No apologies have been received. Before we begin, I want to draw the attention of witnesses to 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. They may be directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence on an issue and should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made 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. They 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.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside of the Houses 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 precincts. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts and any attempt to do so will result in them having their online access removed. Everybody participating is present in the room and no speakers are online at present.

The agenda item for today's meeting is a resumption of our discussion on the impact of greenways, railways and roadways on agriculture, with particular reference to compulsory purchase orders, CPOs. Today we are joined by representatives of Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII including Mr. Lorcan O'Connor, chief executive, Ms Geraldine Fitzpatrick, head of road and greenway capital programme, and Ms Mary Flynn, regional manager, west. Tá fáilte romhaibh. From the County and City Management Association, CCMA, we are joined by Mr. Barry Kehoe, chief executive of Westmeath County Council and chairman of the CCMA's transport infrastructure networks committee, Mr. Uinsinn Finn, director of services at Galway County Council, and Mr. Gabriel Hynes, director of services at Waterford City and County Council. Tá fáilte romhaibh. The opening statements have been circulated to members. The witnesses will have five minutes to deliver their opening statements and then we will proceed to questions and answers with members.

We are very happy to appear before the committee this afternoon. We submitted a lengthy opening statement, which I will now summarise in order to respect the five-minute time limit. The introduction to our opening statement sets out the role of TII. While we have a statutory role in respect of roads, light rail and metro, our role with regards to greenways has been assigned to us by the Minister for Transport. In effect, it is to assist the Department and the Minister with regard to policy implementation.

This committee is particularly interested in compulsory purchase orders and how CPO interacts with the roll-out of the greenway programme. Those are, therefore, the two areas of the opening statement I will focus on.

On the legislative background to compulsory purchase orders, CPOs were established in Irish legislation, dating back to the Land Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. It is a mechanism by which State bodies can acquire private land or property for the development of public transport that is justified by the common good. In the case of roads and greenways, the local authority is the acquiring body and is required to apply to An Coimisiún Pleanála for permission to enact a CPO. An Coimisiún Pleanála is an independent statutory body which reviews the application through a rigorous process and then confirms, modifies or refuses the CPO.

The CPO process includes a mandatory obligation to seek to negotiate a settlement of the compensation issues, including accommodation works. This is encouraged throughout all stages of the CPO process, from when the CPO is published, confirmed and notice to treat served, through the statutory compensation process and reference to arbitration. There is a misconception that the issuance of a CPO brings voluntary negotiations to an end. This is not the case and we have attempted to highlight that through the appendix to our opening statement, which sets out the various steps involved in a CPO process.

CPO exists to protect both the acquiring authority and the land and property owners. It is required to confirm title, deal with unregistered land and protect public investment. It is also designed to ensure that the landowner's rights to appropriate compensation are protected. The process includes the right for either party to refer the matter to an independent adjudication by an arbitrator.

A change to the CPO process would require a change in Irish law, which is outside the remit of TII. TII does, however, have ex-gratia agreements in place, which allow for payments in addition to payments that fall under the CPO process, namely, a goodwill payment in relation to the purchase of land for national roads projects and a sustainability payment under the code of best practice for greenways.

The opening statement sets out CPOs with regards to national roads. I will pass beyond that to the case of greenways in particular. The acquisition of land for greenways is governed by the code of best practice for national and regional greenways, which was agreed and published in December 2021. It was developed by a working group consisted of the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA, Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ICSA, Department of Rural and Community Development, Sports Ireland, Fáilte Ireland, Department of Transport, representatives of the local authorities and TII, supported by an independent chair. My full statement lists various aspects of the code. It is worth highlighting that the sustainability payments agreed under the code are paid in two stages. The first is an early sign-on payment, which applies where a voluntary land acquisition agreement is agreed before the planning authority makes its decision and payable following execution of the agreement. The second is a co-operation payment payable when the relevant section of greenway is opened.

Regarding CPOs, the code also outlines that the preferred mechanism to acquire land is by way of voluntary agreements. However, compulsory purchase mechanisms are allowed for, albeit as a last resort to ensure the delivery of a continuous route. As per my earlier comments, CPO is often required to resolve title issues.

The code sets out an agreed collaborative approach for delivering national and regional greenways, aimed at achieving a balanced outcome for landowners, local communities, stakeholders and users. It is incumbent on the parties that agreed this code to implement it in the progression and delivery of the programme.

Turning to current developments, TII acknowledges the level of concern expressed by the landowners and farming organisations in relation to the delivery of the greenway programme. We are working with the Department of Transport to find mechanisms to improve the existing processes and procedures. We set out where the Department of Transport is in relation to that strategy review in the opening statement. As part of that, TII will also review its own code and that would extend to a review of standards.

TII is the approving body for roads and greenways and provides funding and support to local authorities for the delivery of these programmes in line with Government policy. The national road network provides vital transport infrastructure for all sectors of society. The network facilitates movements of people and goods and a wide range of trip purposes, including health, education, employment, tourism and access to key services. Improvements to the network are necessary to improve connectivity and regional growth, facilitate urban regeneration and compact growth, as well as to enhance safety and the efficiencies of users. Greenways improve quality of life and health by providing safe, attractive spaces in local communities that encourage everyday-----

Thank you, Mr. O'Connor. We need to move on. A comprehensive document has been provided which members have had an opportunity to read over. We will take the remainder as read. We will now hear from the County and City Management Association.

I thank the committee for the invitation to appear before it today. The introductions have been done so I will skip over those. Our opening statement focuses on greenways.

Greenways are genuinely popular with the public and that popularity is well founded. They generate significant economic activity, particularly in tourism, and especially in rural areas that have few other comparable economic drivers. The Waterford greenway is a clear example of the regional economic uplift a well-delivered route can produce, having revitalised towns and villages along its route. Greenways also contribute directly to physical and mental well-being by providing safe, accessible spaces for exercise and recreation for people of all ages and abilities. They also facilitate active travel and green transport, offering a real alternative to the car for everyday journeys to school, work and local services. These are substantial, evidenced public benefits and they are the reason local authorities are committed to their delivery.

Greenways must be delivered with widespread community and landowner support and agreement. This is the central ethos of the code of best practice, and local authorities are fully committed to it. Genuine early engagement with landowners and communities is the right approach and it produces better, faster and more durable projects.

Our experience is also that the principal concerns of adjoining landowners - typically, privacy, security and the movement of livestock - can very often be resolved through good design and appropriate accommodation works, such as screening, fencing, landscaping, underpasses, gates and livestock holding areas. Practical solutions exist for the great majority of the issues that arise.

