Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food debate

Impact of Greenways, Railways and Roadways on Agriculture: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

I welcome everyone. We have received apologies from Deputy Fitzmaurice. Deputy Collins is substituting for him. We also have apologies from Deputy Cooney.

I will draw the attention of everyone to matters of privilege. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that a witness has a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on the issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made as against an identifiable third person or entity.

Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter.

Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by the witnesses outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

All of the witnesses participating are here in the room.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in a committee meeting where their participation is from within the parliamentary precinct. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts. Any attempt to do so will result in the member having his or her online access removed. All of the members taking part are here in the room at present.

The agenda for today's meeting is the impacts of greenways, railways and roadways on agriculture and compulsory purchase orders, CPOs. It is an issue members have been concerned about for some time. From IFA, I welcome Mr. Paul O'Brien, infrastructure project team chair; and Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan, senior policy executive. From the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, I welcome Mr. Pheilim Malloy; Mr. Seamus Cosgrove, vice president; and Mr. Daniel Buckley. From the National Greenway Action Association, I welcome Ms Cleona O'Shea, chairperson; Mr. Morgan Lyne; and Mr. Thomas Burke. We have submissions and statements from each of the different groups. Some members have had the opportunity to read over them. I know that in a lot of areas, there are different proposals for developing greenways and members will have been hearing from a lot of residents' groups and individuals outlining their concerns about it. In this first meeting, we just want to get the witnesses' perspective on the issue. We intend following up with further meetings with the likes of TII about it. A date for that has not been confirmed. Our intention today is to get the landowners' perspective on the issue. We will start with the presentation from the IFA.

Mr. Paul O'Brien

I thank the committee for inviting the IFA to address it today on this very important issue for farmers. I am joined by Geraldine O'Sullivan, IFA senior policy executive. The IFA welcomes the opportunity to set out our views on greenway development and the significant impact these projects have on farm families, rural communities and land use, particularly in relation to CPOs. Greenways should be on public land not private farmland. The IFA's position is clear. Greenways should wherever possible be developed on public lands and not on privately owned farmland. The principle is set out in the Government strategy for the future development of national and regional greenways 2018, which identified public lands as the preferred option. Unfortunately, this has not been consistently followed and many proposed routes are now affecting private farmland. For farm families, the consequences can be serious - fragmentations of holdings, operational disruption, safety risks and long-term damage to viable farm enterprises.

The IFA is firmly opposed to use of CPOs for greenway developments. Greenways are recreational amenities not essential public infrastructure such as roads or utilities. Their delivery should be based on voluntary agreement not compulsion. The code of practice for greenways agreed between the IFA and TII provides a clear framework for voluntary land acquisition. This approach ensures that projects proceed on the basis of mutual agreement, respect for landowners and community consent. While the Government does have legal powers to use CPO for infrastructure, the application of these powers to greenways is fundamentally inappropriate. The code itself is not the issue. The issue lies in the underlying legislation that allows CPOs to be used in this context and that is a matter for the Oireachtas. A voluntary co-operation approach must remain the standard for all future greenway developments.

The Waterford greenway is constantly hailed as a major success with regard to how to develop a greenway project. This 46 km greenway was developed predominantly on public lands. CPOs were not used and in general, community support was secured. The project was launched in 2014, it cost €20 million and the greenway was completed in 2017. In contrast, consultation regarding the south Kerry greenway was very poor, the old railway line had passed into private farm ownership and in a major error, Kerry County Council decided to use CPO to force the project through. The 27 km project was launched in 2014, the costs are set to exceed €70 million and completion is still a long way off. It is a real case of how not to develop greenway projects. The key differences are clear.

The lesson is straightforward. Greenways should wherever possible be developed on public land with community engagement without reliance on compulsory acquisition. Following a recent greenway review meeting with TII and the Department of Transport, the Department has confirmed that it is reviewing the code strategy for greenways and the greenway code of practice. The IFA welcomed this review and has requested the terms of reference. The IFA would prioritise the following key areas: a clear Government commitment that greenways are developed primarily on public land and not on farmland; a commitment that CPOs will not be used for greenway development; and a recognition that segments of farmland are not justified for greenways and must be avoided. Greenway projects should proceed only when there is strong community support, including from farmers and landowners.

At present, approximately 60 greenway projects are being worked on by county councils and consultants nationwide with a combined proposed for one 3,000 km. Many of these proposals are already creating significant uncertainty and concern among rural families, farmers and communities. Using TII's indicative estimates of €2 million per kilometre the potential overall cost could be in the region of €6 billion. This contrasts sharply with TII's current annual greenway budget of approximately €60 billion to €65 million.

An Cathaoirleach

I am conscious of time. I need to get other speakers in as well, so I will move the National Greenway Action Association. I invite Ms O'Shea to make her opening statements.

Ms Cleona O'Shea

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for the opportunity to address them. I am chairperson of the National Greenway Action Association. I am here on behalf of farmers, landowners, homeowners and rural families who are being asked to carry the permanent burden of recreational greenway policy. Let me be clear; we are not opposed to walking, cycling, tourism or community amenities. We are opposed to private farmland and family homes being targeted pressured or threatened with CPO for recreational greenways. A greenway is not essential infrastructure. It is a recreational amenity. This matters because recreational amenities should not be forced through private farms against the will of the people who own, work on and live on that land.

For farmers, land is not spare ground. It is their business, the home, the security for lending, the inheritance plan, the drainage system, the paddock layout, the machinery route and the livestock movement system. When a greenway is drawn through a farm, the damage is not limited to the strip taken. It can split the holding, break raising blocks, interfere with cattle movement, damage drainage, restrict machinery access, reduce privacy, increase safety risk created by security exposure and devalue the retained farm. That is why landowners are angry. They are not angry because the public wants a walkway. They are angry because the State is treating private productive land as available unless the landowner can prove otherwise. That is backwards. The starting point should be simple; private land is not available unless the owner freely agrees.

The phrase "just a path" has destroyed trust. On a farm, it is not just a path; it is fencing, gates, crossings, construction traffic, etc.

TII defines greenway as walking, wheeling and cycling in a mainly recreational environment, but working farms are not recreational environments. They are workplaces and food production units. The code of practice talks about consultation, public land use, fair treatment and accommodation works, but landowners are seeing routes gather momentum before proper engagement, private farmland pursued before public options are exhausted, survey pressure, consultant pressure and, behind it all, the threat of a compulsory purchase order, CPO. A code without enforcement is not protection; it is only paper. This is especially clear on survey access.

Landowners are being asked to allow surveys, ecological checks, engineering work and drone activity onto their farms as if these are harmless. They are not harmless. Every survey helps the promoter build the case for a route the landowner has not consented to. Landowners are being asked to help build the evidence base against their own property.

Once a project reaches planning and permission is granted, the landowner's position is severely weakened. Public money has been spent, political momentum has built and the design is fixed around their land. Landowners are refusing survey access, not because they are unreasonable but because trust has collapsed. No farmer should be pressured into allowing investigations on their land unless there is genuine consent, a clear legal basis, strong biosecurity controls and a written guarantee that the information will not be used to force a recreational route through the farm against the owner's wishes. Where trust is gone, survey access is not co-operation; it is the first step towards locking in a route.

There is also a major accountability gap. Landowners are passed between councils, consultants, TII, the Department of Transport and other bodies. Everyone has a role, but no one seems fully accountable for the damage to the farm.

Where is the Department of agriculture? If productive farmland is being taken or severed and if herd movement, biosecurity, drainage, farm safety, food production and succession are affected, the Department should be at the centre of the process. This is not just a transport issue; it is an agricultural land use issue. It is also a human issue. Many affected landowners are older farmers facing consultants, maps, survey requests, valuation disputes, solicitor letters, public meetings and the fear of CPO. This is causing stress, dividing communities and damaging trust between rural people and the State. Social cohesion cannot mean a nice amenity for future users while the farm families carrying the burden are left anxious, ignored and overrun.

