Lissadell House to re-open tomorrow

HollyB

tedshredsonfire wrote: »

If you are allowed on the land then legally you are an invitee and have certain rights and should be protected. Its why farmers had to put up all those signs you are on a farm etc. If you are a trespasser you don't have the same rights as an invitee and would have a far stronger case for suing. land legalites are a laugh a minute unless you are caught up in one.

How can you possibly be an invitee if you are present against the declared wishes of the owners?

If a public right of way is being asserted, then I think that a member of the public who avails of that right of way should not expect the owner of the land to accommodate them any further, and the owner certainly shouldn't be responsible for any injury or damage, except in a case where the owner oersonally caused the injury/damage, ie. hit them with a car or something. If they find the roads, paths, etc, unsatisfactory, I'm sure that the owners won't hold a gun to their heads and force them to visit.

itac

tedshredsonfire wrote: »

If you are allowed on the land then legally you are an invitee and have certain rights and should be protected. Its why farmers had to put up all those signs you are on a farm etc. If you are a trespasser you don't have the same rights as an invitee and would have a far stronger case for suing.

HollyB wrote: »

How can you possibly be an invitee if you are present against the declared wishes of the owners?

I think Tedshreds is referring to people who are legally allowed on the land, not trespassers or peoples claiming right of way? At least that's what I got from that post.

Completely agree with you re: injury claim crap! Interesting article in the Irish Times today referring to Lissadell...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0103/1224286666679.html




Access to historic homes the key to public support
BRIAN O'CONNELL


OPINION: What is to become of Ireland’s big house heritage that is still largely in private hands?

THE RECENT High Court case involving the owners of Lissadell House in Co Sligo raises fundamental questions about the overall future and purpose of our remaining historic houses.


The case, which ran for 58 days, centred on a dispute between the owners, Edward Walsh and Constance Cassidy, and Sligo County Council over public rights of way through the estate. The couple had purchased the house for €3.5 million in 2003, and invested a further €9.5 million since then restoring and promoting the house.


While Lissadell holds a special place in Irish culture, given its associations with WB Yeats who visited on many occasions, it fell to private owners to put in place a plan for the house to be self-sustaining. “We took on what the State was not prepared to do. We had a vision. That vision is over,” Walsh said after the ruling went against him and his wife, raising doubts over the future of the estate as a tourist attraction.


Lissadell is just one of a number of significant Irish houses that have had a turbulent century, with many of their estates broken up and their financial independence significantly compromised. In 2007, I was involved in a project that meant visiting 30 of Ireland’s great houses, with a particular focus on those remaining in family ownership.


In advance of the project, I expected to be embarking on a tour of aristocratic, well-heeled Ireland. I found some owners still felt an exaggerated sense of historical and material self-entitlement and were unable to break free from the landlord/tenant ideology. A sizeable majority, though, saw themselves less as privileged owners of the “big house on the hill” and more as custodians of sites of cultural and historical significance.


Elderly owners, in particular, worried about how best to unburden the next generation from the financial costs associated with keeping large houses. One woman I met was in the process of removing family portraits from the walls of her crumbling family pile near Dublin. She was hoping to raise enough money from their sale to re-roof and insulate the house and prevent further damage during the winter months.


No longer were there large staffs to run these estates, and in cases where younger generations had left home, the sense of isolation was keenly felt.
One of the possible implications from the fallout of the Lissadell case is that in future the next generation of private owners may be hesitant when purchasing and living in historic houses where public rights of way exist. A balance needs to be struck between ensuring an owner’s right to raise their family in some privacy and locals right to continue to enjoy established rights of way.


Yet what of the houses themselves? In the past decade, there seemed to be some impetus in putting in place a plan to preserve some of Ireland’s most threatened houses. In 2003, a report by Dr Terence Dooley of NUI Maynooth, entitled A Future for Historic Houses , sought to examine 50 such properties. In his findings, Dooley said: “The main body of this report finds the houses, with very few exceptions, are faced with difficulties which threaten their existence in the future unless immediate steps are taken to avert these threats.”


Writing a foreword to the report, then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern sought to reclaim the big house for the present generation. He said: “Once considered not to be part of our patrimony, these magnificent 18th and 19th century houses, built by Irish builders, are now increasingly valued for their architectural significance and for the wealth of superb interior decoration created mainly by Irish craftspeople.”



The report led to the establishment of the Irish Heritage Trust in 2006, which was tasked and funded by government to assist with saving houses in peril. Yet the optimism that the body would be the solution for properties in danger has not quite materialised. While the Irish Heritage Trust has taken over Fota House in Cork, its funding is now limited and its role reduced.