Consistent with this ethos, underutilised public corridors should always be considered first, before any private land is contemplated. Disused canals, former railway lines and other State or semi-state landholdings should be the starting point for route selection. This minimises impact on private landowners and represents the best value for public money. At the same time, the outcome must be a high-quality greenway. It must meet minimum standards of convenience, comfort and safety - appropriate width, gradient, surface and continuity. However, quality is also a matter of the user experience. The most successful greenways offer attractive and varied scenery and a real sense of place, drawing on coast, river, woodland and built heritage such as viaducts and tunnels. Securing agreement and prioritising public corridors must not come at the cost of a substandard route that fails the public it is intended to serve. The objective is the right route, delivered the right way.

Given the scale of public investment involved, and given the particular difficulties that arise in Ireland around property registration and title, it is the view of the CCMA that the power to compulsorily acquire land must remain available as a genuine last resort in a limited number of instances, where voluntary agreement cannot be reached with a relatively small number of landowners, and as a means of resolving unclear, unregistered or disputed property ownership that would otherwise make a route undeliverable. This is not a departure from the principle of agreement; it is a necessary safeguard for the protection of public investment. It is also a power that is exercised under significant scrutiny. All CPO proposals must be submitted to An Coimisiún Pleanála for independent approval. That oversight is an important protection for landowners and the public interest alike.

The CCMA welcomes the forthcoming review of the national greenway strategy. We look forward to it and we will co-operate fully and constructively with the process. We are happy to take any questions the committee may have.

The witnesses have provided comprehensive documents and we have had the opportunity to meet locally with many people involved with greenways. Members have been dealing with residents in different places. We have also had the opportunity to have witnesses in to discuss the issues with us. One of the biggest issues relates to compulsory purchase orders, CPOs. It is the view that it would appear as a threat placed on the table early in discussions. The witnesses say they are used sparingly but it is a perception from many residents that this threat appears very early in the day. It really flavours any discussions that take place. Have the witnesses been able to advance any greenways without the use of CPOs and in agreement with landowners? Do they feel that CPOs are appropriate to use for a greenway? It is a heavyweight instrument that is used for the purchase of ground for roads and key infrastructure like schools and so on, but is that appropriate to the development of greenways? Are they considered key infrastructure in the same way that a road, railway or maybe school is? It would be interesting to hear from the witnesses on those points before I invite members to speak.

The CPO concept permits the acquisition of land for the development of public infrastructure when it is in the public or common good. That does not just mean roads. It can easily mean greenways. The challenge for an organisation such as TII or indeed the local authorities charged with delivering a greenway project is that, inevitably, there is likely to be a large number of landowners involved. While everything throughout the process is designed around reaching voluntary agreement, if we do not have the CPO as part of our box of tools or solutions, it can be particularly problematic.

I was before the transport committee discussing greenways a number of months ago and I heard of a large number of sensitivities relating to the proposed greenway projects. One of the points made clear to me at the time was when local authorities were talking to communities and landowners, the impression was that CPO was almost the first step instead of the last step. That certainly is not what we wish it to be. As we review the code and the Department of Transport undertakes its broader review of the strategic approach to greenways, that warrants being reinforced. What I am saying today is that I see that it is necessary as a last resort for us to ensure that we are able to deliver on the greenway programme.

Many residents raise with us that they see it as something that appears very early in the day and not as a last resort.

It is not designed to be that way.

They say it is a weapon placed on the table very early in the negotiation. There is a question about whether it would be seen as essential infrastructure, in the same way as a road, a school or a railway, because many people do not expect CPOs in relation to walkways. They may not have been seen as essential infrastructure.

As I said, the way in which the CPO legislation is put in place is that it is to secure infrastructure for the common good. Greenways certainly meet that definition. To that extent, it falls within the remit of what could be applicable to CPO.

Quite a few members are offering and our time is limited. We will do five minutes per member.

I thank the witnesses for being with us and for their presentations. I come from Cork North-West, where we have a big issue at the moment bordering the constituency with the Bandon-Kinsale greenway. The issue there is, from meeting with landowners, a massive lack of consultation. I have several issues with that. Mr. O'Connor mentioned that CPOs are the last port of call rather than the first. That is not the way our landowners feel. From a legislative point of view, the power of a CPO is to do with what is in the interest of the common good. My understanding is that greenways are only read into the definition of "roads" in the Clifford and O'Connor v. An Bord Pleanála and Kerry County Council case. There is no legislative basis but rather a judicial basis under which greenways are included in the definition of "roads".

Mr. O'Connor mentioned that the CPO legislation is used as a mechanism for the common good. When he speaks about the common good, in what way is he defining it? According to TII's data, the majority of greenway users are local residents as opposed to tourists. If adequate consultation is not being done with locals, how can a greenway be justified if there is a lot of local opposition? I see that it is essentially turning neighbour against neighbour and community against community because of the lack of information. The existing strategy was agreed with the IFA, under which voluntary acquisition is preferable. In this case, which is reflected in the Kerry greenway too, there is not a lot of voluntary acquisition. Is there a mechanism for those who are objecting to appeal any decisions? What is the role of TII when it comes to local authorities and ensuring that adequate consultation is being provided by them? I am being told on the ground that consultation with landowners on the Cork greenway was not carried out. What oversight is there between TII and the local authority to ensure this consultation is carried out? It is well and good to tick the box but if that is not taking place on the ground, it is a different situation.

With farmers, I am seeing biosecurity, generational renewal and business viability issues. I have visited farmers who will have this greenway going through the back of their property or of their yard. There is a safety issue for animals and for their families. They see a serious lack of consultation. Where is the comeback on that? We talk about consultation and communication, but what mechanisms are there to ensure this is taking place? When it comes to TII funding greenways, what mechanisms are used to fund greenways? To what extent does TII look at evidence? What level of evidence is required from local authorities? Where is that jurisdiction and what are the important deciding factors in that?

We are running low on time.

I might ask my colleague Mr. Kehoe to speak with regard to the consultation from a local authority perspective. When looking at the code and the overall design around consultation, a number of cycles or rounds are involved where we are looking at the broadest area where a greenway might go down to a preferred route, an emerging route and so on.

Does TII not have feedback from local authorities?

We are partners in this and we are trying to ensure that the code is adhered to so that sets out that sort of approach to consultation. The Senator mentioned a number of other points. From a funding perspective, while annual funding will move slightly year to year, we are working on the basis that the average annual funding for greenways is approximately €60 million. We are progressing a portfolio of projects on that basis, with a number in the pipeline, as the Senator would expect. Some are at construction, others are at planning and consultation and so on.

On the point about the common good, one can define common good in a number of ways. When we look at a greenway, we can look at it regarding its economic contribution, and for some of the greenways we have open now, we can show that there is a significant advantage to the local community, including SMEs, tourism and so on.

However, common good also extends to the benefit to the local community. Whether that is just in terms of a facility where people can feel safe to bring their children to cycle without fear of getting hit by a car, or it is just people looking, from a health and well-being perspective, to get exercise and so on, there is a real common good in that. Whether you look at it from a societal perspective, an economic perspective or otherwise, greenways, certainly to my mind, clearly meet that definition.

