Cyclists not welcome at Powerscourt Waterfall ?

uck51js9zml2yt

black and amber wrote: »

I've been thinking about this today and Glendalough came to mind. There are two car parks in Glendalough. The lower one is free the upper one has a charge of €4 per car. The whole of Glendalough and its surrounding area can be accessed from both car parks. Do you think the people who park in the lower one should not be allowed to use the amenities?

The situation in Powerscourt is there is a car park up on the old long hill road which leads into Djouce Woods which in turn leads on down to the waterfall. Nowhere long that way are there any signs to say you can't go any further without paying. As I said before, how many people just wander in there completely unaware that there is a charge?

The ironic thing about this whole argument is that the owners of Powerscourt don't seem to have a problem with this. The only person that does is you!

I'm not the only one who thinks the owners of a private estate have a right to charge for entrance to that estate.
People here seem to think they have no right to do so.
Nowhere has anyone proven that there is a public right of way or answered the question who would foot the bill for litter collection and damage to the PC estate. I referenced the river walk as a case in point.

As Brian said, if the state wants to buy it, its a different matter but comparing a public and private amenity and saying they're the same makes no sense.

smacl

mrbrianj wrote: »

The deer park at the base of the water fall is seemingly privately owned and therefore access there is controlled. I dont think you'd expect free access to farms or gardens of other properties around, just because they have a nice view.

I'd thought previously that entering on to any private land without invitation would constitute trespass, but looking at the Citizens Information page on the subject, this doesn't seem to be the case.

Respecting private landowners' property

Although it is not a legal requirement, walking, rambling and mountaineering associations all advise their members and members of the public to take due care when availing of their right to use private land for recreational purposes. . The conservation of the local environment and avoiding causing disturbance to on-site activities such as farming should be considered by all walkers and visitors to the countryside. Copies of an agreed Country Code are available from the Irish Farmers association.

Section 24 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2002 added new rules governing criminal trespass to the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. It is now a criminal offence for anyone to enter, occupy or bring anything onto privately owned land or land owned by local authorities if that act is likely to

Substantially damage the land
Substantially damage any amenity on the land or prevent any person from making reasonable use of that amenity
Render the land or any amenity on it unsanitary or unsafe
Substantially interfere with the land or an amenity on it.
If a landowner believes that someone is illegally occupying his or her land to the extent of committing one of the above offences, he or she should inform the Garda Siochana.

My reading of the above is that members of the public do in fact have some rights to use private land for recreational purposes. My approach, and that advocated by most walking clubs, is to leave things exactly as you find them. Looking up the statute books on trespass, the crime seems to be limited to entering buildings, which I guess would include walled gardens adjacent to buildings.

Orion

mrbrianj wrote: »

As I believe that the lands at Djouce woods and Crone Woods (that lead up to the open hill which is most likely commanage) are also in some form of state control, be it Coillte or OPW. This allows us, the public, access to wide areas to view the water fall from.

Coillte is actually a private, commercial company. It's two shareholders are the Ministers of Finance and Agriculture but it is still a private company. The lands they own (were given) have no automatic right of access to the public. They allow access to a lot of it but can close it off at will when they want to. Which they do regularly when they decide to decimate a scenic area like Montpelier Hill recently.

http://www.coillte.ie/aboutcoillte/about_coillte/company_structure/ wrote:

The company is a private limited company registered under and subject to the Companies Acts 1963-86. All of the shares in the company are held by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister for Finance on behalf of the Irish State

http://www.coillte.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/BYE_Laws_2009.pdf wrote:

Access to Coillte lands.
5. (1) Coillte lands shall be open on such days and during such hours and to
such extent as may be determined from time to time by Coillte.
(2) A person shall not enter or exit Coillte lands except through gateways or
other openings as may be designated.
(3) Coillte may allow, restrict or prohibit access to, or use of—
(a) Coillte lands, or
(b) designated areas on any part of Coillte lands.

C3PO

Thargor wrote: »

Well then you have a very strange attitude to the countries natural features, would you also be happy paying money to the owners of Carantouhill? I visit Powerscourt waterfall a couple of times a year and will never pay for it, same for every other river and waterfall, at least you've stopped claiming people want free toilets and coffee and carparking everywhere though.

if the waterfall is on private land and there is no established Right of Way then legally Powerscourt are fully entitled to charge for entry to it! That's the way our system works!
And I, for one, think public toilets etc are a prerequisite at popular tourist sites! If I arrive in a car, drive on their paved roads and use their carpark then I would fully expect to pay for the privilage!

smacl

C3PO wrote: »

if the waterfall is on private land and there is no established Right of Way then legally Powerscourt are fully entitled to charge for entry to it! That's the way our system works!
And I, for one, think public toilets etc are a prerequisite at popular tourist sites! If I arrive in a car, drive on their paved roads and use their carpark then I would fully expect to pay for the privilage!