We are asking the committee for a reset. Our position is clear: public land first; private land only by genuine voluntary agreement; no CPO for recreational greenways; no farm severance - absolutely not; no survey access without consent; mandatory Department of agriculture involvement where active farmland is affected; whole-farm impact assessments before route selection; full compensation for a whole holding loss, not just a strip taken; binding accommodation works before planning, acquisition or construction; and TII funding to be conditional on compliance with the code, proper engagement and fair compensation.

The goodwill of landowners is not a minor detail. It is the foundation of any rural project. If the State wants co-operation, it must stop treating landowners as obstacles. It must stop using recreational policy to weaken property rights and it must stop allowing private farms to become the fallback option when public land is inconvenient.

Mr. Pheilim Molloy

I thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to address this meeting. The Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, INHFA, acknowledges the valuable contribution that tourism infrastructure, including greenways, makes to rural Ireland. However, this development must not come at the expense of the very communities it is intended to benefit. At the core of our position is a fundamental principle: greenways must be developed with, not imposed upon, landowners and farming families. In this context, the INHFA strongly asserts that the use of compulsory purchase orders as a mechanism to force greenway development through private lands must cease immediately. The use of CPOs for what is ultimately social and recreational infrastructure undermines trust, damages community relations and removes the opportunity for genuine partnership. It is incompatible with a fair, inclusive and sustainable model of rural development.

For greenway projects to succeed in the long term, they must be built on meaningful collaboration and mutual benefit. Where routes traverse private land, farmers must be recognised as equal partners in the conception, design and ongoing management of these projects. This partnership model ensures that greenways contribute not only to the wider tourism economy, but also to the sustainability and viability of farm enterprises.

Permissive access agreements or lease arrangements are the preferred mechanisms for securing land use. These approaches allow farmers to retain ownership, maintain their livelihoods and actively participate in the greenway's success. In contrast, land acquisition by State bodies removes farmers from the equation, erodes goodwill and reflects a lack of trust in rural communities' ability to co-deliver high-quality infrastructure.

Consultation must begin at the earliest conceptual stage of any proposed greenway, not after routes have been selected or funding allocated. A clear, transparent protocol is required to ensure that all stakeholders, particularly landowners, are informed and engaged from the outset. This process must include structured meetings with open dialogue and question-and-answer sessions, rather than passive "drop-in" formats that fall short of genuine consultation.

Greenway development must respect the integrity of farm holdings. Fragmentation of land, increased fire risks and potential impacts on habitats and biodiversity are significant concerns that must be addressed through careful planning.

Where access is agreed, payments must reflect the true economic impact on the landowner, including loss of income, disruption to farming operations and the implications for agricultural and environmental scheme payments. These payments should be index-linked to ensure long-term fairness.

Landowners must be fully indemnified against claims arising from greenway use. Clear arrangements must be in place for maintenance, with dedicated ring-fenced funding. Provision should be made for local employment in maintenance, including through schemes such as the rural social scheme. Ownership must revert to the landowner if the greenway ceases operation.

To ensure that greenways coexist safely with farming activity, landowners must retain the right of way where land is divided, greenways should operate during daylight hours only, activities such as fires or barbecues must be strictly prohibited and dogs should not be permitted due to risks to livestock and farm operations. It is critical that all greenway projects are assessed in the first place for value for money, as it is now becoming clear that some greenway projects lack a maintenance programme and have not been used effectively, highlighting a huge waste of State resources.

Greenways must not be used as a substitute for essential infrastructure investment, particularly in road networks. Rural communities require balanced development that supports both tourism and everyday living and working conditions.

The INHFA remains open to constructive engagement on greenway development. However, this must be grounded in respect, fairness and genuine partnership. The continued use of CPOs risks undermining these principles and alienating the very communities whose support is essential. We urge all stakeholders to commit to a model that prioritises voluntary agreement, farmer participation and shared benefit, ensuring that greenways enhance rather than divide rural Ireland.

In relation to the code of practice that was drawn up for the regional and national greenways, the INHFA was not consulted at that stage on the document. Our policy has remained the same because we first saw the difficulties that CPOs would create in this process.

An Cathaoirleach

The opening statements have been circulated to members. As a good few members are asking to speak, we will have five minutes per member and try to get through as many contributions as we can as quickly as we can.

The greenways sound attractive and add to tourism for sure, but they can be disruptive, not only to farmers but also to those whose homes or gardens they pass.

I am very conscious as well that the CPO gets threatened very quickly very early in the day and the huge stress and of disruption that causes for farmers. I am living right beside the Beara-Breifne Way walking trail, as are many others here as this route extends up the country. The trail passes through so many different farms and no land purchase is involved. It is done with the walks scheme and it is going along on roadways as well. Clearly, there must be a better way of doing things than using the threat of CPOs when we see very successful examples like the Beara-Breifne Way walking trail. We have five minutes per member. I call Deputy Cleere.

Deputy Peter 'Chap' Cleere

I thank all our speakers. They were very comprehensive presentations. We appreciate that, and the timely fashion in which they reached us. It goes without saying that we acknowledge the role of family farms, their importance to rural Ireland and the contribution they make to rural Ireland and the country at large. It is important to acknowledge that point. Tourism infrastructure, however, also makes a valuable contribution to rural Ireland. Today is an important opportunity to listen to the witnesses' views and the implications that some of these greenways can have for rural Ireland, for farms and individuals, which they so delicately outlined.

The message I am getting loud and clear is that greenways must be developed in conjunction and consultation with landowners across the country. Down in my neck of the woods in County Kilkenny, we have a south-east greenway operating now. It is a spectacular 24 km off-road route but it is on an old public railway, so it is public land in public use. It is a fantastic off-road cycling and walking trail along the old railway line, and it is going to breathe life back into towns and villages along that route, including the likes of Slieverue and Glenmore, and connect all the towns and villages from Waterford to New Ross. We have plans to extend that greenway from New Ross right up to Woodstock Gardens in Inistioge. The one message I am getting loud and clear from the witnesses is that the consultation aspect has to be paramount. It is absolutely essential that anybody potentially affected needs to be consulted and consulted early. There is no denying the huge positive impacts these greenways can bring but it cannot be to the detriment of farm families and rural Ireland. That is very important.

I hear what the witnesses are saying loud and clear in terms of the sentiments of all speakers that it cannot and should not be compulsory. I get and accept that point. Once all the consultation has been gone through, there may be instances or circumstances where a workaround would have to be made. It is very important from a compensation perspective as well that proper measures are put in place. The first port of call, however, has to be dialogue and consultation, and only as a last resort should there be any CPOs. The Cathaoirleach mentioned that the CPO sometimes comes up very early. It should, however, only be as an absolute last resort that any CPO would even be mentioned and such a conversation would even happen. I think that point has been outlined and described very eloquently.

In terms of that engagement aspect, which all three groups have mentioned, I am not sure if there is a formal structure around that process or if consultation is where people’s doors are knocked on and then it is said there was consultation. I would like to get the views of the witnesses in relation to what engagement currently takes place, what it looks like and if a formal structure is in place. We might start with the IFA first and then go around the other witnesses.

Mr. Paul O'Brien

I thank the Deputy. He mentioned the potential Woodstock to New Ross greenway. A total of 1,200 letters were sent to landowners. There was not a name on any of them. It was like a postal drop to everybody. The reality is that only 55 people turned up at the first consultation meeting, and I think this is one of the problems. Yes, there is consultation but the reality is that it needs to be considerably better and more structured. It should not be seen as a box-ticking exercise by a county council. It should not be a case of it having done this, having ticked the box, and then deciding to move on.

I think there are lessons to be learned in all of this but the big problem is that there are 60 projects out there at the moment going through the process in some shape or form. It is a competitive undertaking. County councils are competing with each other to get to a position where they can get to the next stage, and then the gate opens up for more funding. A lot of these projects will, realistically, never be built and this situation is placing a lot of concern, stress, worry and anxiety on individual landowners and other people potentially impacted.

