Residents must be consulted over greenway plans

Councillors have agreed to the inclusion of a greenway in the City Development Plan on the condition that the wording would clearly state that private landowners be fully consulted.

Members expressed concern that properties would be cut in two if the ‘indicative’ route went ahead. They were gathered in City Hall for the second part of the process – following public consultation on the proposed alterations to the Draft City Development Plan (CDP) 2017-23.

All councillors had an issue with the inclusion of a cycle route along the coast from Oranmore to Barna, as part of a national greenway between Dublin and Galway – but only because affected landowners in the city had not been consulted.

Senior executive planner, Helen Coleman, said that 20 submissions had been received on this matter – one in favour of it, and 19 expressed concern at the route alignment.

“The idea of a cycleway has been in a Development Plan since 1999, which indicated a coastal route in Roscam,” she said.

“In the 2005 plan, we included a plan for a wider greenway network from Barna to Oranmore. There has been a long desire in the Plan and policy support for the provision of a route through this area.

“The proposed area is a working modification of a previous route. Our view is that because it’s a working modification, it was highlighted as an indicative green route only, and was not meant to be the final route. It is a moment in time, and will be subjected to further detailed assessment. It is part of the Galway-Dublin route, which will be rolled out nationally.”

She said that the relevant Government Department had informed planners that the Galway-Athlone section had to be paused due to the concerns of landowners.

“We felt it was important that a route be indicated (in the Plan)… we will go back to the drawing board, and will involve much more detailed consultation with the public and landowners,” Ms Coleman added.

Cllr Michael Crowe said that it had not been clear from the Plan that this was only ‘indicative’ and that residents were, understandably, upset. He was one of the Councillors who had attended a public meeting where these concerns were voiced.

“It was frightening to find out that no consultation at all had been held with the people of the area,” said Cllr Declan McDonnell, who was also there.

“If we passed ‘an indicative route’ in the plan, it could be deemed that we are accepting that route. Nobody of the 70 at that meeting accepted that route. There was no discussion on the principle of a cycleway, but they didn’t like that nobody had asked them if they were happy or against it.”

Cllr Frank Fahy said that a civil servant in Dublin had simply drawn a line through someone’s private property, without consultation.

“I understood that the greenway was to go through public land, but west of the Shannon 70% of it has been through private property,” he said.

“We avoid the State land owned by the army. I can’t understand why it didn’t go along the Coast Road, and in the Dublin Road, where we already have a cycle lane.”

Cllr Ollie Crowe said that the current route would not be feasible, as it would divide properties in half.

Cllr Pearce Flannery accused fellow members of being hypocrites, as he claimed this was exactly the same principal as in White Oaks, Clybaun Road, where residents blocked up a ‘greenway’ due to anti-social behaviour – with Councillors voting against blocking up these routes.

“There is hypocrisy at play here. I’ll be watching (who votes against the Greenway) and will call for roll call – nobody discussed this with stakeholders, all the principals are the same but individuals are changing their position,” he said.

Members did not agree with the councillors.

“White Oaks was about the barrier across a greenway that’s proposed for the city,” said Cllr Cathal Ó Conchúir.

Cllr Terry O’Flaherty agreed that this was a different situation.

Cllr Colette Connolly agreed: “This was a completely different scenario in relation to a walkway outside a school.”

She said that the claim of a lack of consultation had to be taken seriously, but she questioned why these valid concerns were being raised so late in the game.

Director of Services, Joe O’Neill, said that there had been extensive public consultation over the best part of two years in relation to the Development Plan.

“To the point where staff have gone out (to communities), and clinics were held here on a regular basis. The CDP is a framework document for the development of the city over the next six years.

“The Department of Transport has said there will be further consultation in relation to the national greenway – there is no dispute from me about the importance of public consultation, particularly when it involves the use of people’s land.

“There is a commitment that there will be public consultation with the general public and land owners before any route is arrived at. There have been plans for that area going back to 1997.

“I agree, there should be further public consultation to look at alternatives. Realistically, once they got over the Shannon it was not as easy to go along public land, as they went along the canals on east side of the country.”

Senior planner, Caroline Phelan, added that the Department of Transport had held a public meeting in the Radisson Blu Hotel, and that the primary objective of the greenway was to maximise scenic routes between Dublin and Galway.

She said that although it was a national project, it had huge benefit for Galway.

Mr O’Neill assured members that any such plan would have to come back before the Council, under Part 8 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001.

The wording was also changed to satisfy members: “the exact alignment of the route will be arrived at only after detailed consultation with the general public including landowners, and a subsequent report be brought back via Part 8 process to the full council.”

When it was put to a vote, all 17 councillors present were in agreement, one member (Cllr Flannery) was absent for the vote.