Bumpy road over 'Blayney laneway vote at MD meeting

The taking in charge of a private lane near Castleblayney, against the recommendation of the council executive, could have wider implications for the county’s road budget now a precedent has been set.

Last Tuesday evening, October 20, a laneway in the townland of Gorteens was deemed a public road after Sinn Féin members of Carrickmacross-Castleblayney Municipal District voted in favour of Cllr Paul Gibbons’ proposal.

A counterproposal from Cllr PJ O’Hanlon (FF), seconded by Cllr Peter Conlon (FG) and supported by Cllr Aidan Campbell (FG), sought to retain the laneway’s current status.

When the vote ended three-all, Cathaoirleach Cllr Noel Keelan used his casting vote in favour of taking the laneway in charge.

Opening the meeting, Cllr Keelan noted that the issue had been under consideration for two years and concerned one of the few reserve functions still exercised by elected members.

He referred to a “lengthy debate” a few weeks ago and said councillors had considered detailed reports from District Co-ordinator Damien Thornton, sought guidance from the Association of Irish Local Government’s (AILG) Executive Director Tommy Moylan and referred the matter to the Corporate Policy Group (CPG).

While acknowledging concerns raised by Chief Executive Robert Burns, Cllr Keelan highlighted how the public consultation process produced no objections and proposed taking a vote on the “difficult decision”.

Director of Services Cathal Flynn said the concerns raised by the executive remained those outlined in Mr Thornton’s report.

Cllr Carthy said the CPG had discussed the matter extensively and agreed to develop a future policy to protect the council. However, he argued the Gorteens’ case had already undergone “due diligence”.

“I think we’re equipped to make a decision on this particular case,” he said.

Cllr O’Hanlon questioned why the council was proceeding before a policy was adopted. “It’s a wee bit contradictory. So, this gets preferential treatment? If others come in six or 12 months they will get different treatment.”

He repeatedly raised funding concerns, asking where the money would come from and whether road maintenance budgets would be affected.

Cllr O’Hanlon also questioned whether existing standards for roads being taken in charge are now being abandoned.

Mr Flynn reiterated the executive’s “strong” position that the council not take charge of the laneway for reasons including “public utility, making good a deficiency and safety”.

He warned that, any future costs of maintaining the laneway, must come from the same funding allocation used to maintain the county’s 2,800km public road network.

Joining remotely after suffering a puncture en route to the meeting, Cllr Gibbons said he didn’t believe there was any “conflict”.

He asked whether there would be any immediate expenditure if the lane is made public and was told by Mr Flynn that it would be assigned a road number and added to the maintenance schedule, with “no immediate spend priority”.

Cllr Conlon argued that councillors shouldn’t put the cart before the horse.

“There is a roads policy coming down the line to deal with these types of situations. Recent court actions highlighted the need for it. We need to do the right thing. I think taking this in charge is not the right thing to do.”

He pointed to concerns raised by the executive, TII and the AILG, adding: “I’m asking you to defer until the policy is in place.”

Cllr Campbell, who had chaired the CPG meeting earlier that day, said he had been frustrated because members expected a recommendation to emerge from that discussion. Referring to Thornton’s report, he highlighted concerns surrounding planning permission and road safety improvements required at the nearby N53 junction.

Mr Flynn confirmed there was no provision in either the 2026 budget or draft 2027 budget to address the road safety concerns.

“I’m not going to sit in here signing off on a road with safety concerns,” said Cllr O’Hanlon.

He pointed out that, if substandard roads are now being accepted, then other residents would expect similar treatment.

“We can’t have one set of rules for one set of people and another for others.”

Describing the day as difficult, Cllr Campbell said he had been contacted by members of the family involved but had to be true to himself.

“The Chief Executive said that he had significant concerns and recommended that we do not declare this a public road. He has a statutory role to advise us.”

Cllr Campbell also expressed concerns about the “precedent” being created and the cost implication of same.

“The council are going to face demands to take in charge other laneways.”

Cllr O’Hanlon agreed: “I’m not trying to stop someone from building a house, but there is going to have to be repercussions for this.”

Cllr Gibbons argued that concerns around traffic generation are overstated. “The couple involved live in a house at that address, so there will be no extra traffic.”

As debate continued, Cllr Campbell reiterated that, while all members recognised chronic underfunding of roads, taking on additional liabilities that could potentially cost €300,000 was difficult to justify.

Quoting from Tommy Moylan’s letter, he reminded colleagues that the chief executive’s concerns, particularly regarding road safety, should not simply be ignored.

Cllr Carthy responded: “It hasn’t been ignored. The decision could have been made two weeks ago. There is a lot of talk that this is going to be a new junction, it already exists and there will not be an increase in volume [traffic].”

Moving to conclude the discussion, Cllr Keelan said the issue had been debated “ad nauseam” over the past two years.

When the vote concluded, Mr Thornton noted: “It is now a public road and will be referred to the roads section.”

Cllr O’Hanlon requested that all costs arising from the decision be made public and asked officials to report back on them.