My plea here today is that we are opening a new strategy dialogue and code of practice review but it must take into account the reality that all of these big projects may never happen. The money needs to be focused on those projects that are deliverable and not on the ones that will never be achieved. As I said in my statement, there are 60 projects out there, and that amounts to a total cost of €6 billion, while TII only has an allocation of €60 million per year to deliver 30 km of greenway per year. There is a need to aim for what can be achieved and not to daydream and create stress, anxiety and worry for people who will never be impacted by a greenway. I think this is the biggest problem.

Deputy William Aird

We had a discussion on this topic before, and my views certainly have not changed. I do not think we should have CPOs in this context. It is very difficult when a person comes out to engage after letters are sent out without even an address on them. This will show us what is going on. If a person comes out to engage and in his back pocket he has a CPO, then that engagement is futile from day one, as far as I am concerned, because that CPO is what is in the back pocket.

It is not all farmers involved in CPOs. This is a very important aspect. I see all the CPOs in Dublin as well when there is talk about the new railway system taking people’s front gardens. This is very serious stuff. I just want to say on this particular matter, and I have reasons for saying it, that there is no place in the country where we do not already have natural walks. With a little bit of co-operation and forward thinking, which is what is needed, we can get a complete route for these walks. It cannot be done, however, through CPOs. We had CPOs set up for roads. When I was a young fella, CPOs were for roads. The ESB was always allowed in, and that company was always very good and worked together with farmers. It came in when the weather was dry or gave farmers the opportunity to cut crops or whatever. I think that is where this should remain.

We have some beautiful walks in County Laois, where I am from. We are very lucky because we have the Slieve Bloom bikeway as well, and there is investment in that. I compliment and thank Coillte publicly at this meeting. It has opened all its forests. We have three around the town of Portlaoise alone where people go daily or twice daily and walk through the woods. Coillte has put infrastructure into those forests and spent money on them.

With Bord na Móna, where we are in County Laois, we have the makings of a most beautiful greenway. I am calling it the O’More way until it is christened. It was the old line for bringing the peat across to Portlaoise. It is a man-made one and I am asking Bord na Móna to please give it over to Laois County Council as the lead agency on it. It is there, and there is no need for CPOs or to talk to anyone. People may have travelled the old main Cork road. This line goes under the road and down by Togher Wood, and, believe it or not, it goes under the road at Clonkeen, which is in a rural area and then, if we can imagine this, it goes under the Dublin-Cork railway line. It gets better, because it goes under the new motorway that was built, and then goes on under the old Limerick road. This route is man-made, and it is there. This O'More way is a greenway working at its very best, where the natural infrastructure is there already. The peat was all taken off and those involved all got their money out of it. As far as I am concerned, it is now time to give something back. We need forward thinking like that.

On the other hand, public money is going to be spent - some €50,000 was given - to look at the old railway line that ran from Mountmellick right down to Kilkenny. There is a problem there and I do know what is going to happen in this regard. All that land has gone back into farming. It is not like years ago, when we might all remember the gates where the old railway lines were, with people walking cows and driving tractors across them, when tractors came into force, and everything else. At that time, however, only one or two trains were passing every day. Those days are now gone.

To do anything like that now there would have to be underpasses for cattle and everything. Things have changed dramatically in that length of time. I would ask that we look at places where there is a natural line that can be used with the least impact for the people who are living on it and, if they are there, they be explored in each of the counties. I would like to hear how we can take the CPO out of the equation to make it more palatable for the people who are affected by it.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Aird is leaving very little time for answers.

Deputy William Aird

I know. That is the only question I had.

Mr. Pheilim Molloy

Honestly, I think there needs to be a complete review of the code of practice and that is the mechanism by which the provision for CPOs should be removed off the table. There have been various politicians at a high level who have highlighted the difficulties the provision of the CPO allows and a negotiating position, when-----

Deputy William Aird

Can I ask Mr. O'Brien what his take is on it?

Mr. Pheilim Molloy

Sorry, there is an important point-----

Deputy William Aird

I know it is important but I want to hear what Mr. O'Brien has to say as well.

Mr. Pheilim Molloy

Can I finish? It will only take a few seconds. The provision of a CPO does give a feeling to one side that it has power over the other in negotiations. That is something that needs to be removed because we do not want to end up in a situation where any landowner feels they are being pressurised because of the access to a compulsory purchase order by one side.

An Cathaoirleach

Certainly, the threat of the CPO power seems to come very much out of the back pocket on day one, if it is not day two. I am conscious-----

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Can I answer on the CPO very quickly? The CPO comes from a court case in 2021 in relation to the Kerry greenway, namely, Clifford and O'Connor v. An Bord Pleanála which said it was considered a road under the 1994 roads Act and upheld the local authority's right to use compulsory purchase orders. The code references it but the reality is that it comes from a court ruling from 2021, Clifford and O'Connor v. An Bord Pleanála, where a greenway is defined as a road and which was upheld, meaning local authorities can use it. That is where it has to be changed and is why we said in our opening remarks that it is the Oireachtas that needs to review that.

Deputy William Aird

Kerry County Council voted on it as well.

An Cathaoirleach

Locals in west Cork have raised with me about the railway line there and the concerns they have about the old one being used despite alternatives being made available on public land. The possibility of alternatives is important as well.

Deputy Michael Collins

I will go straight into it because I have a lot of questions. I come from land where walks are extremely important. We have the Sheep’s Head Way. James O’Mahony was hugely influential in putting that together. We also have the Beara-Breifne Way, which the Cathaoirleach spoke about a while ago. In each of those instances there was never a CPO. There was a bit of disagreement but they got around it. They were able to work around it. The CPO axe was never held over anybody's head. I asked the powers that be at a previous committee if they ever sit down and talk to these guys. I hate to say it but it looks like the pencil pushers are pushing this. It is driven from the top to take out the ordinary person on the ground. I will never agree where a CPO is put in place for an amenity and nobody should agree with that if they have any understanding. This has led to mental health issues, massive crises in families and farms being cut in two.

I have one simple question for the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association. Its representatives were supposed to be on the review group. Have they been asked to sit on that group?

Mr. Pheilim Molloy

To date we have had no communication whatsoever. It is something we have raised at an earlier stage. It is something that absolutely needs to be put in place so the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association is fully engaged in this because, from the very outset-----

Deputy Michael Collins

I appreciate that. My time is very tight. I appreciate that the association have not been invited. As we were told it would be invited at a different committee, that must be rectified in the future. How does the IFA intend to hold local councils accountable to comply with the greenway code of practice? Given the IFA's clear stance against the use of CPO for greenways, how does it plan to lobby Government to amend legislation so that compulsory purchase orders are no longer used for leisure amenities? I ask for a 30 second reply.

Mr. Paul O'Brien

We went into the negotiations on a code of best practice in view of what was happening in places like the Kerry greenway and the Galway to Athlone greenway where there was massive farmer opposition and concern. It is our job in the IFA to lobby people like the members present to highlight where there is a flaw in the system. The system is very clear. Legal powers are given by the Oireachtas to the courts in order to enact legislation, which allows the CPO process to happen. The IFA was looking for all of these greenways to be built on public lands. To be built on lands where there is no confusion and there is no title argument.

Deputy Michael Collins

I thank Mr. O'Brien. I was confused at the previous committee the IFA sat in on. Is Mr. O'Brien saying the IFA are 100% against any walkways going through with CPOs on individuals? Is the IFA only 50% or is it 100%? Is the IFA with the farmer or not, yes or no?

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Walkways are different from greenways, in all fairness. Walkways are-----

Deputy Michael Collins

Well, walkways or greenways-----

Mr. Paul O'Brien

There is a difference.

Deputy Michael Collins

-----if they are subject to a CPO

Mr. Paul O'Brien

If they are subject to a CPO, then they become a greenway. Walkways are like the Beara and like the Sheep's Head ones.

Deputy Michael Collins

Is the IFA 100% against them? Give me an answer, yes or no. Is the IFA 100% against them if they use compulsory purchase orders?

Mr. Paul O'Brien

We are against CPOs.

Deputy Michael Collins

Does that mean 100%?

Mr. Paul O'Brien

We are 100% against the CPO process for the delivering of greenways.

