I am calling on Roscommon County Council to surface dress the set back area between the homeowners wall and the public road on any road which is part of the current years roads program. I am also calling on Roscommon County Council to fix potholes in these areas which are dedicated to public use (under a condition of planning) between the homeowners wall and the public road .

“I am calling on Roscommon County Council to surface dress the setback area between the homeowners wall and the public road on any road which is part of the current year’s roads program. I am also calling on Roscommon County Council to fix potholes in these areas which are dedicated to public use (under a condition of planning) between the homeowners wall and the public road.”

The Meetings Administrator read the following reply:

The set back of boundaries adjacent to the public road along with the associated surfacing of entrances in line with third party design proposals and/or planning condition are measures undertaken by developers to satisfy the Local Authority that a development can take place without impacting negatively on road safety and local amenity. The provision and maintenance of such infrastructure, in strict compliance with their planning application, is clearly the obligation of the developer and subsequent owner. Liability that arises on foot of the provision and maintenance of these areas lies with the developer and/or owner depending on cause and that is a matter for the courts to decide in instances where there is a dispute. In instances where liability is as a result of actions that were performed by the Local Authority, Roscommon County Council engages the services of Irish Public Bodies to insure such activities and assets. Roscommon County Council is therefore not in a position to utilise public funding to surface or maintain set back areas in line with the proposed notion of motion.   

Cllr. Fitzmaurice stated that he was disappointed with the reply and does not agree with the policy.

The Members supported the motion of Cllr. Fitzmaurice:

·        In adjacent Authorities such as Co Sligo surface dressing of the setback areas is being carried out. This policy operating in Roscommon should be reconsidered.

·        Owners should not be liable for this area outside their property.

·        Roscommon Co. Co. previously upgraded this area provided the ground was ready and it was part of the roads programme.

·        Elected members regularly receive representations regarding this matter.

·        Who owns the lands between the boundary wall and the road and do we have a duty of care to repair this ground – it should be good practice.

·        It is a false economy not to repair this ground in conjunction with any road improvements.

·        These areas can be a road hazard for cars or vehicles pulling in on narrow roads

·        Have the costs of repairing these areas in question been identified? It appears to be a grey area and should be referred to the SPC for discussion

·        There arrears to be an anomaly between what is being done in adjacent Municipal District areas – one is resurfacing to the boundary wall and another is not.

·        While the proposal has merit, we are not there yet and the costs involved may not allow us to do this work yet. If we get more roads resurfaced there will be a point at which this could be facilitated.

The Chief Executive stated that this motion cannot be facilitated as the Council has a budget allocated by the TII and the Department will not fund this extra work as the work is measured to the square meter and we can only surface the width of the carriageway.

Acting Director of Services Mr. Greg O’Donnell responded that when a development is carried out, the boundary is set back for sightlines and is primarily to facilitate a setback distance and when roads are resurfaced, care is taken to ensure no drainage or water pooling issues. In response to a suggestion for Cllr. Fitzmaurice if a property owner can fence off the area in question, Mr. O’Donnell confirmed that this cannot be done as per planning conditions.

On the PROPOSAL of Cllr. Fitzmaurice

SECONDED by Cllr. Leyden

It was AGREED that the matter be referred to the Roads and Transportation SPC