I think the point of the opening post though was about people not arriving by car on private paid roads. While the owners of Powerscourt are fully entitled to charge people arriving by road through their front gate, my reading of the Citizens Information page is that those arriving on foot from another direction seem to be within their rights as well, just so long as they don't cause any significant damage in doing so.

ford2600

smacl wrote: »

I think the point of the opening post though was about people not arriving by car on private paid roads. While the owners of Powerscourt are fully entitled to charge people arriving by road through their front gate, my reading of the Citizens Information page is that those arriving on foot from another direction seem to be within their rights as well, just so long as they don't cause any significant damage in doing so.

Not sure Citizen Information is correct. Open to correction though

The long drawn out right to way out case to the tip of Old Head in Kinsale comes to mind. Walkers can't go there now for sure.

As far as I now there is no "right to roam" here.

mrbrianj

As Orion pointed out about the rights Coillte reserve for access to their lands, any private owners would be entitled to same.

ThisRegard

Take the Guinness Estate, I would think it has some of the greatest views in Wicklow from the shores of Lough Tay, which I imagine is amazing to hang around at during the summer. Do people think they should be entitled to go there and enjoy what nature provided?

I understand the basic point people are making, but the fact is it's peoples private land, and have a right to either give free access, charge a fee, or deny access completely.

smacl

ford2600 wrote: »

Not sure Citizen Information is correct. Open to correction though

The long drawn out right to way out case to the tip of Old Head in Kinsale comes to mind. Walkers can't go there now for sure.

As far as I now there is no "right to roam" here.

So far as I'm aware, it comes down to boundaries and signage. You're not allowed to scale a wall or fence to enter private property, nor are you allowed enter by a gate that is signposted as 'private property, keep out' or similar. If a private landowner doesn't want people on your their land they need to maintain these boundaries and signs. Don't know how this applies to the posters here who've arrived at Powerscourt waterfall without paying.

If people have been using a specific route for a long period of time, it can be argued as being an established right of way, in which case the land owner can block it off unless it has fallen out of use. Mass paths are a good example of this. That said, a lot of places that were publicly accessible in the past have since been closed off. The Keep Ireland Open makes for some interesting reading in this regard.

C3PO

smacl wrote: »

I think the point of the opening post though was about people not arriving by car on private paid roads. While the owners of Powerscourt are fully entitled to charge people arriving by road through their front gate, my reading of the Citizens Information page is that those arriving on foot from another direction seem to be within their rights as well, just so long as they don't cause any significant damage in doing so.

Sure and to be honest I would regularly use the river crossing into Powerscourt on the mountain bike as part of my training loop. There just seems to be a sense of entitlement from some posters on this thread who don't seem to have any grasp of commercial realities! Frankly I would be surprised if Powerscourt is a hugely profitable enterprise and the charges do not seem unreasonable to me - during the summer many of the visitors there appear to make a day of it with picnics etc! Powerscourt is an amazing amenity which I, and many others, thoroughly enjoy and if it costs a few bob then so be it!

eeeee

I find myself conflicted on this matter between what I grew up with and what I believe philosophically now. Having been born and raised on a farm I don't see the countryside the same way urban born people do. It's a factory floor. Not many people expect to be allowed wander around the factory floors of private companies, or expect to be let into private houses in scenic areas to see the view out their windows. I can think of several around Dublin bay I'd like a peek from! Some cousins of mine moved down home beside us from Dublin. They climbed all over our bales, left gates open etc. and caused a whole lot of damage because they didn't know any better. They weren't long in learning, but it cost us in burst, mouldy bales and a lack of fodder that winter. I've seen dogs off leads, dog shyte in fields (look up neosporosis) - the list goes on.

However, everyone should be able to enjoy the countryside. I think it's the bad few that ruin it for the most. I have been out with friends who walk right through the middle of meadows, pulling gaps open, climbing gates (which makes them sag down and you have to lift them to open them. Then there's the littering. If you have to cross a gate cross it at the hanging post not the other end at least!). Boundaries around nature make rules about who can see nature, who can enjoy it and who can't, and makes it exclusive which is overwhelmingly wrong. Sadly I think we're in a system that values individualism and personal gain above all else, at the expense of communalism and equality. Hence the issue of liability. Currently issues of expectation and entitlement are at odds and will remain so until the system becomes more egalitarian and communal.

Mr. Grieves

The irony here is that the OP was probably violating Coillte's rules by leaving either Crone Wood or Djouce Wood by an undesignated gate!