Deputy Michael Collins

I thank Mr. O'Brien. I will throw all the questions at the National Greenway Action Association, NGAA, and see if the representatives can squeeze a few answers out in the 1 minute and 39 seconds I have remaining.

Could Mr. Burke tell me how he is getting on in County Clare? Could Mr. Lyne tell me where they are at in County Kerry, because it is hugely important and we have had a lot of discussions on that? It has been a problem to get the money for CPO payments for landowners. I am looking at the greenways needed to get the Kerry greenways completed and there are landowners still waiting for payments. It has been alleged Cork County Council is purchasing two houses near the old railway tunnel on the Cork-Kinsale greenway route for over €1 million. If the NGAA states that landowners are looking for their CPO money and Cork County Council is buying houses, even though proper consultation has not been finalised yet, how does Mr. Lyne feel about that?

I know it is tight on time but in fairness to Ms O'Shea, she is very good at keeping us well aware of what is going on. Is the State genuinely exhausting public land first? What is the single biggest problem for landowners? Has a cost-based analysis of the land been taken into consideration?

Mr. Thomas Burke

I am currently in negotiations with Clare County Council. It is seven years since I was first approached about a greenway. One thing I said from day one was they are going absolutely nowhere without the goodwill of the people who own the land. Without that they have absolutely nothing, CPO or no CPO. We have had good communication with the council since. We are now in the process of getting the final drawings and letters out. There are 70 landowners and homeowners between Kilrush and Kilkee and, to date, there are 67 agreements. That is how far it has processed through the code of practice.

Mr. Morgan Lyne

Regarding the south Kerry greenway, we were issued with the CPO in 2022. Construction started in 2023. There are 138 landowners. Recently, it came out from Kerry County Council that 16 do not have any claims in. There are 122 with claims in. Of those, 54 have agreed. Of those 54 only 34 have been paid. Regarding the houses that are being purchased in Cork, that is alarming because the council and TII are moving on to a new greenway when they are not even dealing properly with the landowners in south Kerry. It is taking two houses out of circulation, given the housing problems we have at the moment, and Cork County Council has paid in excess of €1.1 million for the two houses at Goggins Hill.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I welcome all the witnesses here today. My first question is for the IFA. I have just read a press release that was issued this afternoon when we were already at the meeting. It was issued at 3.54 p.m. I will come back to that in a minute. I want to draw attention to the code of best practice for national and regional greenways, which was published in December 2021. Its life will extend to December 2026, which is when it will end. I also draw attention to the code of practice with particular reference to the sustainability payments scheme. Peppered throughout these documents is reference to compulsory purchase orders.

In the code of best practice for the compensation schemes, which I have in front of me, we have the signatures of the following people: Pat McCormack, the then president of the ICMSA; Dermot Kelleher, the then president of the ICSA; Tim Cullinan, the then president of the IFA; Peter Walsh, the then chief executive of TII and Eamon Ryan, the then Minister for Transport. They referred to the schedule of payments and the sustainable payments. However, also mentioned all over this document is the CPO. There can under no misunderstanding that the IFA supports the CPO process. Tim Cullinan put his signature to this document and was fully aware of it. I am getting mixed messages. This meeting started at 3.30 p.m. but at 3.54 p.m. a press release was issued by the IFA that referred to the CPOs and stated that this was a no-go for the IFA. This is not consistent with the document I am quoting here, so there is a lot of confusion. The IFA does not have the time today to clarify that so I would appreciate its representatives coming back at another time. Key to this is an inconsistency of messaging, a change in heart and a change of way. That is what I am picking up from it and the public are picking it up. The people who have contacted me knowing this meeting was on have asked me to ask the question.

I want to park that there for a moment and engaged with Ms O'Shea. She nailed her presentation. It was exceptionally good. What can I take away from that in the few minutes? It is important that we capture what we are saying in a public forum as documented on Oireachtas TV and in the minutes of these proceedings. My takeaway from Ms O'Shea and the hill farm workers as well is that compulsory purchase should not be used for recreational greenways across private or family farmlands. It requires that public land first be audited before private land is identified as a preferred option or route; that the Department of Agriculture be involved where active farmland, livestock systems, drainage, food production and biodiversity are affected or potentially impacted; an independent, whole-of-farm impact assessment before route selection; and then of course compensation to address whole holding loss, severance, injurious affliction, accommodation works, professional fees and future development of loss. That is my takeaway. I can only say what I can take away from it and the motivation Ms O'Shea has shared with us.

I would like a commitment from the IFA that it will clarify what the intention was when it signed this document in 2021. The association knows it runs out in December 2026. It will have an opportunity to revisit the document and might be able to tell the committee about any regrets it has or whether there were misunderstandings. Does the IFA understand the perception people have about its role in this?

Mr. Paul O'Brien

I refer the Senator back to the High Court judicial review that took place in October that year, which gave powers to county councils to use CPO processes. The code of best practice took about two years to agree. When the IFA entered into negotiations, it was on a voluntary, land-acquisition basis. This enabled a project to negotiate with, and persuade a landowner that if they wished to be a part of the project, they could be. The reality is that the State has all of the ability. When the IFA goes into any negotiation, whether is it with the ESB, Irish Water, Gas Networks Ireland, it does not have the ability to change the law. It is up to the Oireachtas to change laws. We have to focus on the fact that the sword of Damocles is always hanging over a landowners' shoulders if they do not sign up to a voluntary land agreement. There is an opportunity here for the committee to bring changes to the CPO process, to look on this honestly and sincerely and take on board the concerns that landowners in the countryside have. At the moment, thousands of landowners are looking at potential greenway developments going on that may never happen.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Sorry, I am just conscious of time. Does Mr. O'Brien accept that, in principle, in certain circumstances the IFA supported CPOs of private farmland, as set out in the document I have just referred to?

Mr. Paul O'Brien

If the Senator looks at that document, he will see very clearly under the heading of "Constraints Study" it states, "Map State-owned land and stopping points." State-owned land should always be the go-to.

Senator Victor Boyhan

It should be part of the suite of measures.

Mr. Paul O'Brien

It should be the go-to mechanism.

Senator Victor Boyhan

It should be part of the suite of measures that the IFA stood over and he has changed track.

Mr. Paul O'Brien

I disagree on that.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Let us disagree but that is my view.

An Cathaoirleach

We are over time.

Mr. Paul O'Brien

I will go back to my previous point.

An Cathaoirleach

If Mr. O'Brien wishes, he can write to the committee if he has further points he wants to raise.

Senator Victor Boyhan

That would be helpful.

Deputy Martin Kenny

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. It is clear that the issue is not that farmers do not want recreation happening in their communities. They all understand that. However, it has to be done with agreement and with consensus being built, not just consultation and a box being ticked saying people have been talked to but not actually anything being agreed with them. That is the problem we have. CPOs are probably one of the big issues in this because it does put a strong arm of the State over the weak landowner, in a sense, in that the landowner may think that if they do not agree to it, the State will compulsorily purchase the land anyway. That is what is in the back of people's heads. It puts big pressure on and that is what we need to deal with as a primary issue.

Mr. O'Brien mentioned the court case. I looked that up earlier and I saw there was an issue in regard to it seeming to come from the fact that it is termed a "roadway". If it were not termed a "roadway", the CPO would not come into effect in the same way. That is the legal issue we need to deal with. In fairness, the presentation identified that it is not a hospital, critical infrastructure or a road. It cannot be travelled on with motorised vehicles. It is for recreational use only and therefore, that is one of the issues we need to deal with in the committee. We need to ensure that if recommendations for a legal change to be made, it has to be that a greenway or a walkway is not a roadway and it has to remove the threat of compulsory purchase. Clearly, that is one of the things we need to do.