I will focus on the CPO side as well. When greenways are being advertised, they are recreational, they are for cycling, they are for gatherings of friends - all the nice things and all the nice outdoor amenities. When it comes to land, however, specifically land that is required to have these greenways, they are put as roads. For me, a road is something I can drive my car on, not something that is for recreation. I know there is a previous case about this that was up, but can the witnesses explain to me why landowners, when it is something recreational, should have to go through a CPO? For recreational reasons they would not, but when it is classed as a road, they do.

I would not set it out in that way in the sense that, from my perspective, the CPO legislation envisages the acquisition by the State of assets required for the common good. I look at the greenways as just that. I do not see them as roads from a practical perspective. In terms of the detail within the legislation, there are definitions of roads in the broadest sense with regard to our own legislation but, to my mind, it is the delivery of an asset. It is equally important that if the taxpayer is investing in a project and in an asset, it should have ownership of that asset. That is where the CPO process talks to the delivery of greenways.

Yes, I get that. It is just that when Mr. O'Connor says this is for the greater good, when you take over farmland from farmers or private lands - it might not necessarily be farmland - their greater good is taken away. In some areas greenways are being used and being used well, but I do not know if that is the case for every area. Then there is the weather situation in this country. We do not have an umbrella over it and a lot of the time we have rain and outdoor activities are not possible. I just do not know if it is for the greater good to CPO somebody's land for a walkway. That is different. I am always calling for the M20 to be done from Cork to Limerick. That is for the greater good because there are so many dangerous bends on it and it will reduce the numbers of accidents and fatalities. As regards the greater good when it comes to a walkway, however, you have to weigh it out and see if the greater good is the livelihood of the landowners over the couple of tourists who might use it a couple of months in the year.

I appreciate the point but I would not seek to underestimate the value to the users of the greenway. To go to the Senator's point that the fact is that you may be acquiring somebody's private land in order to deliver that facility, the code does envisage a waterfall of options. Number one, if there is State land available, it should be used first. That is why the Senator will have seen that some of the greenways that are already open would have largely reflected rail lines that have long since been closed and so on.

Yes, but a lot of those rail lines have been sold back in the meantime to the landowners.

I appreciate that, but some of those that have opened to date have been through facilitation with CIÉ and so on-----

Yes, I know the one in County Limerick was quite seamless and it went-----

That is one point. In addition, notwithstanding the fact that we start off looking to see whether we can use State land, the second question we need to ask ourselves is how we can minimise the interruption to the landowner. As we look at the review of the code, I think it is fair to say that heretofore perhaps there have been instances where the attempt to go from A to B by the most direct route has been somewhat too rigid. We should have greater flexibility to see if we can skirt the circumference of a farm or a landowner's property. That is certainly something we should look to try to do.

That is good to know.

Mr. Kehoe is keen to get in.

Just to make a point, if I may. In terms of adjudicating on what is or is not a common good, what we have to do first, as local authorities, is ensure there is an objective in our development plan to provide that greenway or piece of infrastructure, whatever it might be. That goes through our councillors and is approved by them. The councillors have to agree, first, that it is a valid objective and that it is appropriate and good for our county. What we then have to do as an executive is build a case for that piece of infrastructure and submit that to An Coimisiún Pleanála and justify it to the board.

Would the councillors know the route being thought of before-----

The route may or may not be on the maps. We do have maps associated with our development plans and in some cases there are route corridors. They may not be exactly-----

The exact route, but they would have an idea as to the area.

-----where it will go, but they would have an idea. You must have an objective in your development plan to provide that greenway. That goes forward then and we bring-----

The local councillors basically give the okay-----

The development plan, generally speaking, must have an objective. Otherwise, there is no point in us going to An Coimisiún Pleanála with a scheme if we do not have an objective in our development plan to deliver that. That is where the common good is captured in terms of public policy.

Perfect. I thank the witnesses.

The witnesses are very welcome to the proceedings. First, I reiterate the importance of family farms, their importance to rural Ireland, their contribution to Ireland as a whole and their contribution to the Irish economy. It is really important to state that before we begin to talk about what we are going to talk about. Mirrored with that, it is also really important to note, from a tourism perspective, that improved infrastructure through greenways, blueways, etc., can be hugely positive. Again, though, and I said this at the previous meeting, the message I am getting loud and clear from people affected and, in particular, landowners is that it has to be done in conjunction with landowners. Consultation is huge in that regard. There is a fear and evidence out there that the consultation is not what it should be. I will focus on that issue as well because for anybody who is affected by a greenway coming near or on their land, that consultation part needs to happen early. My experience is that it is not happening early enough. Does TII require landowner engagement before route corridors are published?

The code requires engagement publicly on the constraints study, which is the first stage. The second stage is the identification of a number of routes. There is consultation at that point. When you get down to the individual corridors, at that point the code requires consultation with the individual landowners.

But there is huge work before it even gets to the-----

There is work. There is a lot of work done even before and there is consultation more generally before you get to the defined route.

Does TII allow councils to publish public maps with routes through private farmland before affected farmers have agreed in principle? If a route is put through, does TII publish the maps before a farmer or a landowner gives the nod? That puts ferocious pressure on a landowner if a map is put out with routes going through his land prior to any consultation.

As Ms Fitzpatrick articulated, there is that three-stage process, throughout which there is consultation. Ultimately, if there is a landowner within the broad sense of the corridor under consideration, there would be a number of opportunities for consultation and then leading up ultimately to a preferred route where-----

But is the consultation after the horse has bolted?

No. There is consultation-----

It has just been said that preparation works-----

-----on the three phases.

But by the time it comes to the landowner TII has its preferred route selected and everything, before it even goes to discuss it with the landowner.

That landowner would have had opportunity to partake within the consultation rounds prior to that.

But all TII's other work will have been done before. At what stage is a landowner consulted, just for pure clarity?

I am not saying the landowner is not consulted. What I am saying is there is more general public consultation at the constraints study and route option stages. There is broad, general engagement at that point. There would be notices out and there would be public consultation open to everybody to attend.

Would the landowner be specifically contacted?

Once the emerging route is appointed, there would be individual public consultation but there is consultation the whole way along, including the opportunity for landowners to engage earlier.

How many greenways are currently live, proposed, paused, under review or at feasibility stage, route option stage or planning stage? Could TII provide this committee with a list of every single greenway, the total project length and the kilometres on land with proven local authority ownership or State body ownership?

We would be happy to provide that.

How many would there be in total? How many projects is TII looking at? An issue that came up the last day involved deliverability. A potential X amount of greenway has to be done but the cost is not budgeted for or even close to it. Is there an opportunity here to prioritise projects on State lands first before we have to go down the route of farm owners and disturbing that element? Can we prioritise that?

