Western board driveway resurfacing
The Western Regional Fisheries Board spent £1,751 resurfacing the driveway to Weir Lodge, where it had a right-of-way; the Minister said the work was justified because the road was damaging State vehicles. Members challenged the board’s authority to improve the privately owned avenue without prior consent, and the Minister said permission was obtained later and the Department subsequently purchased the property.
asked the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry if the Western Regional Fisheries Board have spent money to develop a driveway that was not their property or the property of the Central Fisheries Board and without the prior consent of the true owner; and if so, the amount involved.
Comment on this
The driveway leading to the Weir Lodge in Galway, where the headquarters of the Western Regional Fisheries Board are located, was resurfaced in 1981 by the board at a cost of £1,751. The board have a right-of-way over the driveway which before its resurfacing was in a poor state of repair.
Comment on this
I understand that they got permission subsequent to the work being done. Everything is now in order.
Comment on this
Is it the case that this State body spend money on private property without the consent of the owner?
Comment on this
It was purchased by the Department subsequently. The right of way over this road was part of the deal when we purchased the lodge.
Comment on this
I am very familiar with the property. Did this State board spend money on improving private property without consulting the owner of the property? Does the Minister think that expenditure was appropriate and correct?
Comment on this
No objections to the resurfacing were raised by the owner of the property. It was felt that the expenditure was justified because the condition of the road was such that it was damaging State vehicles.
Comment on this
Is the Minister aware that there has been a dispute over this avenue and that on a previous occasion the fisheries board closed the gate and put a lock and chain on it, despite the fact that they did not own the avenue and had not consulted the owner? In view of the history of the use of this laneway by the fisheries board, does it not seem extraordinary that they should persist in behaving as if it was their own private property? It is indicative that they proceeded to tarmacadam it without consulting the owner. Is the Minister aware of the background?