The other issue I want to raise was mentioned in the IFA document. It states that it would cost €6 billion to build the applications that are there already. Many years ago I read a book that was recommended to me about consultations and consultancy companies and the role of the consultancy industry in drawing down public funds. Very often they have to be employed by community project groups to put together a package to apply for money from the State, and it is funded to do that. Sometimes, it is one arm of the State looking for money from another. The name of the book was The Con Job. It would be a useful book for everybody interested in how public funds are distributed in the State to read. Ultimately, an industry has been built up, where we have consultancy firms which are doing a job for Kilkenny County Council and a job for Carlow County Council and a job for Limerick County Council and all the different councils and they know they are all competing with each other and they are all getting paid for doing them all and they know only a fraction of the projects are ever going to happen. The amount the State is paying to consultancy firms to do these reports, which are black holes, is scandalous. It was mentioned that at the moment 60 greenway projects are going through. At this stage, for many of them, probably €1 million has been spent already. For some of them it may be three or four times that and they have not even got to a stage where they know they are going to go ahead. The primary thing from the point of view of a new set of guidelines is that there should only be money spent in bringing a project forward when there is at least 99% agreement that people have the way-leave to do so. What we have at the moment is vast amounts of public money being spent on consultancy firms to put together packages for projects they know are going nowhere and to compete with another package that they have done for the other county next door or the one up the road and know that they are all in this mess we have created. That is one of the big issues we really need to deal with.

Finally I have a question, after getting all that off my chest but The Con Job would be a good book for everyone to read. What is the witnesses' sense of the view of the ordinary person out there? Are people disheartened? I have met people in communities in my own area and Mr. O'Brien was at a meeting up my way on this issue before. An awful lot of communities out there feel huge pressure. How can we ensure that they can channel that pressure into an energy which can, somehow or other, come to a conclusion where, when appropriate, they can work it and when it is not, that they can have the determination and gumption to be able to stand up against it?

Mr. Pheilim Molloy

I will make a few brief points and will not delay. On the point Deputy Kenny made about expenditure on these projects, at an early stage we called for a cost-benefit analysis to be carried out as a precursor to any work being done on any of these proposed greenways. Quite clearly, while a number of greenways have been held up as being very beneficial, there has been very little research done on their actual usage. I have heard of a figure in the region of €2 million per kilometre in respect of the development. It is something that needs to be seriously looked at as a precursor to any project progressing.

On the issue of CPOs-----

An Cathaoirleach

Very briefly, please.

Mr. Pheilim Molloy

The definition of critical infrastructure is where the kernel of this will lie. Our interpretation is that it refers to roads and power lines. This is clearly recreational infrastructure, which needs to separated out, looking at it from any legal perspective.

Mr. Paul O'Brien

We will go back to the headline figures. We believe there are 60 projects at some stage of development or consultation in the country. Many county councils have got many individual projects happening. If you total all of those, it is over 3,000 km. Using the figures Mr. Lorcan O'Connor from Transport Infrastructure Ireland provided in November to a key joint Oireachtas committee, he said they are €2 million per kilometre. The boys in Kerry will tell us their greenway is going to be a hell of a lot more. There is €6 billion worth of projects, potentially, in today's money, out there, with a budget of-----

Deputy Martin Kenny

Of 1% of that.

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Exactly. We are either looking at 100 years of potential greenway developments, or we should be highlighting the projects that have the potential to be achieved and to get over the line. Maybe that is the best use of public money. The best we can do with what is there is to actually use more public lands to do that, where there is less confusion. There is still always a need for consultation but the State is able to deliver it much more efficiently using the scarce resources available.

Deputy Natasha Newsome Drennan

Ms O'Shea spoke about the stress that it causes. When the motorway came through lands at home, that led to somebody on the farm having a heart attack because of the stress, so I absolutely understand it. That was for a motorway, not for recreation. We are talking about recreation for other people's use causing stress and heart attacks.

On the figures Mr. O'Brien gave us, let us look at Waterford greenway. If it was not all on public land, we would be looking at 46 km times two, or €92 million, so even in respect of that project, just over half of the money would have been there for one year. Again it is a waste and a lack of accountability when it comes to money and public funding. Can there not be some joined-up thinking? If there are 60 projects on the go, it is not going to happen. We do not need to be any kind of mathematical geniuses to figure out that it is not going to happen. A child could probably say that this public land, we can work away with that, and let us crack on with that first. Maybe we could then take a couple of projects at a time. It is crazy what money is being blown.

Mr. Lyne talked about the two houses being compulsorily purchased in Cork. There is a housing crisis. They are building this greenway for recreational purposes when we have people living on the streets and in hotels. There are kids studying for their leaving certificate and junior certificate in a bathroom in a hotel. For the county council to take away two houses is absolutely crazy.

Mr. Morgan Lyne

That is actually on the Cork to Kinsale greenway, in Ballinhassig. What is alarming about that is that it is still only at public consultation stage. They have not even agreed a route there, yet they are buying two houses so they will not have to compulsorily purchase them when they go ahead with the route. A lot of the public consultation is only a box-ticking exercise because the routes have been chosen by the councils, although it is not disclosed to the public.

Deputy Natasha Newsome Drennan

It is absolutely crazy. On the code of practice, what can we do right now? I cannot cycle to work on the greenway. I cannot drive to work on the greenway. I cannot get my kids to school on a greenway. I cannot go to hospital on a greenway. It is not a roadway; it is purely for leisure. What can we do? Is it just that piece on the road or is there anything else that needs to be done on it?

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

It really lies with the planned strategic review, where we need to look at the projects that are under way. There needs to be a review of what makes the most value for money here, where the public land is, and what places they have identified. There needs to be a focus on not causing distress to communities when the project is not going to be realised. There must be a plan in place so we have a five-year plan, we know what the budget is and what we are going to do within that timeframe. That evolves and changes as local authorities can come and then make a case for the next one. It is at a strategic level that we need to stop with all the county councils and everyone wanting a greenway in all these locations. We also need to look at it from a governmental, strategic perspective in relation to tourism and where we are. We need to identify which projects make the most sense for multiple reasons, from a Government perspective, and then focus on them. It is on public land that we get the most value for our money. We should deal with those and then evolve it.

What we have is a free-for-all at the moment. There is no one controlling it and it is causing massive distress. The Deputy referred to 1% of the funding. These projects may never be realised yet there are people worried about it at this time. The strategic review is key and I would like it to form part of the review of where we are at the moment, the status of the projects and trying to whittle them down.

Deputy Natasha Newsome Drennan

Our guests were saying that the south-east greenway, the Ferrybank one, would be a success. The majority of it was public land and so on but there is huge antisocial behaviour in Ferrybank. There are stones being thrown over from the greenways and fires being lit on them. There are some older people in those houses. That is public land. They have not been consulted. Just because it is private land, they think they can do what they like as well. That is another issue.

Senator Joanne Collins

I thank all our guests for being here. It is very interesting. I live in County Limerick so we have a greenway. It was put on the old Limerick to Tralee rail line. I am just thinking about the amount of rail lines we have around the country, considering not that many routes are active. Would it not be a good idea just to use existing disused rail lines? It would stop the issue of having to go through private land. It also baffles me that they are considering a greenway to be a road. I actually did not know that until today, so the witnesses have educated me. It is absolute madness to say it is a road. A road is something you can drive on; you cannot drive on a greenway.

On the CPOs, I know how stressful it is. I have been dealing with families in Newcastle West in respect of the bypass that never seems to arrive. They have been under CPO since before 2023 and they are there with houses, under CPO, in respect of a bypass that might never get funded. They cannot sell their houses. They are stuck in limbo. I can see how, for somebody who has a farm and land, being put under a CPO without everything being in place for these greenways to go ahead can be just as stressful.

It is the exact same. I do not agree with the CPO side of it. I think it is very unfair. However, at the moment the CPO is going to take time to change, if we can change it. Do we know if they are looking at future losses for these landowners or are they just given the value of the piece of land the owners are forced to give? Are there future losses? Are they taking into account what the land is being used for and the future generations down the line? Fair is fair. If the State is going to compulsorily purchase somebody's land they need to be properly compensated for it over and above compensation. Again, I do not believe in the CPO system because I think it is absolute madness to pump that kind of money into greenways, especially if the State is taking somebody's land and somebody's livelihood. It is absolute madness. There are so many other things that we need to be pumping money into. Again, it is taxpayers' money being put into something that is not necessarily for a greater good. It is not necessarily going to be used by everybody and not everybody is going to live near a greenway that they can use. I live near a greenway and I put my hand up that I have only been on it twice. I do not have time. I know that the local schools use it but it is strategically placed in order that some of the local schools can use it. Some of these greenways are out in the middle of nowhere where they are going to be very rarely used. It might look nice on paper with the active travel and all that but the greater good has to come into play at some point. What are the witnesses' thoughts?