That is a fair point. Broadly speaking, we have 60 projects at various stages of development but we will give the committee that breakdown.

What cost would that amount to?

I do not have that figure off the top of my head. Many of them would be early in their design stage so we would not even have-----

One would be talking about hundreds of millions or euro.

Yes. There is a case to be made around looking to focus on a smaller number-----

-----what can actually be achieved.

-----and what can be achieved in the short and medium term. That is certainly an aspect of the review the Department of Transport is undertaking during the next six months.

I thank the witnesses. I am learning as I go along. We can split hairs on who considers what to be the common good and whose common good is it. While it is not a greenway, Mr. Kehoe would be aware of a town and village renewal active travel project in my town of Kilbeggan. The footpath up to the school was widened and junctions were changed. It slowed down the traffic and its aim was to have kids walk to the school. When I canvassed for both the local and general elections, at every second door, I was getting complaints about how much longer it was taking to do the school run in the town. Regarding the common good, the people were not looking for that active travel project because they were still going to the school in their cars. Who decides what the common good is? These people did not have an input into that. They did not see this as the common goal because they were still driving. It is the same with the greenways. Who are the people who are deciding what is the common good? Is the common good of a group of cyclists who go out on a Sunday morning going to overrule a farming community and a community of people?

I have a question for the county and city managers. They represent Westmeath, Galway and Waterford. Do they approach this in the same way, notwithstanding what they said about an objective in the county development plan? I am from Westmeath. I go to Kerry on holiday. With the greatest respect to Kerry, there are not too many people who come from Kerry to Westmeath. I think Paudie O'Shea was the last man that came from Kerry. Is the same approach taken to a greenway in those two scenarios? People from Westmeath would go to Kerry and use a greenway but there are not too many people coming up the other way. Do the city and county managers take the same approach in both those instances? When TII goes to An Coimisiún Pleanála for permission to do a CPO, has it ever said "No"? I have never read of any case where TII was refused a CPO by An Coimisiún Pleanála?

I think half of the questions are for me and half are for Mr. Kehoe. To go back to the point about the common good, a lot of national policy lies behind what is ultimately proposed by way of the common good assessment. It is important that we do not see greenways, and I do not suggest that the Senator is doing this, as for just weekend cyclists in Lycra with their high-speed racing bikes. When we look at the greenways that are already operational, there are more walkers than cyclists. They are used by all ages, from children aged only two or three learning to cycle right up to elderly people, as well as those who are infirm or have disabilities. It is important, therefore, that we see greenways in the broadest context. Regarding CPOs or projects that have been refused, an example of that would be the Blessington greenway where An Coimisiún Pleanála refused that.

Did it refuse the entire project or stop TII using an individual CPO? My question was specifically about CPOs on a given project.

It would be interlinked largely because the permission would then enable the CPO power to be enacted, were it necessary. There is a linkage. If planning is secured, the implementation includes-----

Permission for a CPO has never been refused.

Off the top of my head, I am not sure.

We have only got to the point where there has been a CPO on a very limited number of greenways. There are only three greenways in which we have been involved where there are CPOs, so it is very hard at this early stage to say whether a CPO would be refused or not.

My experience is that An Coimisiún Pleanála deals with both together as a single decision. I have never seen it separate a project from the CPO requirement to deliver that project.

On the issue of the standards, we would be hoping to get more tourism and to build the tourism base in the midlands and obviously to share out that attractiveness. Part of that is providing greenways but we do provide to a similar standard. That is necessary because, no more than with national roads, it is important that people have a good experience with greenways and a similar experience, irrespective of where in the country they go to experience them. We provide greenways to a similar national standard and we all operate in accordance with the code of practice that has been adopted. Every local authority should be implementing that on the ground. I hope that is the case.

Approximately how many kilometres of greenways have been delivered to date?

A lot were delivered before we were involved but I think it is about 800 km. I may have the figure wrong, though, so it would be better if we come back with it.

That is no problem. How many landowners have been involved in these projects?

Our hesitation speaks the fact that TII's role with regard to greenways has only been in place in recent years. We would not have been heavily involved prior to that but perhaps there might be an example on a particular project.

I can give the example of the Waterford greenway. We have done 45 km and we would have had dealings with 100 landowners. Regarding the common good, what we found in Waterford, from the perspective of tourism, economic development, well-being, community and school trips, was that the number of tourists was significant. It was not only for tourism but for local people as well. Regarding family farms, we did not have any viability issue involving any farmer along the route. With proper accommodation works for the crossing of animals and machinery or fencing, there was no issue.

How many CPOs rather than voluntary purchase orders were needed in that project?

We had a set line. Everything bar the small last stretch into Waterford city was done by negotiation.

We had significant consultation with the elected members and community groups. The vast majority of all the agreements were done voluntarily.

That is very important. In fairness, that is the way it should be done. How much does it cost per kilometre to develop a greenway, roughly?

All of them differ. In Waterford, the initial portion was a set line. We would probably have delivered the 45 kms at that stage for in the region of €20 million, roughly.

Is funding a major issue in delivering greenways?

Obviously, if the funding were higher, we would be able to deliver more greenways. Some greenways may well involve bridges and viaducts, etc. Very broadly speaking, the cost is €2 million a kilometre. That would involve everything from design right through to construction. The payback for some of the greenways, such as the one in Mayo, can be very short. Indeed, as you look at infrastructure investment, it is probably as attractive as you can get given that in that particular case the payback was less than six years.

I am very aware of a group in west Clare which is very anxious to develop a greenway. Part of the greenway is already in place but getting funding to move it forward is a big issue. Does TII get that concern?

We do. The opportunity that presents itself now with the Department's review of the overall strategic approach to greenways - this is also an answer to an earlier question - will perhaps allow us to look to try to focus on a smaller number of projects that would allow us to ensure they come to fruition.

There is a very active group in west Clare which is very anxious to develop a greenway. A lot of work has already been done by the local authority. Unfortunately, getting funding is holding them back from developing the project. I am delighted that CPOs do not come into this. In the situation in west Clare, my own county, CPOs are not an issue either. Most of the landowners are willing to work with the local authority, TII and whoever else is there to develop greenways. A greenway is fabulous and fantastic for rural parts of counties because it brings tourists and interest. I ask that a push is made to make sure that funding is made available to communities that are willing to develop greenways. That should be done going forward.

I have a few quickfire questions for Mr. O'Connor. Do the Department of Transport and the Government support the policy and the system that TII is working on?

We implement Government policy.

Okay. That is grand. How many farm organisations have signed up to the implementation of that policy?

The code we have in place would have involved a number of stakeholders, much wider than just farming organisations. It would include the IFA, the ICMSA and the ICSA.

