Michael Fitzmaurice confronts officials on greenways and farmers' rights
Michael Fitzmaurice presses transport and planning officials on greenway policy, stakeholder consultation and the impact on farmers. He challenges officials about who is consulted, how routes are chosen, environmental assessments and falling usage figures.
Michael Fitzmaurice questioned officials about implementation of government policy on greenways, asking which farm organisations were engaged and why local landowners appear sidelined in consultations. He raised the practical impact of routes crossing private land and asked why alternatives - such as using existing road corridors - were not always considered.
Officials named bodies like IFA, ICMSA and ICSA as stakeholders, but Fitzmaurice challenged whether public consultations are meaningful. He described consultations as often feeling like a tick box and demanded clarity on who the community consultation serves when routes cross farmers' land.
The debate turned to environmental law and Special Areas of Conservation. Officials described environmental impact assessments and possible compensatory habitat requirements, while Fitzmaurice pressed why work appears to be allowed in protected areas when ordinary landowners face strict limits.
Fitzmaurice also questioned recent visitor numbers for the greenway, noting an official estimate of 200,000 compared with earlier figures around 300,000. He asked whether local councillors can amend development plans to block greenways and whether such local decisions can be overruled by regulators or the minister.
Summary of the exchange
Michael Fitzmaurice questioned officials about implementation of government policy on greenways, asking which farm organisations were engaged and why local landowners appear sidelined in consultations. He raised the practical impact of routes crossing private land and asked why alternatives - such as using existing road corridors - were not always considered.
Stakeholders and consultation
Officials named bodies like IFA, ICMSA and ICSA as stakeholders, but Fitzmaurice challenged whether public consultations are meaningful. He described consultations as often feeling like a tick box and demanded clarity on who the community consultation serves when routes cross farmers' land.
Environmental safeguards and protected sites
The debate turned to environmental law and Special Areas of Conservation. Officials described environmental impact assessments and possible compensatory habitat requirements, while Fitzmaurice pressed why work appears to be allowed in protected areas when ordinary landowners face strict limits.
Usage figures and planning powers
Fitzmaurice also questioned recent visitor numbers for the greenway, noting an official estimate of 200,000 compared with earlier figures around 300,000. He asked whether local councillors can amend development plans to block greenways and whether such local decisions can be overruled by regulators or the minister.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Ann Graves
Ann Graves: Stop Israel Sporting Fixtures - No Games!
Sharon Keogan
Sharon Keogan: IMF Warns AI Could Hit 40% of Irish Jobs
Holly Cairns
Holly Cairns: Abolish the Carers Means Test Now
Joe Neville
Joe Neville: Protect Tourism, Don't Kill the Golden Goose
Helen McEntee
Helen McEntee: Introduces Bill to Ban Imports from Settlements
Gerard P. Craughwell
Gerard P. Craughwell presses cyber chief on SME support
Transcript
Just a few quickfire questions to you. At the moment, Lorcan, have you support of the Department of Transport or of government with the policy that you're working on, the system that you're working on? Well, we're implementing government policy. OK, that's fine. How many farm organisations have signed up to that implementation of that policy? The code that we have in place would have involved a number of stakeholders, much wider than just farming organisations. It would include IFA, ICMSA and the ICSA. OK, right, that's grand. A question that was brought up earlier on, when you're drawing up a route, who else is affected? Like you said, others, you have to talk to others. Who's the others, if it's land that you're going through? Why would you be telling anyone else? Well, we're talking to the community. But hold on, if it's going through a farmer's land, what do you need to talk to a community for? And to the farmer that's affected, not environmental lobby or not anyone else. Do you talk to them all? But I'm talking about the initial stages of consultation, where you're going out with the concept of a greenway between A and B. The opportunity there, there could be several opportunities to go in different directions, going through different locations. If it's through a farmer's land, you're going. But we're trying to come up with where the community wishes to have the corridor taken into account. If it's land, it's either state land or farmer's land. That's it. So that's a factor that we would be taking into account. Am I right or wrong? That if it's state land or farmer's land? Well, or other private land. But the point is, before we know whether we need to go through a particular landowner's private land, we need to do a public consultation to come up with a preferred route. Public consultations, to me, are just a tick box. But anyway, how come in Holland that you go through, if you look at the European route, you see a barley field, but they don't have ditches in Holland like we have in Ireland. How come that they take a different system of going on the road that they were originally or why don't you add to the side of a road rather than splitting a farmer's field and causing mayhem? Well, as I said in response to an earlier question, I think that is something we should be looking at. Yeah, but thinking now the harm is done. This is the problem. In a lot of greenways, there's a bad taste in farmers' mouths. And I'll just give you the example. I know a couple in Roscommon who are starting to build a house. TIA automatically sends out a thing. There's an old house in it. If they add it to the old house, there's sound coming out on the road. But if they knock the old house and build a new one, TIA will protect it. That's not the way. And then there'll be a greenway up the road in that person's land. And then they expect to be cooperative. That's not the way it works. You need to change your attitude completely with what's going on. And a question for you. You believe that you can go through SACs and dig them up while an ordinary person cannot. How is that? No, there's full environmental assessment if it doesn't go through an SAC. Yeah, I know that. But an ordinary person cannot go near them or dig them. How can you? Well, we would have to justify. We'd have to go through the full process of doing an environmental impact assessment. And Commission Planola would make the decision on it. Do you have to do compensatory habitat? It could be part of the environmental assessment that you would have to provide compensatory habitat. I've seen that you've got to go ahead in SACs where a farmer cannot put in a road. How come? I don't know what case you're talking about, but going through an SAC is subject to a full environmental impact assessment and has to be done. That's OK. I want to keep my thing going. To Barry, you talked about the water for Greenway. What's the stats on that over the last few years? What's the figures? Deputy, maybe if you agree with me on the majority, I'm sorry. Do you care to speak now? Or will you send them to me? Our recent figures are indicating we'd have 200,000 on average in all year on the Greenway. On average? Yeah. That's come down from when it started, but we're still… It's down? We're levelling out now because… Did you say it's down since you started? What I want to say, Deputy, is that people who've come the first time, they all came initially. Now we've averaged out. Yeah, but no, I asked a question. 200,000. What was there at the beginning? We're estimating around 300,000. You're down 30%. OK, Barry, question for you. In the line of, you said councillors. Has councillors at any given time, can they put an amendment to the Council Development Plan and could they change? If they vote against it, that they don't agree with the CEO like yourselves, can they decide that they don't want Greenways in an area? And if they do that, can they not be overruled by the council manager or the department, yes or no? Yeah, the Planning Act provides for variations to the Development Plan, and as well as that, the plan is up for statutory review at the moment every six years. It's going to every ten years. I know all that, yeah. Yeah, but in making the plan, the members can put in whatever policy they feel is appropriate and approve it as a group. So members, I'm asking just a straight, simple question, and the time is up. If members decide they don't want Greenways in a county, and the majority of them vote that way, is that accepted? And then, can it be overruled, yes or no? Well, the Office of the Planning Regulator carries out a review of all development plans when they're adopted and carries out a study. No, but all I'm asking is, can it be overruled? That's all I want to know. I'm just trying to explain that the regulator looks at the plan, sees is the plan aligned with government policy, or substantially aligned with government policy, and if the regulator has an issue with any policy in the plan, they can recommend to the minister that the minister issues a direction to the local authority. He can overrule it. And the minister can overrule it. Deputy Newsom, hang on.