Ms Cleona O'Shea

As regards the old rail lines, the majority of them are now back in private ownership. I am on the Mallow-Dungarvan line and we actually bought it in 1983. As regards the future payments, Mr. Lyne was issued with a CPO in 2022 and the greenway was opened on his farm and many of those farmers have not been paid yet. They are not even paying past payments-----

Senator Joanne Collins

That is ridiculous.

Ms Cleona O'Shea

-----never mind future payments. Nobody knows how much they are going to get. There is nothing. With regard to the consultation, Transport Infrastructure Ireland's own documents state that they should establish ownership and permissions before they ever draw a line on a map. This is in their own document, the DN-GEO - 03047 document. All of their documents, between the code and the order on greenway documents, every single one of them is contradictory. They are following nothing. We do not matter. We are just in the way. They do not care.

Senator Joanne Collins

That is mad.

Mr. Seamus Cosgrove

The CPOs are definitely causing an awful lot of stress to people. With regard to the use of the greenways, there are a lot of walkways that could be developed that would suit rural communities a lot better. It was alluded to earlier. I come from an area where there are four roads through a Bord na Móna bog that were cut away. We are in the process as a local community group-----

Senator Joanne Collins

To bring them back.

Mr. Seamus Cosgrove

-----to take that on board and to develop it into a nature trail and a walkway. The cost is about-----

Senator Joanne Collins

A fraction probably.

Mr. Seamus Cosgrove

It is actually about €50,000 for over 12 km. It is there and just basically needs to be set up to get the paperwork through. There needs to be a whole revamp and rethink about these pet projects going on all over the country with the councils.

Senator Joanne Collins

When these plans are put in place and the State gets to a point where it realises they are not cost effective do they need to sit down, examine it and say "Do you know what, we were wrong and we are not going to do any more of these?" I feel it is not going to do that and it is just going to keep ploughing on and wasting public money on something that is not working. It is not working for landowners.

Mr. Seamus Cosgrove

The local communities know-----

An Cathaoirleach

Briefly, as we need to get Mr. O'Brien in.

Mr. Seamus Cosgrove

-----where a lot of these walkways can be developed and they are not getting to look in at it.

Mr. Paul O'Brien

The Senator touched on whether there is compensation. There is. It is about the title, injurious affection, severance and all of these matters. Most of the farmers I talk to are not interested in the compensation. All they really want is the peace of mind. They do not want an old train line that was there maybe 100 years ago opened up and the threat behind them or on their lands of antisocial behaviour, as previous Deputies have said.

Senator Joanne Collins

Yes, and not knowing if somebody is going on.

Mr. Paul O'Brien

There is also uncertainty regarding maintenance grants going forward, even with some of the greenways that are in existence at the moment. There is always a concern about whether county councils are picking up the litter or if there is antisocial behaviour. All of these matters, including the security aspect, are the big concerns. Really, compensation for farmers is the last thing they want. They just do not want the stress and the worry of a greenway.

Senator Eileen Lynch

I thank the three groups for being with us today and for providing their insights in their presentations. I am very much against the use of CPOs when it comes to recreational facilities such as greenways. I accept that there are a lot of cases such as roads, critical infrastructure and wayleaves for gas lines where CPOs may be necessary but I am strongly against the use of CPOs for recreational facilities.

I met with two farmers on Monday in Waterfall in County Cork, which would be on the proposed Cork-Kinsale greenway. What is happening to them is absolutely devastating. These are two fully functioning dairy farms. They had purchased the railway back in 1969 and a greenway would fully split their farm. The damage it is going to do to their business in terms of whether it will remain viable is absolutely staggering. The witnesses mentioned it briefly but are there any further insights they would like to provide in the context of future farming and generational renewal? I have met with several of the witnesses in this committee and other committees prior to this when we were speaking about generational renewal in a different context. We consistently talk about generational renewal and food security, but there are cases right across the country at the moment where we are threatening generational renewal for the sake of an amenity, on which there is a gross overspend and no guarantee that a lot of these projects will be finished. From what I can see with existing greenways there is very little to no funding available for continued maintenance and there is absolutely no policing. There is no plan for antisocial behaviour. There is no strategy for the way in which this can be dealt with. The way in which these projects are ruining farms is absolutely appalling.

One of the farmers I met on Monday had four young kids, with three of them up the yard working away giving a hand on the farm. If this greenway goes through, farming may not be a viable future for any of those kids if they decide to go into farming.

It has been mentioned briefly in some of the witness submissions but I would like to hear more about the risks to biosecurity and the transfer of disease - TB or cryptococcus - risks that are brought in by running these greenways through active farming land. These are all things that we focus on. It seems absolutely insane to me that when it comes to enforcing CPOs over active farming land, all of these things that we consider so important in other contexts are being completely and absolutely disregarded. I would like the witnesses' opinions on those two points.

In relation to the Clifford and Anor case with An Bord Pleanála, my understanding is that this gives the definition of roadway to include a greenway. This is a court case that to the best of my knowledge did not actually amend the Roads Act but actually involves the way a provision of the Roads Act was interpreted. From the witnesses' opinion and from the legal opinions they have, does the legislation need to be changed? Again, the legislation does not include greenways. It is a court decision that has led to the inclusion of greenways in the definition of roadways. Are the witnesses aware of any other judicial review cases that are currently live? I appreciate they cannot be spoken about but perhaps the witnesses could just mention whether they are aware if any are live. A court precedent is only good until it is overturned.

Mr. Paul O'Brien

I will touch on the concerns, the generational renewal and the hold that these projects have on farm families. Let us be honest, when you are in the study area for any project, it could be it roads but particularly for the folks on greenways, the reality is that your life is stopped. Any future development on the farm has a consideration going forward. When the farmer is considering whether to do something, he or she must think about what will happen if the greenway goes through that land. Senator Lynch said she has been to farms in Cork. I have been on many farms in Cork over the last couple of months and into last summer where we could see where the old line was but now it is the walk-in passage or the central driveway for the farm and for cows to go to the parlour. That is a big concern.

The Senator also touched on TB and I am sure the committee knows all the problems we are having with TB and animal health issues at the moment. There is a correlation with disturbance and potential for animal diseases as a result. That is something we are very conscious of.

I will let Ms O'Sullivan talk about the judicial cases but I am not aware of any.

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

The Senator is totally correct that it clarified as a ruling that greenways could be defined as a road. It has not changed anything, it is just a legal clarification. I am not aware of any cases. We have not heard of anything, so that is it.

Senator Paul Daly

I thank the witnesses for being here. We are preaching to the converted. I am keeping my powder dry somewhat until our next deliberations on this with officialdom, councils and TII, as that is where the questions need to be asked. I am on record as saying land of ours was compulsorily purchased for the M6 between Kinnegad and Kilbeggan in 2008. I have no medical proof but I would be convinced it put my father in an early grave. A CPO is an evil action. There are a couple of things that need to be clarified here, Chair, and it through no fault of anybody here there has been a lot of media stuff in the last couple of weeks talking about urban-rural divides. If your property is compulsorily purchased for a bus lane, greenway, motorway or road it does not make any difference whether you are rural or urban. It does not make any difference to you whether it is necessary infrastructure or a recreational amenity. It is an evil act for anybody. The first time I heard the phrase "a court held in hell with the devil as a judge" was at a public meeting about CPOs, arbitration and settlements. It has to be avoided wherever possible, but obviously there are situations where it cannot be.