Okay, right. That is grand. A question was asked earlier about the drawing up of routes. Who else is affected? It was said that TII has to talk to others. Who are the others? If it is proposed to go through land, why would you be talking to anyone else?

We talk to the community as part of public consultation.

If a proposed greenway is going through a farmer's land, what does TII need to talk to a community for? It is the farmer who is affected, not an environmental lobby nor anyone else. Does TII talk to them all?

I am talking about the initial stages of consultation where you are going out with the concept of a greenway between A and B. There could be several opportunities to go in different directions, through different locations, etc.

You are going through a farmer's land.

We are trying to come up with where the community wishes to have the corridor-----

No, you are not.

-----taking into account all the statistics.

If it is land, it is either State land or farmers' land.

Yes.

That is it.

That is a factor that we take into account.

Am I right or wrong that land is either State land or farmers' land?

Or other private land.

It is local farmers.

The point is that before we know whether we need to go through a particular landowner's private land, we need to do a public consultation to come up with the preferred route.

To me, a public consultation is a box-ticking exercise.

I beg to differ, Deputy, because-----

As part of the European route, in Holland there will be a barley field but no ditches like what we have in Ireland. How come Holland has a different system which goes on the road that was there originally? Why does TII not add to the side of a road rather than splitting a farmer's field and causing mayhem?

As I said in response to an earlier question, I think that is something we should look at.

Thinking now means the harm is done. This is the problem. A lot of greenways have left a bad taste in farmers' mouths. For example, I know a couple in Roscommon who are trying to build a house. TII automatically sent out a thing. There is an old house in it. If they add it to the old house, they are sound for coming out on the road but if they knock the old house and build a new one, TII will reject their plan. That is not the way. Then there will be a greenway up the road on that person's land. TII expects people to be co-operative. That is not the way it works. TII needs to completely change its attitude with what is going on. Why does TII believe it can go through SACs and dig them up while an ordinary person cannot?

No. There is full environmental assessment if it passes through an SAC.

I know that. An ordinary person cannot go near SACs or dig them. How can TII?

We would have to justify it. We would have go through the full process of doing an environmental impact assessment. An Coimisiún Pleanála would make the decision on it.

Does TII have to do compensatory habitat-----

It could be part of the environmental assessment that we would have to provide compensatory habitat-----

I have seen instances where TII got the go-ahead in SACs where a farmer cannot put in a road. How come?

I do not what case the Deputy is talking about.

I have seen it.

Going through an SAC is subject to full environmental impact assessment. It has to be done.

That is okay. I want to keep going. Mr. Kehoe talked about the Waterford greenway. What are the statistics for that for the last few years? What are the figures?

Mr. Hynes is more familiar with it.

I ask him to be fairly quick, or to send the figures to me.

Our recent figures indicate that 200,000 people, on average, use the greenway annually. The number has come down from when it started.

Did Mr. Hynes say that the number is down since the greenway started?

People came the first time. They all came initially. Now we have averaged out.

No, I asked a question.

The figure is 200,000.

What was there at the beginning?

We estimate that the figure was around 300,000 initially, when it opened.

You are down 30%.

My next question is for Mr. Kehoe, who mentioned councillors. Can councillors at any given time propose an amendment to the county development plan? Can councillors change if they vote against a county development plan as they do not agree with the CEO, like yourselves? Can councillors decide that they do not want greenways in an area? If they do that, can they be overruled by the county manager or the Department? It is a yes-no question.

The planning Act provides for variations to the development plan. As well as that, the plan is up for statutory review. At the moment, it is every six years and it is going to every ten years.

I know all that.

In making the plan, the members can put in whatever policy they feel is appropriate and approve it as a group.

I am asking this as a straight, simple question because my time is up. If members decide that they do not want greenways in a county, and the majority of them vote that way, is that accepted? Can it be overruled? It is a yes-no question.

The Office of the Planning Regulator carries out a review of all development plans when they are adopted. It carries out a study of them to make sure-----

No, what I am asking is whether it can be overruled.

I am just trying to explain. The regulator looks at the plan to see if the plan is aligned with Government policy, or substantially aligned with Government policy. If the regulator has an issue with any policy in the plan, the regulator can recommend to the Minister that the Minister issues a direction to the local authority. That is the process.

He can overrule it.

The Minister can overrule it.

The projected cost for the south Kerry greenway was €20 million but the figure has increased to €72 million. How did it get there? Who signed off on it? The Waterford greenway cost €20 million. Most of it was located on State land, so there was no need for CPOs in that situation. In most situations, the dealings with landowners concerned fencing, etc.

We know it cost that much, so how did TII think that the south Kerry greenway was going to cost €20 million? Both started at around the same time. How in God's name did TII think it was going to cost the same when it was not on State land?

There is no simple answer to that. The Kerry greenway went through the planning approval process before TII was involved. We have a robust system for estimating costs now. We have a unit database of individual prices and we also have land costs, so that is all added together, and that is where the current price of €72 million is coming from. I cannot comment on the earlier price because it would have been before our involvement in it.

How much extra has been signed off on since TII came on board?

All of our projects are subject to the infrastructural guidelines. There is a business case with all of the projects before we sign off on the money.

How many business cases would have gone in regarding this situation? It has been going on, and it is still not finished at that price.

There is a time when the business case is approved, before it goes to construction. At that point, the cost of the project is signed off. That would be the €72 million.

Whatever about public consultation, is it the case that TII does not mind getting this at any cost? I do not even want the witnesses to answer that.

There is a lot of talk about mental health, well-being and stuff like that. These greenways will not get my kids to school in the morning. They will not get me or anybody to work in the morning. The witnesses referred to cyclists. Most cycling clubs that I speak to will not go on it. There is a situation in Kerry where walkways will cross farms but animals have to get across the road. How is that safe? In some situations, horses are walking across while the public is going across. If any of the witnesses know anything about horses, they will know they get spooked easily. Why is it not put into the planning that there are underpasses or overpasses in these situations? It is a public health risk.

I want to raise the mental health part of it. All I can hear is that this is great for the greater public. What about the farm owners and landowners? Is it all right for them to have a heart attack because of their mental health? This does not just concern the greenways but also the motorways going through. However, a motorway is going to get people somewhere. It is going to be of some use. A greenway is absolutely no use to the general public, but it is okay for those people to go through the trauma of their land being taken. For what? Who said an acre of land was €6,500? Who agreed that price? The witnesses might answer that.

I think a number of issues are being conflated. The €6,500 that I mentioned in my opening statement is a goodwill payment for the facilitation of roads.

Lands cost more than that.

The CPO process itself has a number of steps involved to cover any disturbance, any injurious effect to the land and then the actual cost of the land. The whole CPO process is carefully calibrated to ensure that the full impact of the acquisition of private land is adequately compensated.

Does that include future losses in earnings to farmers?

It would, if that were-----

What about the next generation of farmers? Does it include that?