(2) A person shall not enter or exit Coillte lands except through gateways or
other openings as may be designated.

C3PO

Mr. Grieves wrote: »

The irony here is that the OP was probably violating Coillte's rules by leaving either Crone Wood or Djouce Wood by an undesignated gate!

In fact the OP shouldn't have been riding a mountain bike in Djouce or Crone at all according to Coillte's rules but that's a discussion for another day!

uck51js9zml2yt

Is nobody going to answer my question as to who pays for cleaning up the litter and repairing the damage done if entrance into the waterfall is free?

Seems not!

Esel

Ariana Hundreds Gentlewoman wrote: »

Is nobody going to answer my question as to who pays for cleaning up the litter and repairing the damage done if entrance into the waterfall is free?

Seems not!

An Taisce?

Harrybelafonte

gadetra wrote: »

I find myself conflicted on this matter between what I grew up with and what I believe philosophically now. Having been born and raised on a farm I don't see the countryside the same way urban born people do. It's a factory floor. Not many people expect to be allowed wander around the factory floors of private companies, or expect to be let into private houses in scenic areas to see the view out their windows. I can think of several around Dublin bay I'd like a peek from! Some cousins of mine moved down home beside us from Dublin. They climbed all over our bales, left gates open etc. and caused a whole lot of damage because they didn't know any better. They weren't long in learning, but it cost us in burst, mouldy bales and a lack of fodder that winter. I've seen dogs off leads, dog shyte in fields (look up neosporosis) - the list goes on.

However, everyone should be able to enjoy the countryside. I think it's the bad few that ruin it for the most. I have been out with friends who walk right through the middle of meadows, pulling gaps open, climbing gates (which makes them sag down and you have to lift them to open them. Then there's the littering. If you have to cross a gate cross it at the hanging post not the other end at least!). Boundaries around nature make rules about who can see nature, who can enjoy it and who can't, and makes it exclusive which is overwhelmingly wrong. Sadly I think we're in a system that values individualism and personal gain above all else, at the expense of communalism and equality. Hence the issue of liability. Currently issues of expectation and entitlement are at odds and will remain so until the system becomes more egalitarian and communal.

Interesting points... Individualism vs collectivism is at the very heart of almost all issues complained about here and elsewhere re the systems in Ireland. Constant references are made to "better" collectivist countries, while at the same time ignoring the faults in those countries. However, I think the concept of "thinking of others" is something that can be bred or encouraged in us all, it's the complications of that thought process that cause the problem.

Big concerts for example. Citizen A pays their ticket fee and arrives to have the good time they paid for. This involves just letting go and various other cliches (:D) which kinda means dumping their drinks container wherever suits. Everyone else is doing it. There's not enough bins. They're too far away. They paid for the right to be there.

Japan: Citizen A pays for festival ticket. They go to have the good time they paid for. There are plenty of bins so they make sure to use them and sometimes the festival empties out cleaner than when it began. Everyone does it. What are the benefits. You get to be somewhere clean. You get a cheaper ticket as organisers know that they don't need to factor in massive cleaning costs to the price. So you're encouraged to clean.

The mentality changes when the situation changes, or..... does the situation change when the mentality changes

AvonEnniskerry

Personally I stand in the if the land is owned by someone they are perfectly entitled to charge for you to enter their property... If only because they have to pay liability insurance and if someone trespasses and has an accident, the chances are they'll have no issue in making a claim against you.

I grew up with horses and the amount of people who climbed fences and gates to get a closer look. The horses would gather around them due to friendliness and I'd have to go out to move the horses to allow the trespassers out of the field.

Don't Chute!

Ariana Hundreds Gentlewoman wrote: »

Is nobody going to answer my question as to who pays for cleaning up the litter and repairing the damage done if entrance into the waterfall is free?

Seems not!

You? Me? Other people who don't feel the need to make a mess in the first place?

Tenzor07

Can we change the title of this thread to "Where do I have the right to roam for Free?" :pac:

smacl

AvonEnniskerry wrote: »

Personally I stand in the if the land is owned by someone they are perfectly entitled to charge for you to enter their property... If only because they have to pay liability insurance and if someone trespasses and has an accident, the chances are they'll have no issue in making a claim against you

Not the case any more. The occupiers liability act of 1995 was brought in specifically to remove the duty of care from land owners for trespassers, as distinct from invited guests.

jb2007

I think common sense dictates that if you are cycling or hiking and fancy dropping in to see the waterfall that you should not pay.

If I were to arrive by car with visitors etc to use the car park and other bits I would expect to be robbed at the gate along with the tourists (and some of the other cyclists on this thread.)

By cycling or hiking in they still get the benefit of some custom at the excessively expensive shop ... and should be glad of it.