Kevin Baird, chief executive officer of the Irish Heritage Trust, says that the financial climate in 2006 when it launched is very different to today and that has implications for the role of the trust.
“We received a huge amount of financial support from government when we launched. What we have now found is there are projects that have had to be parked and we are waiting for better times to come. Given the game we are in and the current economic climate, it is very devastating. But we are in a 100-year cycle. It is a very long game to deliver sites that will be here forever. I often say we are making a casserole not a fry.”


The Irish Heritage Trust plans further significant investment in Fota House over the coming six months, including refurbishment works led by architect John O’Connell, and better public access.


Some argue though that the Irish Heritage Trust is not robust nor financially independent enough to provide a solution, and houses such as Aldborough House in Dublin, or Vernon Mount in Cork are exactly the type of properties a well-funded Irish Heritage Trust should be saving, but can’t.

In recent months, a new association for private owners of historic houses has been formed, led by Susan Kellett at Enniscoe House. Entitled the Irish Historic Houses Association, the organisation aims to provide a forum in which current owners may discuss issues and share knowledge in relation to the upkeep and refurbishment of their homes.


Kellett believes the best persons charged with preserving this aspect of our built heritage should be the owners themselves, and not an independent body such as the Irish Heritage Trust. She also believes the houses are unable to remain apart from their local community and owners need to realise this.


“In my case, I cannot operate without the support of the local community. The thing is that if you look around Ireland there are probably between 200 and 300 significant properties . . . So, the most economical way
to keep those houses and make use of them is for original families, or ones who have come in, to be able to live in the properties, to continue to run them.


“The Irish Heritage Trust takes the properties into public ownership and loses the families. You end up with something very expensive to run. Families will work themselves to the bone if they are allowed to. I know the Irish Heritage Trust is looking to mimic the English National Trust but we don’t have the money at the moment.”

Kellett has set up a website, ihh.ie, where members can log on and discuss issues. She says there are real security concerns about opening houses to the public, but that the majority of her members are already engaged with the local community and run an ongoing series of events. Many are not publicised or promoted formally and this needs to change.


Returning to Lissadell, she says the house is a particular case, but lessons can be learned about the fallout from the dispute. “I don’t think any owner should handle something like that. You have to interact with the local community if you want to make a change. I don’t understand the thinking that if you are developing a house as a tourist attraction, why you would then object to people coming through?”


The message to many of the remaining landed class and those living in historic houses should be that public funding costs, and the price to be paid is often public access.


“We do have some members who are elderly and are frightened if they open to visitors every day, some of the visitors will just be casing the joint,” she says. “My message though is that it is a two-way street. There is no free lunch, and owners must give something back in return.”

tedshredsonfire

Holly afaik in the case I refered to the kids lived near a substation. ESB came to the house stating kids were entering site etc etc. ESB put up more signs fencing etc but kids still found a way in. Ruling was that by putting up a sign stating danger no entry it was like an invitation to a curious child. therefore esb had invited siad child therefore esb had a higher duty of care as the child was an invitee not a tresspasser. Ludicris yes, baffling yes but whoever said the law was fair?.
I am going off topic norw though but its just to point out that any landowner has a higher duty of care on an invitee as opposed to a tresspasser and I presume the same applies to Lissadell house.

dingding

tedshredsonfire wrote: »

Holly afaik in the case I refered to the kids lived near a substation. ESB came to the house stating kids were entering site etc etc. ESB put up more signs fencing etc but kids still found a way in. Ruling was that by putting up a sign stating danger no entry it was like an invitation to a curious child. therefore esb had invited siad child therefore esb had a higher duty of care as the child was an invitee not a tresspasser. Ludicris yes, baffling yes but whoever said the law was fair?.
I am going off topic norw though but its just to point out that any landowner has a higher duty of care on an invitee as opposed to a tresspasser and I presume the same applies to Lissadell house.

Do you have the details of this case. I would be interested in finding out more.

tedshredsonfire

sorry dingding no other info comes to mind. I read about it during studying a section of law for a hotel course I was doing at the time. Its a pretty fameous case so a good legal head should be able to recall it.

dingding

Just interested as I was working in the ESB in the early 80's and one of the jobs I had was raising the height of the fence in a number of substations.

Must be related to this.