Again, there would be a formula or a standard approach to that. As I said, there is always an appeal option in the event that the landowner is not happy with where things are going.

I will go back to a couple of the Deputy’s earlier points. She is right to say that many greenways are not commuting routes, although we do have some. An example would be certain aspects of the Waterford one into the city and along the canals into Dublin, where greenways would be heavily used by commuters. Notwithstanding that, those that have been opened are very successful when we look at their usage. As I said earlier, they are not just used by cyclists but by walkers as well. We have not encountered the kind of issues the Deputy has identified with cattle or horses crossing the greenways. They have largely operated in other countries-----

There are situations, and people come back to me on this. What about the mental health aspect? How can we put one person's mental health over somebody else's?

We need to move on.

In fairness, the Deputy raises a valid question on well-being. I fully accept that any issue with regard to private land is so sensitive for the owner in the first instance. I do not want to dismiss that for one second. I am not trying to equate the concern of the landowner-----

CPOs are dismissive of landowners.

They are the reality of infrastructure development for these kinds of projects.

It is a case of “To hell with you then.”

That is not what I said, Deputy. That is not fair.

That is what it is. That is what it boils down to.

I call Senator Boyhan.

I welcome our guests to engage in what is a very controversial issue. I apologise that I have had to come in and out because there was a Seanad debate on Our Rural Future and private rural housing on agricultural lands. It is a very similar topic, so I had to be there too.

In all of my years on this committee, my office has had more responses and engagement on this subject from right across the country, be it urban or rural, than on most others. There are many legitimate issues that have caused people to be very vexed. In preparing for today's meeting, I looked at all the submissions we have received. One that continues to stand out to me is the one that was prepared by Cleona O'Shea, who presented at this committee on behalf of the National Greenway Action Association. There are very powerful, central messages that are continuing to be echoed in all of the emails and correspondence I have received on this matter. The submission from the National Greenway Action Association talked about the need for a national reset. I will go through some of the issues, although I know we are under pressure for time. The recurring themes that keep coming back are as follows. The first is that it should be on public lands first. At all times, we should be examining public lands first as a strategy. Second, it should be on private land only by genuine voluntary agreement. Third, there should be no farm severance.

We must remember the context in which the witnesses are here today. We are the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food. That is our primary function and focus. All of these other issues are side issues. I will not say they are sideshows, but they are side issues in terms of our focus. We are there to support farmers and to support the family farm. We are here to support growers and people who engage. That is our primary focus.

We must also remember that it is an asset that has been worked. People have toiled hard and sweated to accumulate and grow their holdings, physically as well as in terms of produce. Innately, we Irish people who are involved in agriculture value our family’s homestead. We value our land. It is worked hard for, and it is not going to be prised away from us.

That is the background as I see it, and I want to share that with the witnesses. It should be on private land only, with genuine voluntary agreement and with no farm severance. I am familiar with places that run towards Waterford from Ballitor and Timolin, and all of that section that runs south of Athy, and the interchanges all along that strip into Carlow. I know family members whose farm holdings were severed not once, but twice, and the impact and fragmentation that causes. It does not present new planning opportunities for them. It is the severance of land without any under-road connectivity in many cases. That is an issue. There should be a whole-of-farm impact assessment. Proper planning for sustainable agriculture into the future is very important. Therefore, sustainable farm holdings are critical, not severed landholdings. That has to be at the back of our mind as policymakers.

There should be a requirement for the mandatory involvement of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine where productive land is in any way affected or compromised. Those are some views I want to share with the witnesses, and I would be interested in-----

The Senator should conclude. We need to move on.

I will, but I want to get the points over. More importantly, it is not about you or me.

It is the people who are watching this debate tonight. They want to understand the issues. I think I have articulated them pretty well myself, if I may say so. Perhaps we will start with Mr. O'Connor.

I thank the Senator. I largely agree with him. For public lands, in the first instance, I agree. Private lands should only be through voluntary agreement. Certainly, our preference is always through voluntary agreement with CPO only as a last resort. The point I answered previously to another member of the committee around severance of land is that there is an acknowledgement from TII that perhaps the approach to date has been somewhat too rigid in trying to get the most efficient route. If we can skirt around a landowner's property, that should be something we look at more so than we have in the past. We see an opportunity to reset that as part of the overall strategic review the Department of Transport is undertaking. The Senator's themes and the broader interaction with other policy priorities is exactly where those issues should be highlighted again because we have that opportunity to revise the strategy over the next few months.

The mandatory requirement-----

I call Deputy Cahill.

Could I just ask Mr. O'Connor to finish that one point on the mandatory requirement of the Department of agriculture to be involved.

Very briefly.

We have this review of strategy, so I think the Department-----

Can. Mr. O'Connor say to this committee today that he personally supports that idea?

I think everybody should be-----

I am asking Mr. O'Connor directly.

It is a strategic review run by the Department of Transport, so I am happy to go back to the Department of Transport and encourage it.

Is Mr. O'Connor personally committed to it? Can he put on the record here that he is committed to that course?

That it should form-----

That mandatory Department of agriculture involvement.

Yes. I would encourage it to-----

And Mr. O'Connor would support it - actively

I thank Senator Boyhan. I call Deputy Cahill.

I welcome our guests this afternoon. I thank them for their statements. I would like to speak about the south Kerry greenway, if I may. First, I want to call again on TII and the local authority to expedite payments to all landowners where agreements have been reached. The south Kerry greenway is along the old railway line. At the time, we were given little or no leeway to move either side. It was minimal. I acknowledge the funding that has been announced to date and the work that has been carried out. It is top class. We are already seeing the benefits in the three relatively short sections that have been opened and completed. It is important for the area, obviously.

We are talking again today about CPOs. I believe in it. Of course, not everyone will agree with me but, in our case, I do not think the south Kerry greenway would have happened only for the CPO. I fully understand the value of land to farmers especially. I want to call again today to expedite all outstanding agreements with regard to accommodation works and compensation. As I have said many times in the past, we must be generous because the greenway will be there forever. We will not. It will serve generations to come. The fact that it has taken years to reach agreement has not been helpful. I must say that, Chair. We are not going to get a big company or big factory to set up in our area in Glenbeigh or Cahersiveen or any part of Iveragh. This is a big plus for us going forward. It will create jobs. It will bring in people. We have seen the success of greenways elsewhere in counties Mayo and Waterford. We saw the section that was opened from Tralee to Fenit and how busy it is.

With regard to the issue of agreements and payments and all of that, I have raised it many times with Kerry County Council but equally so with the Minister, Deputy O'Brien. He, too, is anxious that agreements are reached and landowners are paid. I know there is legal work and all of that to be sorted. I referenced the funding announced to date. It is a huge vote of confidence in south Kerry and in the future of this particular region. It has been questioned with regard to value for money. I know that no two greenways are the same and they have different terrain and all of that. An estimate of €2 million per kilometre was given. Our greenway is over 30 km. The project cost is €72 million. It will rise, quite possibly. I think it is good value for money. If we do not have people, we have nothing. Tourism is hugely important to Kerry and south Kerry, in our case.