To play devil's advocate, how would the witnesses see a case resolved where there are three landowners who are agreeable - they might have glamping or be thinking about a coffee shop - but a fourth is not? In that hypothetical scenario, what would their solution be? I will give them more time, maybe, than they got from Senator Lynch to go back to that court ruling. I somewhat think our hands are tied by that ruling, even as legislators. We have a separation of powers. I am a farmer not a legal expert, but a court has made a ruling a greenway is a road. The witnesses have done research on that and I am going to do more after today's deliberations, but I strongly think our hands may be tied here. You do not overrule court rulings too easily and it was the opinion of this particular court that a greenway is a road and you can compulsorily purchase land for a road. I will throw those questions out to the witnesses, but as I said I will keeping my powder dry and the next day is the day I might cut loose.

Ms Cleona O'Shea

I do not know anything about legal stuff so maybe Mr. O'Brien can take it.

An Cathaoirleach

Aon duine?

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

I am the same as Ms O'Shea. I am not a legal expert. The crux of the matter is that case in 2021 that defined it and upheld the local authorities' power to use CPOs.

Senator Paul Daly

On the grounds that a greenway is a roadway.

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Exactly. Under the Road Traffic Act 1994 the greenway is considered a road.

Senator Paul Daly

I think under the separation of powers we would find it very difficult to overrule. I do not know though. I need to go and do my own work on that.

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

I do not know either but this is where the CPO comes in. Having talked to people who are involved, it is very difficult when you are entering into consultation - it was the first thing that was mentioned here as we started our conversation - and the CPO is brought out very early on. Is that genuine consultation? Is that genuine negotiation? Is that genuinely looking at alternatives? It is causing a lot of issues with development that rather than trying to minimise the impact on farmers the various bodies are saying they have the CPO. There are opportunities. We were talking before we came in here about moving it, and looking at different routes to try to minimise the impact on the farm business. In many instances this is not being considered because the CPO is there.

Senator Paul Daly

The other thing I meant to mention is maintenance, going forward. That motorway I talked about was opened in 2008 and 18 years later we have rotten post and rail fences where we had stock-proof hedges or whatever and there is no sign of the road builder, the NRA - as it was at the time - or the council. It is my problem.

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Yes, and that is something that needs to be looked at.

Senator Paul Daly

It is a lifelong issue.

Ms Cleona O'Shea

It is the same down in south Kerry. The route has only just been built and you can wobble the stakes already. It is just not good enough.

Mr. Pheilim Molloy

On the court case, I mentioned earlier the interpretation of the law on critical infrastructure. Do we have a legal definition of "critical infrastructure" on the Statute Book? That is something that needs to be checked out because quite clearly the intention at the beginning was just the types of infrastructure that were critical to communities, whereas the greenways and so on had always been classed as recreational. There is a distinction there and perhaps that is something the committee could get a legal interpretation of.

Senator Paul Daly

A court has deemed a greenway a road and a road is critical infrastructure. That is where I see the problem.

Mr. Pheilim Molloy

There are different interpretations so it would be important to get that clarification.

Senator Paraic Brady

I thank all the witnesses for coming in. Have any of them every heard of a thing called permissive access? I was involved in a project in my local village of Drumlish, near Ballinamuck. We dealt with 72 farmers and had not one argument. We had possibly 11 public meetings, heavy engagement with our local authority and a plan was put in place that we met any farmer who had a concern on the ground at his farm. We explained to him what was going on, where we were going and what we intended to do. If he said "No", we found an alternative plan. We did not go into CPOs or any of that. We completed 15 km from Mulleady’s factory outside the village of Drumlish to Ballinamuck. It links two schools and a football field in the middle. Deputy Martin Kenny or some of those boys would know it locally. We engaged with every farmer. The biggest hold-up we had was when we had to do archaeological studies for birds and bees and whatever else. We put up permanent fences that will not rot. They were post and rail, concrete and chain link. We put in hedges. We obliged the farmers in whatever way we could and we engaged with them.

There is a bridle path project down there at the minute that I am heavily involved in. We are looking at a 34 km path with permissive access obtained already in north Longford. We have concerns but we have not had an outright "No" because we engage with people and it is all about the engagement. Where there were old rights of way and pathways we used those and where there were not we came out to the edge of the road, used the ditch and the gripe, piped the gripe and the fence went up on the inside so the landowner was losing nearly no ground but you still had 6 m if you look at any of the ditches’ and hedges’ boundaries. It is all about how you treat people. The root of the CPO should be long and long gone. There are lessons to be learned from the CPOs. It is about having the right people. The regeneration team in Longford were absolutely fabulous because they sent out their engineers, they had a plan and they went through stuff. If a farmer said they did not want the pathway going anywhere close to where the livestock were it was a "No" and we moved around it and went somewhere else.

It meandered and it went wherever but we engaged with farmers. When you engage with farmers, you will get better results. That project of 12 km or 14 km was completed for less than €1 million. That was out through a bog. That is infrastructure. It is there for anyone to see. It is maintained by Longford County Council, the Tidy Towns and so on. I am baffled by two houses being knocked in Cork. Some councils work very differently from others. I am baffled to see that there are farmers up in anger over it. I can understand in that if someone told me they were going to put a walkway through the middle of my land, it would put the hair up on the back of my neck and I would say "No". It is all about engagement and how you treat people. How you talk to people is very important. When you hire a consultant, he will draw up lines and do whatever he wants to and it does not really matter. Go back to the core, as Mr. Cosgrove said-----

An Cathaoirleach

Mr. Lyne is mad keen to answer.

Senator Paraic Brady

Go back to the core, as Mr. Cosgrave said, go back to your communities and use the infrastructure that is there, as was said, because that is the only way it will ever work in any of the counties. I will let the witnesses in now.

An Cathaoirleach

I will call Mr. Lyne first.

Mr. Morgan Lyne

There was a feasibility study done for the south Kerry greenway in 2011 by the South Kerry Development Partnership. It was to be built by permissive access because the Mayo greenway was open at the time. A group of us went up to Mayo and saw the Mayo greenway and were quite happy to go the permissive access route. It was South Kerry Development Partnership which was driving that project at the time. There was great buy-in by all the landowners but in 2014, Kerry County Council took it over and it said it was going for a CPO straight away. That is where the problem started. The vote was taken in 2015. I spoke to councillors that morning. I spoke to Deputies Danny Healy-Rae and Michael Cahill. I wanted further engagement because if there had been further engagement at that stage, the greenway would have been built far sooner at a lot less cost. The Mayo greenway was built for €135,000 per kilometre. The south Kerry greenway has gone to €2.6 million per kilometre, so you can see the difference there straight away. Mayo was good value for money but at €2.6 million, I do not think anyone in this room or the country could say the south Kerry greenway is good value for money.

An Cathaoirleach

I call Ms O’Shea and Mr. O'Brien. I need to move on to Deputy Cahill.

Ms Cleona O'Shea

Connemara was supposedly permissive access. They all agreed to permissive access. TII got involved and it CPO'd them. On the extension of the Great Western at Achill, part of that extension has been done by permissive access. For the second stage, it is CPOing them. They understood it would be permissive access, so this is totally underhand. They agreed, let it in to do its surveys and the minute planning permission had been granted, it CPO's them. That is why there is no way we will not let anyone on our land.

Mr. Paul O'Brien

It goes back to the point that an ounce of negotiation is better than a tonne of litigation. That is the bones of this. You can deliver permissive access routes, and many of them are successfully run throughout the country, but the definition of this greenway and TII want to acquire this on behalf of the State and that is where our problem lies.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. O’Brien. I need to move on to Deputy Cahill.

Deputy Michael Cahill

I too welcome all our guests this afternoon, especially the men from south Kerry. I live in Glenbeigh, which is where the south Kerry greenway commences. I am slightly different from everyone else in this room this afternoon, in that I was one of the councillors who voted for the CPO at the time. In fact, the majority of members of Kerry County Council voted for us to progress with the CPO at the time. Similar to people here - and, indeed, at home - I would be against CPO as a rule but in some cases it is a last resort. It became abundantly clear to us – there had been a number of meetings, a feasibility study carried out by South Kerry Development Partnership, interaction with landowners, etc. – that we were not going to get agreement. It is one thing for two or three of us to try to reach agreement but it is different when you are talking about 140.

