That Roscommon County Council amend its policy on road surfacing to ensure, in line with other local authorities, that all street sections to the front of residential properties are included in the resurfacing and road construction programme. The current exclusion of these sections has caused difficulties for property owners, including raised road levels and surface water entering homes. As this is a policy matter and a reserved function of the elected members, I propose that all such street sections be included in future Roads Programmes. This is the only tangible benefit rural property owners may receive from paying the Local Property Tax.

21:25   Road Surfacing

Notice of Motion from Cllr. Crosby

That Roscommon County Council amend its policy on road surfacing to ensure, in line with other local authorities, that all street sections to the front of residential properties are included in the resurfacing and road construction programme. The current exclusion of these sections has caused difficulties for property owners, including raised road levels and surface water entering homes. As this is a policy matter and a reserved function of the elected members, I propose that all such street sections be included in future Roads Programmes. This is the only tangible benefit rural property owners may receive from paying the Local Property Tax.

The Meetings Administrator read the following reply:

Section 103A(1) of the Local Government Act 2001, as amended, provides that “As soon as may be following the adoption of the local authority budget, a schedule of proposed works of maintenance and repair to be carried out during the financial year in each municipal district shall be prepared under the direction of the chief executive, having regard to the availability of resources”

Section 103A(2) states “A schedule prepared for the purposes of subsection (1) shall be considered by the municipal district members concerned and be adopted by resolution, with or without amendment by it, within such time limit and in accordance with such conditions and requirements as may be prescribed by the regulations made by the Minister.”

Section 103A(3) goes on to state “In making an amendment under subsection (2) the municipal district members shall have due regard to the local authority budget adopted”.

Roscommon County Council’s Roads & Transportation Unit, on behalf of the Chief Executive, prepares the Annual Roads Programme in accordance with engineering best practice, available funding, and established operational procedures. This programme outlines the funding available and the routes to be included in the works schedule for consideration of the members.

If adopted by the District, it then falls to the Roads Department to implement the Schedule of Municipal District Road Works in accordance with all standards and funding requirements in an efficient and effective manner to obtain maximum value for money.

While the area between the edge of the carriageway and the boundary wall of individual dwellings may, in some cases, fall within the public road, it is generally not included in resurfacing works for the following reasons:

1. Planning and Design Responsibility:

In rural areas, property owners were often required under planning permission to set back boundary walls to facilitate sightlines, provide pull-in areas, prevent runoff onto the public road, provide adequate drainage, etc. These works were to be constructed to an appropriate standard at the time of development. Retrospective resurfacing of these areas—especially where standards were not met—would represent a poor use of public funds and could be contrary to their planning permission. Road levels are not typically raised outside residential properties. In cases where this occurs, accommodation works are agreed with the landowner and necessary surfacing and drainage works, etc are completed by the Council as part of the road project.

2. Drainage Considerations:

Resurfacing set-back areas would introduce drainage responsibilities for each individual property, which should have been addressed during the original planning and design of the dwelling. This would be a considerable burden on the Council, in terms of funding and risk, in some circumstances.

3. Resource Allocation:

Extending resurfacing to include all such areas would significantly reduce the funding available for the main carriageway network, which serves the broader public interest and is a NOAC indicator. This would compromise the Council’s ability to maintain road safety and connectivity across the county.

4. Operational Protocols:

The Council’s current approach aligns with engineering norms and practices in many other local authorities. It ensures consistency, fairness, and the most effective use of limited resources.

Cllr. Crosby reiterated that road surfacing is a contentious issue and that planning conditions often require pull-in areas for public use. He argued that rural residents deserve this support and noted concerns about hedge cutting.

Members supported the motion and raised the following points:

• The issue is recurring and affects roads feeding into the new N5.
• Mixed views on whether property owners should contribute financially.
• Questions about insurance coverage and public use of set-back areas.
• Suggestions to tar roads up to boundary walls where flooding is not a risk.
• Concerns that rural taxpayers receive little return.

Director of Roads, Mr. Mark Keaveney, clarified that while the roads programme is approved by Members, its implementation is the responsibility of the Roads Department. Where resurfacing alters water runoff, accommodation works are carried out. He cautioned against using public funds for private accesses and highlighted liability and cost concerns.

Cllr. Crosby responded that land registry maps show ownership to the centre of the road and that planning conditions imply public use. He opposed the idea of landowner contributions and noted that similar practices are in place in other counties.

Chief Executive, Mr. Shane Tiernan, added that the new digitised road mapping system provides precise measurements. He stressed that most road funding comes from central government, with limited discretionary funding, and that expanding resurfacing would impact local road maintenance due to resource constraints.

On the PROPOSAL of Cllr. Crosby

SECONDED by Cllr. Moylan

it was AGREED to support the motion.