Tenzor07

jb2007 wrote: »

By cycling or hiking in they still get the benefit of some custom at the excessively expensive shop ... and should be glad of it.

It's cheaper than the shop in Djouce Woods or Maulin.... :pac:

ford2600

smacl wrote: »

Not the case any more. The occupiers liability act of 1995 was brought in specifically to remove the duty of care from land owners for trespassers, as distinct from invited guests.

The landowner still has a duty of care to "towards a recreational user of the premises or a trespasser thereon ".

While that duty is different if they are an invited guest, there is still a duty and while spelt out in act is open to interpretation by a given judge on a given day on a case by case basis (subject to case law of higher court) and there is the rub.

If for example some recreational user or trespasser thereon suffers and injury he may have a viable case if (non exhaustive)
* he is of good character ( has worked, no previous claims conviction etc etc)
* injury is bad enough to warrant a high value (say 500000 for arguments sake)
* get a good draw with judge
* he is NOT a mark (no assets nothing to lose)
* land is insured and/or with no mortgage and therefore a mark.

In such a case many lawyers will have a go, pay the court cost and medical bills and take a chance. If there is any half arsed argument to be made on liability a bean counter in FBD or where ever, will have to make a tough call. Spend another 50k fighting it with no guarantee of winning or buy it off for an all in 70k.

Either way the landowner's premium has gone up, he has got countless letters telling him how awful he was, insurance company have dragged their areses on telling him whether policy was in effect or not.

Some landowners are just arseh0les but the fear of the above or similar is what would motivate a lot of the No entry signs. (that's before you go near the ignorance of quite a few on a basic country code)

Get rid of that fear (I've no idea how you do that) and the problem of access gets simplier.

I've no idea how many visitors Powerscourt has, but I'd imagine their insurance bill is pretty high

jb2007

fair play to them .. it is kept well and if people are willing to pay those rates I suppose they think its good value.

Thargor

C3PO wrote: »

if the waterfall is on private land and there is no established Right of Way then legally Powerscourt are fully entitled to charge for entry to it! That's the way our system works!
And I, for one, think public toilets etc are a prerequisite at popular tourist sites! If I arrive in a car, drive on their paved roads and use their carpark then I would fully expect to pay for the privilage!

And if I'd said there wasn't a right to charge under current law there would be a point to you quoting me and explaining that? Also this is the cycling forum so I don't understand why people keep implying that the OP or anyone else is complaining about being made to pay for parking a car...

mrbrianj

Whoever owns it could go full Trump and build a wall to keep the free loaders out!:eek:

CramCycle

I never knew you had to pay for access. Fair enough though, it's their land and they are entitled to do it.

I also, coming from a farming background, completely agree with Gadetra, the number of people who years ago had no concept of the cost they may be putting on a farm by what would appear to be non events to them (tiny puncture holes in silage bales from walking on them, bending gates, tramping through fields that are for cutting etc.).

I don't thinks applies to Powerscourt in this regard. I would be of the opinion that they have not signed or fenced off their land, it's not clear unless you come at it from the gate, I didn't fully get it was private either, just presumed (wrongly) it was a public amenity.

The fact that they have not erected signs or proper fencing, means that either the owners of powerscourt don't care that much either or while they care, they see the benefits of a few people coming through that way, adding to numbers, maybe buying something.

People also forget things that, for all of Coilltes rules/laws etc. My only knowledge of Coillte was through here. I certainly would not have known of any of these rules unless I read this forum, I imagine that many MTBers or off roaders are the same.

Tenzor07

CramCycle wrote: »

People also forget things that, for all of Coilltes rules/laws etc. My only knowledge of Coillte was through here. I certainly would not have known of any of these rules unless I read this forum, I imagine that many MTBers or off roaders are the same.

Nope, we off-roaders know the rules.....

CramCycle

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Nope, we off-roaders know the rules.....

I am just saying I didn't, I wouldn't have unless I read this forum. This said I haven't done much MTBing in years, with the only occasion in recent memory being me taking my daughters MTB around the coast in Wexford.

Are these rules well signposted nowadays?

uck51js9zml2yt

black and amber wrote: »

You? Me? Other people who don't feel the need to make a mess in the first place?

My question was that ifs its free in who pays for litter collection and repair to damage?

All those unhappy with being charged in have avoided the question just as they have that the Estate Management used to provide some of the amenities free and allow people who hadn't contributed anything to the business to use the river to go for walks or have a BBQ.
That was until they got sick of these freeloaders leaving their rubbish behind for them to bear the cost of removing and for them to repair the damage done.
If they hadn't cleaned up the mess, these same people would be complaining at the state of the place.