wheels good

newman10 wrote: »

The UK law states,you need permission of the landowner, not a blanket right to roam, anyway it doesn't make any difference, we are in Ireland, not british subjects

https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/access-private-land

My point it: Right to Roam is not some archaic right unsuited to modern times or modern legislation. No reason a similar approach couldn't be considered here.

Pleased to see you've researched the topic to correct your earlier misconceptions.

whisky_galore

newman10 wrote: »

I know this is off thread but I think it gives an idea of some issues regarding "rights" and abuse of them, not by locals but by others

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/cork-landowner-may-ban-public-access-to-woods-after-rise-in-antisocial-behaviour-1001820.html

And this as they say, is why we can't have nice things.

newman10

two wheels good wrote: »

My point it: Right to Roam is not some archaic right unsuited to modern times or modern legislation. No reason a similar approach couldn't be considered here.

Pleased to see you've researched the topic to correct your earlier misconceptions.

I have dealt with trespassers, open gates, people walking dogs in a field of sheep, attempting to ride horses and cause damage to ditches, had a gun pulled on me by a hunter plus the a**hole from the walking club who told me he had the "right"to be 50m from my home
having passe 2 Private Property signs

No misconceptions at all, just realism

two wheels good

newman10 wrote: »

I have dealt with trespassers, open gates, people walking dogs in a field of sheep, attempting to ride horses and cause damage to ditches, had a gun pulled on me by a hunter plus the a**hole from the walking club who told me he had the "right"to be 50m from my home
having passe 2 Private Property signs

No misconceptions at all, just realism

Misconceptions about the legislation. I made no reference to experiences on the ground.
Yesterday you seemed unaware of the UK Contryside Act, already you're certain it's irrelevant for consideration here?
UK Right to Roam (Countyside Act) applies to common land and uncultivated uplands. Specific landowner permissions not reqd.
Personally I think looking to the UK experience is a useful first step in many "fields" of legislation.

Claiming historical feudal remnants is some crucial factor is just a red herring.

More significant differences between the countries affecting access:
- the UK has large national landowners such as National Trust and English Heritage that actually encourage access to the countryside.
- More national parks - partly thanks to protest and civil disobedience.
- an influencial and determinded lobby group in the Ramblers Assoc.

ganmo

As it stands the general public will disobey and ignore signs at will, take dogs on leads signs as an example, the last time I checked over 90% of dog walkers ignored signs to keep dogs on leads including people walking restricted breeds.
Then you have the people who are at A and can see K and will skip over any fence in the middle and if confronted will conjure up excuses like 'aren't all mountains open' or 'I got lost' despite them turning off a proper way marked trail to cross fields.
As long as the people fail to comply and stories like the fossa case leave bad tastes in landowners there will be very very limited cooperation between roamers and landowners

Calahonda52

ganmo wrote: »

As it stands the general public will disobey and ignore signs at will, take dogs on leads signs as an example, the last time I checked over 90% of dog walkers ignored signs to keep dogs on leads including people walking restricted breeds.
..

Not just an Irish problem.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52759502
A white woman who called the police after a black man asked her to put her dog on a leash in New York City's Central Park has been fired from her job with an investment firm.

newman10

two wheels good wrote: »

Misconceptions about the legislation. I made no reference to experiences on the ground.
Yesterday you seemed unaware of the UK Contryside Act, already you're certain it's irrelevant for consideration here?
UK Right to Roam (Countyside Act) applies to common land and uncultivated uplands. Specific landowner permissions not reqd.
Personally I think looking to the UK experience is a useful first step in many "fields" of legislation.

Claiming historical feudal remnants is some crucial factor is just a red herring.

More significant differences between the countries affecting access:
- the UK has large national landowners such as National Trust and English Heritage that actually encourage access to the countryside.
- More national parks - partly thanks to protest and civil disobedience.
- an influencial and determinded lobby group in the Ramblers Assoc.

ganmo

newman10 wrote: »

A farmer was convicted of manslaughter in England for not moving cattle out of his field after they attacked multiple people and ended up killing one.
Who would want that to come here

BPKS

ganmo wrote: »

A farmer was convicted of manslaughter in England for not moving cattle out of his field after they attacked multiple people and ended up killing one.
Who would want that to come here

The reminds me of the sign on a boundary fence between a field and a walkway in Fenit.

Something along the lines of "if you enter this property you better be faster than the bull"

TheChizler

ganmo wrote: »

A farmer was convicted of manslaughter in England for not moving cattle out of his field after they attacked multiple people and ended up killing one.
Who would want that to come here

This case??

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/uk-farmer-cleared-over-death-of-walker-in-bull-attack-629835.html

A farmer in Britain has been cleared of manslaughter following the death of a walker in an attack by a bull.

ganmo

TheChizler wrote: »

This case??

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/uk-farmer-cleared-over-death-of-walker-in-bull-attack-629835.html

No the farmer was in his 80s, Brian Godwin.

whisky_galore

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Not just an Irish problem.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52759502
A white woman who called the police after a black man asked her to put her dog on a leash in New York City's Central Park has been fired from her job with an investment firm.

There wouldn't be a headline if the birdwatcher wasn't African American, says more about the state of their race relations.
Besides the "shur it happens over there too" line is simply deflection.

newman10

This is ultimately what happens !!!!

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/future-of-popular-kerry-forest-walk-threatened-1003494.html

newman10

newman10 wrote: »

This is ultimately what happens !!!!

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/future-of-popular-kerry-forest-walk-threatened-1003494.html

Would be a sad day if it was closed down.