With regard to the CPO, there was a vote in Kerry County Council at the time. The vote was 24-8 or something like that. The vast majority of councillors voted for it. I keep making the point that it is hard for two or three people to agree to something, but in our case we had 138 landowners. It was almost impossible to get agreement. People asked me today about what would happen if they were trying to do a railway again. I would say it just would not happen. It is important that the landowner is satisfied because without the land and the landowner, we will not have a greenway. That is why I make the point about being generous, and it is not my first time saying that. The message from this meeting would be to complete agreements as soon as possible and be generous in the context of the accommodation works and the compensation.

I thank Deputy Cahill. Does anyone wish to briefly respond to any of the points?

I equally support what the Deputy said there and the huge potential of that project.

I would give the example the Deputy referred to in terms of getting all the landowners' agreement. We had that experience on Galway with the Clifden greenway, from Galway to Oughterard and Oughterard to Clifden, in terms of the benefits that will bring from a tourism point of view. There has been a lot of engagement with landowners in developing sections of that greenway. However, there have been a few points where we just were not able to get the agreement even though we had by far the vast amount of support from the local landowners. Our experience on the ground is not as negative as some of the experiences I am hearing here in terms of the opposition to greenways from landowners. Talking about the landowners, as Mr. O'Connor mentioned, we do work in terms of early engagement with landowners, route selection options and picking the preferred route. Then, when we pick the preferred route, we try to tweak that so that it has the least effect on landowners. We do get a lot of support from landowners with regard to the greenway. However, there always comes a point, and we have experienced that, when we do not get agreement from them all. In order to be able to deliver that infrastructure, which is very much welcomed in the broader society because of the broader economic opportunities that come from it and the community support and tourism support, it is the last piece of a tool we use to try to deliver that objective. As Mr. Kehoe mentioned, it does start from a development plan. That is subject to public consultation and a reserved function of our members. Therefore, we very much have broad support for it both from the community chamber of commerce elected representatives and farmers in terms of the delivery of the greenways.

I thank Mr. Finn. I call Deputy Kenny.

I thank everyone for their submissions. I have a couple of quick issues. The witnesses mentioned a cost of approximately €2 million per kilometre. I know that is not set or anything, but how much of that is construction cost versus purchase cost? Has TII got a balance that it tries to find in respect of it? I know it varies from each one.

On average, of the total cost of 100%, about 65% is the cost of construction, about 10% is the planning and design and then there is another equal. Around 8% to 10% would be for the purchase of land as well.

That is about €1.3 million-----

That is kind of average.

I am not asking Ms Fitzpatrick to-----

On average when we are doing a CPO.

So, it is about €1.3 million per kilometre, on average, if it is 65%. If it is costing €2 million, €1.3 million of it is for construction.

Well-----

On the construction of a roadway, if TII was to build a kilometre of roadway, what does that cost?

Just recently, because of inflation, etc., costs have gone really high.

A motorway costs about €30 million per kilometre to build.

On the issue of purchase, the public good has been mentioned several times. In the city of Dublin, there are vast areas with huge numbers of young people that have no sports facilities. The young people have no public grounds to play football on. Would it be appropriate for the State to compulsorily purchase land to give them a playground? Is there an instance of that happening?

Local authorities are empowered to acquire land for any purpose, once it is supported by an objective in the development plan. If there is a need identified in the development plan for community infrastructure, transport infrastructure or whatever it might be, we can seek to justify a compulsory purchase of the land required to deliver that, if we are not able to acquire that land by negotiation and agreement. That general provision is there in a number of Acts.

I am not disputing that.

It is there and we use it from time to time, when necessary.

It may well be appropriate but usually it would be in circumstances where there is an essential need. In general, it would be used for something that is seen as essential.

Exactly. We would have to justify that in the application for the CPO that we would make to An Coimisiún Pleanála. It would have to be supported by an objective in the development plan.

One of the points raised was that greenways cost approximately €2 million per kilometre, of which approximately €1.3 million would be construction costs. What is TII's budget to develop greenways?

It varies slightly from year to year but it is approximately €60 million a year.

There is approximately 3,000 km of greenway at some point of development. Is that figure reasonably accurate?

I do not have a figure to hand. As I said in response to a previous question, there are approximately 60 projects at various stages of development.

Would the projects have an average distance of 20 km each or more?

They are between 20 km and 30 km, on average.

Three times six equals 18, which means the total is 1,800 km or more. Is that correct? We will say there are up to 2,000 km. A figure of 2,000 km at €2 million per kilometre amounts to €4 billion. Is that right? My head for figures is not as good as it used to be but I think it is in that ballpark.

The global point is that with the €60 million a year, there is only a subset of those projects we will be able to deliver in the medium term.

Of course.

There is an opportunity over the next number of months, as the Department undertakes a strategic review of the approach to greenways, to look at whether we can focus on the delivery of a smaller cohort of projects in the medium term.

I am watching my time and it is very short. How much of that €60 million is spent on consultancy firms that are developing projects to get them ready for application? Would it be 10% or 40%?

It would be a proportion of that design element that we spoke of when giving the breakdown of costs.

A lot of consultancy firms are making an awful lot of money preparing applications for submission that do not have a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting anywhere because the money simply is not there to do them. There is an issue here because a huge amount of public money is being eaten up to draw up plans and put all sorts of proposals in place. A retired man who worked in a local authority told me that a proposal went to a consultancy firm to get an application for a greenway to go ahead. He said that he and two other local engineers talked about it for an hour one evening and concluded it would never happen. That conversation cost nothing but the consultancy firm got a couple of hundred thousand euro for doing the exactly same as the engineers, who knew the outcome because they had the experience on the ground. A huge amount of State money is being eaten up by consultancy firms to develop projects that will never happen. The figures Mr. O'Connor cited confirm that many of them can never happen. Does he understand my point from a public accounts perspective? This is not the public accounts committee but does Mr. O'Connor understand the point I am making? Does he accept it is something that needs to be a key part of any code that is being reviewed?

"Yes" is the short answer to that. We are the approving authority, so it is the local authorities that come up with proposals.

They are competing with each other.

I accept the point and the opportunity now presents itself-----

I need to move on to Deputy Aird.

I thank the witnesses.

I welcome the witnesses back to the committee. Mr. O'Connor said TII currently has 60 projects but many of those projects, which will cost money, will never get done. I support the previous speaker in that regard. I am not against greenways. I am trying to get funding for one in Portlaoise that runs right along the bog, following an old line that was used for shunting peat into the mill. It is there and ready to go. It would cost very little money. That is a greenway that can stand up and go but so many of the proposals being put forward will never happen.