Thanks

EDIT:- Found it:

http://www.cpaireland.ie/UserFiles/File/students/Articles/2006LFmodified.pdf

In McNamara v ESB [1975] I.R. 1, at issue were injuries sustained by a young boy when he
broke into an ESB substation. The substation was surrounded by a fence of wire meshing,
which was being replaced by a wall. The accident occurred at a spot where there was wire
meshing topped with barbed wire. There were easily reachable uninsulated conductors at the
ESB substation and this was the reason for the barbed wire topping on the wire meshing and
for the building of the wall. The ESB also knew at the time that children were entering the
substation. The temporary fence was severely criticised by both an architect and an engineer
hired as experts by the plaintiffs. Again, the Court found the ESB liable on the basis of
proximity and foreseeability. The Court did consider the steps taken by the ESB to prevent
entry into the substation and decided that they were unreasonable in the circumstances. The
Court also considered whether the children themselves could be held liable.
It concluded that they were not, as they did not appreciate that there was a danger and this
danger had not been communicated to them.

HollyB

itac wrote: »

The Irish Times wrote:

A balance needs to be struck between ensuring an owner’s right to raise their family in some privacy and locals right to continue to enjoy established rights of way.

One possible solution is to introduce a law preventing public rights of way being claimed within a certain distance of a private home, say 200 metres or the boundary of the property, whichever is nearer.

Essexboy

T runner wrote: »

Sorry but that is an example of one individual's alleged attitude and not representative of the whole "North Sligo" mindset. As stated previously the Lisadell case was decided by a court of Law. Nothing to do with North Sligo mindsets and thankfully nothing to do with corruption.

If the council had folded to the Walshes public campaign to equate the right oif way issue with the loss of jobs at Lisadell that would be de facto corruption.

You seem to have a beef with people from North Sligo but it has nothing to do with the Lisadell right of way case.

I gave an example, not a list!

"Eddie Walsh and Constance Cassidy, . . . . ., say they received assurances from the local authority and the previous owners, that there is no public right of way through the estate."
Someone is telling porkies here: whoever it is, I find it plausible that the previous owners gave these assurances.

However, I agree with you that the council were right not to give in. As the motto above the Bridewell Garda station says Fiat justitia ruat caelum (May justice be done though the heavens fall).

sligopark

itac wrote: »

I think Tedshreds is referring to people who are legally allowed on the land, not trespassers or peoples claiming right of way? At least that's what I got from that post.

Completely agree with you re: injury claim crap! Interesting article in the Irish Times today referring to Lissadell...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0103/1224286666679.html


Access to historic homes the key to public support
BRIAN O'CONNELL

OPINION: What is to become of Ireland’s big house heritage that is still largely in private hands?

THE RECENT High Court case involving the owners of Lissadell House in Co Sligo raises fundamental questions about the overall future and purpose of our remaining historic houses.


The case, which ran for 58 days, centred on a dispute between the owners, Edward Walsh and Constance Cassidy, and Sligo County Council over public rights of way through the estate. The couple had purchased the house for €3.5 million in 2003, and invested a further €9.5 million since then restoring and promoting the house.

I would have to dispute they spent anything of their own other than time in restoring or promoting the house.

These monies as I understand it are almost if not 100% tax deductable so we the taxpayer paid for the restoration and Edward Walsh and Constance Cassidy's 'vison' that included removing the rights of way of locals and helping them live the dream at our expense.

Also just wondering aloud did this vision includes the barb wire fencing and intrusion upon rights of way that went up within hours of the judgement going against Sligo latest bluffer landlord and in favour of local serfs? Are they ready to take their stuff to their villa in France as they threatened?

The locals now speak of going down past 'Colditz' on their way to the beach.

These bluffers had some neck on them stealing a national treasure from under our noses.

John_Rambo

sligopark wrote: »

These bluffers had some neck on them stealing a national treasure from under our noses.

I think you are getting a bit excited and hot under the collar. What is a "Bluffer" by the way?

sligopark

John_Rambo wrote: »

I think you are getting a bit excited and hot under the collar. What is a "Bluffer" by the way?

an adjective describing one acting out a bluff ...

bluff 1 (blf)
v. bluffed, bluff·ing, bluffs
v.tr. 1. To mislead or deceive.
2. To impress, deter, or intimidate by a false display of confidence.
3. Games To try to mislead (opponents) in a card game by heavy betting on a poor hand or by little or no betting on a good one.

v.intr. To engage in a false display of strength or confidence.

n. 1. The act or practice of bluffing.
2. One that bluffs.

bluff - deceive an opponent by a bold bet on an inferior hand with the result that the opponent withdraws a winning hand

John_Rambo

The house was up for sale, they bought it. For what it was, a national treasure, it was going for a song. It should have been snapped up by the council, but they refused to buy it. That, might be a good thing, because, by all means, they sound like a pack of gombeen fools and the present owners seem to be more capable.