I am still dealing with landowners. Thankfully, we are still sorting landowners and I get great satisfaction when they are sorted. I might describe the greenway in terms of the two flags behind the Chairman and a straight line between them. I guarantee that if we were to agree with every single landowner, we would be up and down, back and forth and zig-zagging and what would have been 30 km would become 130 km as fast as lightning. I respect democracy, obviously, and the idea of people coming here today as well as the members, stating they are against CPOs in the context of amenities and greenways. I have no issue with that but we made the decision at the time in the best interest of the people.

Our greenway will be absolutely magnificent. It will go through three tunnels over the viaduct at Kells, in over the old metal bridge into Cahersiveen. Some, including myself, say it will probably be the best one in Europe when completed. There are two sections already completed and open. The third section will be open some time in June.

I do not want to fight with any landowners. I said at a number of meetings of Kerry County Council - it is on the record - to give the landowners whatever they wanted. It sounded a bit careless in the context of the costs, and the costs have gone up. It was projected it would cost €20 million at one time; it is €72 million today and will probably be even more. I have no problem with that type of investment coming in to south Kerry.

Take Cahersiveen and Iveragh, Cahersiveen town has been on its knees with forced emigration, closed businesses and dereliction. It is on the Ring of Kerry. You would hardly believe it because the condition of the road there beggars belief. I have been hammering that issue in the Dáil Chamber with the Minister, etc. This area needs investment and our options are limited. We are not going to get a big company or big factory into Cahersiveen or Iveragh. Tourism and agriculture are the predominant businesses there. I see this as a wonderful opportunity for our people.

Two different consortiums have been on to me about building hotels in Glenbeigh and I know another consortium was inquiring about a hotel in Cahersiveen. These are they types of opportunities arising in an area that is deprived of good quality jobs. They will also bring people who were forced to emigrate home.

I wish it was on public lands. It was the old railway line. To be crystal clear, at the time we voted on the CPO, we were told the bit of give and take was 3 m either side of the railway line. Some landowners bought their section and for others, it had been given back to them. It is a pity is was not public lands. I would love if it was public lands but I have to look at the bigger picture too. I would do my people a great injustice if I did not support the development of the south Kerry greenway. It is our only opportunity.

I know I have gone off the point about the CPOs but I would agree with the members here. In an ideal world, and we are not in a perfect world by any means, I would much prefer if there were no CPOs. I want to see the landowner do best out of this. We would have no greenways only for the landowners.

We see already the benefits of the greenway in south Kerry; the sections that are opening, the crowds that are doing it and so on.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Cahill-----

Deputy Michael Cahill

I have one last point. I was contacted a number of years ago during the time of Covid. A councillor in Mayo contacted me to tell me that one of the lads involved in the Mayo greenway was coming to Kerry for two reasons. One reason was to have a staycation and the other reason was to see this greenway that all of the noise was about. I said I would be interested in what that man had to say when he was down. He did not walk all of the greenway; he drove all of it but walked certain sections of it. Going back to the point that this will not just be the best greenway in Ireland but in Europe, his comment was that they in County Mayo should be praying to God it never sees the light of day. I hope we can get it over the line.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Cahill-----

Deputy Michael Cahill

I am disappointed-----

An Cathaoirleach

The final speaker-----

Deputy Michael Cahill

-----that some landowners have not been paid yet. I am disappointed at the slowness of the engagement. We want people to be satisfied. The work is of a high quality as well and that should be acknowledged, to be fair, as it should be.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I am glad to get the opportunity to speak while not being a member of the committee. I welcome all of the people here and I thank all of the members for their engagement.

I was brought up to respect property. If people owned a farm or a house it is theirs and it should be theirs to do what they want to do with it. In that same vein, when the vote was put before me in Kerry County Council back in 2014, I voted against the CPO process because I had learned from my father what it actually meant. At all times in his previous political life he tried to deal with landowners and he went out behind the council's back to do so to ensure the CPO process was never needed. He dealt with farmers himself and brought out the manager. That was the way it was done at that time and that is the way I would have liked for this to happen. At one stage there were only six or seven landowners who were against allowing the council in. We had a couple of great men down there engaging with the landowners but they were reined back in, because of the idea of the CPO process and that the local authority and TII would have more authority. It was way less work in that they did not have to interact with the landowners.

It is sad today when you see what has happened and that people's land had been intruded on. The walkway has been made. Landowners do not know what they are going to get. They did not know until this started that there was no line only where it exactly suited for the work to go and the landowner could not ask anyone from exactly where to where the work would be. It was not that was the width of it but it could be above or below that. To me that was not the way it should have been and people been dealt with.

I worry about the long term. I, as much as anyone else who is elected up here, wanted this for Cahersiveen, south Kerry, Glenbeigh and the roads and different places. I want the best for all of those people. I know the pressure businesses are under, day after day, and all the hoops they have to go through. I worry, however, that there will be a sour taste in many landowners' mouths or minds after this because of the way this has happened. It could have been so different. I think of a poor man who had one field, a couple of acres, for silage. He asked if the greenway could be put the top or the bottom of the field but they went straight through the middle of it. That man is dead today and I am sorry he had to die knowing that was going to happen to the little bit of a field he had. Those things are wrong.

Accommodation works. Every one of us knows inside here if you had the field to do what you wanted to graze the cattle, the sheep or to cut the silage, that the line going through it will make a massive difference altogether to the owners' lives. I welcome everyone who can come to south Kerry, whatever way they will come, but you must think of the people who own the places in the first place and to think that many of them are seeing people walking through their land, they have not been paid, and I worry for the mental health of some of those people and what they are going through.

The CPO process should have been a last resort. When Johnny and I voted against it we thought there would be six or seven CPOs. Then the next thing we realised was there were CPOs for the whole lot of them. There was no need for that in the first place. These CPOs went to six or seven and maybe they would come around. Without question, I hope the people along the greenway and the tourists who visit will appreciate it but this is not the way to ever do this again. There is land that has not gone into the south Kerry greenway yet.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Deputy. We have gone-----

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I am asking that they do it differently with these. They should go in and tell the landowners where the greenway is going and sign a contract. They should not sign the contract when the land is gone but should sign a contract first stating this is what we are taking and this is what we want and we will pay you so much for it. It should not be the way it is going on now where people do not know what they are getting, like the man here beside me who has not been paid yet and they are going through his land. That is not the way to do business.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Deputy and we have gone well over time and that is down to the intensity of interest from members and from the witnesses. I thank everybody who has taken part and contributed in different ways. As there are questions the witnesses may feel remain unanswered and that they want to add a bit further to, the committee would welcome any further written submissions they would want to make. We plan on following up further with officialdom to flesh this out and get a better handle on it as well. As suggested, there was a question on the legal aspects of this and that we should take the opportunity to contact the OPLA to get its advice on the legal aspect. At this point, I thank each one of you for contributing. Míle buíochas libh go léir and I need to bring this session to a conclusion and suspend the meeting.

Sitting suspended at 5.18 p.m. and resumed at 5.25 p.m.

Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food debate - Wednesday, 6 May 2026

Impact of Greenways, Railways and Roadways on Agriculture: Discussion

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Ms Cleona O'Shea

Mr. Pheilim Molloy

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Pheilim Molloy

Mr. Pheilim Molloy

Mr. Pheilim Molloy

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Mr. Pheilim Molloy

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Thomas Burke

Mr. Morgan Lyne

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Pheilim Molloy

Mr. Pheilim Molloy

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Morgan Lyne

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Cleona O'Shea

Ms Cleona O'Shea

Mr. Seamus Cosgrove

Mr. Seamus Cosgrove

Mr. Seamus Cosgrove

Mr. Seamus Cosgrove

Mr. Seamus Cosgrove

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Cleona O'Shea

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Geraldine O'Sullivan

Ms Cleona O'Shea

Mr. Pheilim Molloy

Mr. Pheilim Molloy

Mr. Morgan Lyne

Ms Cleona O'Shea

Mr. Paul O'Brien

Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food debate -
Wednesday, 6 May 2026