TII, which is using State money, should stand up and be counted on day one. It should say it is delighted with the proposal and it is a great project but that it will not happen. An awful lot of greenways being looked at are on old railway lines. The old railway lines have all been turned into practical farming land. There are even houses built on them. There are cows, paddocks, roadways and everything. It would take years to get to the end result. Can we just have a bit of joined-up thinking and common sense? That is all I would like. Those are my opening remarks.

It is easy for somebody to come in here - the said gentleman is gone now - and talk about CPOs and how they are very good and needed. I wonder if he was ever subject to a CPO because I was and I can tell him about CPOs. When someone goes out with a CPO in their back pocket, they are the winner on the day. Do not tell me anything else. The witnesses can give soft talk all they like. This happened to me and the person with the CPO is the winner on the day because they know they will get it.

I would like quick answers to these questions. Has Transport Infrastructure Ireland carried out a national farm safety assessment on greenways that pass through or join active farms? Has the Health and Safety Authority been formally consulted on the development of these routes? I would like a quick "Yes" or "No".

I do not know the direct answer to that. The projects are ultimately run by the local authorities.

I spent many years in a local authority. I will not tell Mr. O'Connor how long. Are local authorities obliged to undertake a farm specific safety assessment before selecting a preferred greenway route through agricultural land? It is "Yes" or "No".

I do not know off the top of my head.

Mr. O'Connor does not know that answer either; that is grand. Has Transport Infrastructure Ireland assessed the risks arising from the interactions between walkers, cyclists, children, dogs, e-scooter users and livestock such as cattle, sheep and horses?

This came up in an earlier question and what we can point to is that on the greenways that have opened to date, those interactions are happening without issue.

That is all right. Who is responsible for assessing whether proposed greenway fencing is suitable and safe for affected farms?

We are led by best practice and facilities that are already in place.

Who tells TII? Who does it get advice from? I am just asking Mr. O'Connor. He is the boss in TII.

We look at those facilities that are already in place and whether they are working. We also look at international best practice and how greenways have operated successfully in other countries.

TII does not have any problems with any greenway that is open? That is great news. There are no farming problems, no problems with dogs or e-scooters and no problems with anything else. Is that what Mr. O'Connor is telling me?

I am not saying there are not individual problems that arise from time to time but I am saying that, across the portfolio of greenways that are operating now, they are seen as very positive overall.

When something happens, who looks after it? Does it go back to the local authority-----

It is the local authority.

TII will be gone and it is impossible to get in contact with it. We could not even get it down to meetings in the local authority when I was on it.

Who determines whether fencing is stock-proof, bull-proof, stallion-proof or suitable for use alongside suckler cows with calves, sheep, lambs, horses and younger stock? Cattle are very dangerous, especially where there is a dog and a cow with a young calf. Does he realise that?

We design to best practice and we have encountered no issues with fencing to date.

Where does liability land if livestock breach fencing, jump or push through barriers and panic due to interactions with members of the public or cause injury?

Ultimately, when a greenway is built and operational it is in the ownership of the local authority. The local authority's public liability-----

Will the public liability cover the farmers who are affected if something happens as a result of a dog or something going through the fence and the cattle get out, stray onto the road and cause injury?

Who is responsible for that?

It is impossible to give a general answer to that, in fairness. When we deliver greenways, we deliver the stock-proof fencing that is appropriate along all the boundaries. We are then responsible for the maintenance of that fencing over time. Our public liability insurance extends to the route-----

That is grand. Mr. Kehoe is county manager in Westmeath. If a proposal comes forward and he knows in his heart and soul that it cannot be delivered, will he stop it in its tracks and say he would prefer it went somewhere else where it can be delivered on?

What we do all the time, and I think I speak for all my colleagues, is bring forward projects that we believe can and should be delivered. That would be in the context of county priorities. We also look at lots of different funding sources for delivery of greenways and not singly TII.

I am sorry for interrupting but-----

I am sorry, Deputy, your time-----

You only gave me 45 seconds and you gave everyone else a minute. I just want to ask one question.

Deputy, please, the time available for the meeting has expired at this stage.

I know, but you should be consistent, Chairman. You gave other people one-----

We have additional members that we need to-----

I had an average of-----

There are members who have not had the opportunity to speak yet and you had the benefit of the additional time at a previous meeting. Do not be greedy.

I am not greedy.

You had the benefit of the additional time at a previous meeting.

Be fair.

There are members who have not had an opportunity to speak yet. I have ten additional questions. We move on to Deputy Lawless, who has five minutes. That will leave a shorter period available to the three other members.

In relation to the Belclare to Murrisk greenway in County Mayo, which is west of Westport, it was recently announced that decision is going to be taken out of the hands of local councillors and will be made by An Coimisiún Pleanála. Why was that?

There is environmental screening that happens at this stage of the project. That is an assessment of the potential impacts on the environment. After that process was recently completed, it was determined that impacts on environmental sensitivities could not be ruled out. That means there is a higher bar in seeking planning consent and it, therefore, goes through An Coimisiún Pleanála.

Will it revert to the local authority or the members at a local level?

No, that determines the planning consent. The route through which planning is sought is determined by the potential impacts or the scale of the project. In this case, it is the potential impacts on the local environment.

I am trying to get my head around it. My understanding is that typically local councillors have a say in relation to a greenway project. Is that the case?

There is a process called the Part 8 process which stays with the council but that can only be utilised if a project screens out, that is, if it is determined there are not potential significant impacts on the environment. The trigger relates to environmental legislation and a sensitive environment so it needs to be assessed by a higher authority.

What is happening here is, because of the environmental aspect, the democratic process in terms of the local councillors is being circumvented. An Coimisiún Pleanála will then make the decision, irrespective of the will of the democratic mandate of the elected representatives.

No, it is determined by-----

I might give some additional information. I have been involved in projects for many years so I am aware of both processes. That was a change in the legislation that came through in 2012. Until 2012, a local authority would ultimately make the reserved function decision on projects that would screen in and screen out. However, legislation changed around the time of 2012, which meant that a project like Ms Flynn mentioned, where an independent ecological assessment of the project concluded it was not screened out, was seen as an important element of separation between project development to local authority both as an infrastructure element of a local authority and a planning element of it. The planning report going to the elected members was deemed to be changed in 2012 meaning projects such as that had to go to An Coimisiún Pleanála at that stage. That is why with even for a lot of the small projects we deal with, like OPW drainage schemes, which do not screen out, we are not permitted to adjudicate on them ourselves. They have to go to An Coimisiún Pleanála. That was a change of legislation around 2012.

Environmental grounds, irrespective that they are worth considering, should not mean the reserved function of the democratic mandate of the individual area should be circumvented. However, that appears to be the case here. That is very regrettable.