If you feel you have been deceived, you weren't, you snooze, you loose.

On a serious note, you should have lobbied your council heavily at the time. That's if you were concerned at the time.

sligopark

Up for sale yes - but would the Co Council got the 100% tax rebate involved around the restoration? There in lies the reason for it being on sale for a song....

Nevermind local politicians as a majority being gombeen fools (as you describe them) incapable of anything major in their lives other than freeloading, never mind in proper engagement with modern landlord types...

Then on top none of the locals expected a bluff on rights of way being removed then intruded upon as they are now in retalitation ...

John_Rambo

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Anyway, the right of way is back now, so you must be happy, do you use it often?

sligopark

John_Rambo wrote: »

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Anyway, the right of way is back now, so you must be happy, do you use it often?

Its not really more complicated than I have described it past legal speak and the fact that Sligo Co Council gave away the rights of way at culleenamore beach when it suited them against local community wishes

Not often lately - was back last week visiting over the holidays, it is intruded upon by barbed wire and fence so that now many areas are closed off from cars (now intruded to the point of being unable to pass another car without scratching one or both [as intended I presume to discourage passage - (counting usage numbers for the appeal?)]

As to happy - its more about locals having rights and not being trampled on by outside folks planting themselves in and threatening local folk with impoverishment if they don't get their way similar to english landlords of the past...

John_Rambo

sligopark wrote: »

threatening local folk with impoverishment if they don't get their way similar to english landlords of the past...

Ah, come on Sligopark, don't turn this in to a "locals" versus "blowins" thing, they didn't threaten anyone with impoverishment.

T runner

itac wrote: »

I think Tedshreds is referring to people who are legally allowed on the land, not trespassers or peoples claiming right of way? .........
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0103/1224286666679.html




Access to historic homes the key to public support
BRIAN O'CONNELL


OPINION: What is to become of Ireland’s big house heritage that is still largely in private hands?

THE RECENT High Court case involving the owners of Lissadell House in Co Sligo raises fundamental questions about the overall future and purpose of our remaining historic houses.


................
While Lissadell holds a special place in Irish culture, given its associations with WB Yeats who visited on many occasions, it fell to private owners to put in place a plan for the house to be self-sustaining. .............”

The author should atleast try and get his facts right. The principle reason for Lisadells significance is that it was the home of Lady Constance Markiewitz nee Gore Booth: revolutionary, Irish republican, first ever female MP, TD who returned a national hero after her incarceration in England following the 1916 rising. The occasional visits of WB Yeats are more incidental.

John_Rambo

sligopark wrote: »

threatening local folk with impoverishment if they don't get their way similar to english landlords of the past...

Were the Gore-Booth's not very good? As far as I can remember they saved lives during the famine. (long time since I did history!) Then, (I DO remember this) their daughter became the famous nationalist?

tedshredsonfire

T runner wrote: »

The author should atleast try and get his facts right. The principle reason for Lisadells significance is that it was the home of Lady Constance Markiewitz nee Gore Booth: revolutionary, Irish republican, first ever female MP, TD who returned a national hero after her incarceration in England following the 1916 rising. The occasional visits of WB Yeats are more incidental.

AFAIK Yeats was really only tolerated there at the time. I bit like the priest in Fr Ted that came and stayed for ages. So said Eva Gore-Booth when I was about 7 but without the Ted reference obviously.

Pete M.

John_Rambo wrote: »

Were the Gore-Booth's not very good? As far as I can remember they saved lives during the famine. (long time since I did history!) Then, (I DO remember this) their daughter became the famous nationalist?

In creating the parklands in the 1840s Robert Gore Booth acquired the 875 acre town land of Ballygilgan, assisting the emigration of 52 families to Quebec: in 1839 he paid each person £2 a head for disturbance, £4 for every acre of good land, and sea passage in the Pomona.


Those who refused to emigrate were offered land elsewhere in Sligo. He also acquired a neighbouring estate, and both purchases were funded by the sale and mortgage of family property in England.
Lissadell itself was not mortgaged for these purchases, and it is doubtful if tradition is correct in saying that the estate was mortgaged for famine relief in the 1840's. Robert did offer some help during the famine: he chaired four famine relief committees and distributed bread and oatmeal.

^^^ Directly from their own website, so no Robert Gore Booth wasn't that great a chap by the looks of it. Probably 'assisted the emigration' of more than he fed.

But anyhoo....

tedshredsonfire wrote: »

AFAIK Yeats was really only tolerated there at the time. I bit like the priest in Fr Ted that came and stayed for ages. So said Eva Gore-Booth when I was about 7 but without the Ted reference obviously.

Yeah, shur he was a raving drug fiend and you know what those privileged arty types are like about the place, nightmare :eek:

One of the only stories I know of his visits to Lissadell involves him rolling around on the lawn in his birthday suit, full of laudanum, 'gaining inspiration', kinda like a rock n' roll sort of a thing.

sligopark

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ah, come on Sligopark, don't turn this in to a "locals" versus "blowins" thing, they didn't threaten anyone with impoverishment.

to quote the chap himself 'the vision is over' ... and to locals 'I ll close the place and move our stuff to our villa in france' ...

John_Rambo wrote: »

Were the Gore-Booth's not very good? As far as I can remember they saved lives during the famine. (long time since I did history!)

Not sure about that saving people thing (were they like the original schindler's list?), we 'll give you a few quid to get off the land and take the boat (with all its risks) to somewhere else off my land ...


Did you study this document now gathered as a website in your history course? You would have at a university course...

www.irishholocaust.org

John_Rambo

sligopark wrote: »

Did you study this document now gathered as a website in your history course? You would have at a university course.

I didn't go to university, I am just remembering from leaving cert history, and, yes, I am correct. The countess was a nationalist, a real one, not an armchair revolutionist and her father gave out food to the hungry as far as I can remember.

Who are you quoting there by the way?

sligopark

John_Rambo wrote: »

The countess was a nationalist, a real one, not an armchair revolutionist and her father gave out food to the hungry as far as I can remember.

Not sure what a constitutes a real nationalist? Is that an anti european? Or is it like the bomber that blew up Mountbatten a few miles away? Probably off topic but what made her a 'real' nationalist?

Don't know much about the daddy either but handing out a bit of grub, whilst buying the folk off their land for peanuts and sending them to new lands and watching food being exported to the mainland .... what a hero...

John_Rambo wrote: »

Who are you quoting there by the way?

Not quoting anyone it was a link to a site used in history study (which you alluded to have undertaken) by Chris Fogarty [given his name was on the site I await criticism of fogarty rather than the material ...]

John_Rambo

You may sneer at the fact that I didn't study history in university, but you claim you are the one that is not sure what constitutes are real nationalist? You are the one that claims not to know much about her Daddy? You go on to say;

to quote the chap himself 'the vision is over' ... and to locals 'I ll close the place and move our stuff to our villa in france' ...

And then you say you are not quoting anyone...

Did you ad in "and to the locals" to be tabloid, to ad some sensation to stir the sh8t and get some anti sentiment going?

Look, it's an emotive issue. A national treasure revamped and done up, ready for tourism and locals to see, and because of this petty row it's not likely to happen, misquoting people, pretending to quote other people, questioning history and accusing the present owners of impoverishment is ludicrous, you are just stirring it up and turning it in to an England v Ireland, Local v blow in thing, which it is not.

What it is is... A shame.

sligopark

Apologies John it was not a smear nor intended to be. A real nationalist is so up for argument it is entirely up to interpretation - eg Bobby Sands is a real nationalist? Eamon Devalera? Micheal Collins? Gerry Adams? 32 County Sovereignty Party? The IRA? Official IRA? Provisional IRA? The REAL IRA?

John_Rambo wrote: »

'the vision is over' ... and to locals 'I ll close the place and move our stuff to our villa in france' ...

These are quotes attributable to the present owner; spoken outside the court to RTE and before hand to locals in the community.

My relaying these statements is not to get any anti sentiment going - it is already present and is what led to the court case.

It is not english vs irish but a simple case where a landowner tried to remove rights of way on the threat of removing tourist access to the house and non continuance of the music events of 2010.

Its all pretty much matter of fact and yes the present situation is a shame - here we agree.

Essexboy

See http://www.sligoheritage.com/archpomano.htm for the early history of the Gore-Booths.

Their story is more complex than the simple Yeats-stayed-there and was in love with Constance legend.

sligopark

Essexboy wrote: »

See http://www.sligoheritage.com/archpomano.htm for the early history of the Gore-Booths.

that is certainly an interesting link - thank you