Protecting road verges with rocks etc.

Carawaystick

How would a person establish who put rocks on a verge? Or that they were placed there?

Victor

Carawaystick wrote: »

How would a person establish who put rocks on a verge? Or that they were placed there?

That's a matter of fact, not law. You'd be amazed what people admit.

Robbo

Victor wrote: »

That's a matter of fact, not law. You'd be amazed what people admit.

"Those rocks that are placed along my verge and painted alternately in the same two colours as my wall, in the exact same paint? No idea how they got there."

gozunda

Robbo wrote: »

"Those rocks that are placed along my verge and painted alternately in the same two colours as my wall, in the exact same paint? No idea how they got there."

Either way they can be damn dangerous - things like this could happen ... :eek:

my3cents

gozunda wrote: »

Either way they can be damn dangerous - things like this could happen ... :eek:

...

But if the rock had been painted the same colour as Robbo's house it would have been so much safer

Johnboy1951

There seems to be one thing missing from this discussion and that is who actually owns the land between a wall in front of a house, and the space left between that wall and the roadside.

It is (or was) common practice for CoCos to grant planning permission for builds, with a specification that the boundary wall should be set back a distance ...... often because of some intention to widen the road at some future date.
The site on which the house is subsequently built, still includes that section between wall and road. The CoCos would only take ownership of that section of the site if and when they needed it.

So is the owner not entitled to 'fence' his property?
Is there some stipulation he must do so with particular hardware?

Victor

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It is (or was) common practice for CoCos to grant planning permission for builds, with a specification that the boundary wall should be set back a distance ......

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So is the owner not entitled to 'fence' his property?

The property only extends to the boundary.

Johnboy1951

Victor wrote: »

The property only extends to the boundary.

Can you explain what you mean?

What 'boundary' are you referring to?
The normal boundary of a site is that specified on the folio map, which goes to the road.

Are you referring to some other boundary?

GM228

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

There seems to be one thing missing from this discussion and that is who actually owns the land between a wall in front of a house, and the space left between that wall and the roadside.

It is (or was) common practice for CoCos to grant planning permission for builds, with a specification that the boundary wall should be set back a distance ...... often because of some intention to widen the road at some future date.
The site on which the house is subsequently built, still includes that section between wall and road. The CoCos would only take ownership of that section of the site if and when they needed it.

So is the owner not entitled to 'fence' his property?
Is there some stipulation he must do so with particular hardware?

Ownership would not necessarily be relevant, maintenance and weather or not there is public access would be more important.

Many areas for which a coulcil take in charge or rather maintain for example are not always their property, but they are public roads if they maintain them for example meaning they are public places.

Johnboy1951

GM228 wrote: »

Ownership would not necessarily be relevant, maintenance and weather or not there is public access would be more important.

Many areas for which a coulcil take in charge or rather maintain for example are not always their property, but they are public roads if they maintain them for example meaning they are public places.

I am unsure what exactly you have i mind by "public access".
I would regard such parts of a site (outside a specified wall, but owned and maintained - even badly - by the site owner) as being easily accessible to the public, just as my driveway is. I do not see that as inferring any rights for others to make use of it.

I can think of about 10 sites in my locality like I describe.
Some owners have gravelled the area between road and wall, while other have an 'exterior lawn' and yet other use it for flower beds.
Some have large stones, mostly painted white, near the outer edge where it borders the road.

I know of no reason those owners cannot 'fence' their property with whatever they chose, provided doing so is not contrary to planning regulations.

The description in the OP seems to be one such site.
There are thousands of them around the country.

my3cents

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I am unsure what exactly you have i mind by "public access".
I would regard such parts of a site (outside a specified wall, but owned and maintained - even badly - by the site owner) as being easily accessible to the public, just as my driveway is. I do not see that as inferring any rights for others to make use of it.

I can think of about 10 sites in my locality like I describe.
Some owners have gravelled the area between road and wall, while other have an 'exterior lawn' and yet other use it for flower beds.
Some have large stones, mostly painted white, near the outer edge where it borders the road.

I know of no reason those owners cannot 'fence' their property with whatever they chose, provided doing so is not contrary to planning regulations.

The description in the OP seems to be one such site.
There are thousands of them around the country.

But are those 10 sites on single track roads where the exterior lawns are in ideal locations for passing points or turning?

AndrewJRenko

dense wrote: »

I traverse a narrow road that's got bad potholes but rocks have been placed on the verges either side to prevent driving onto it to avoid the holes.

Have you considered slowing down enough to allow you get through the potholes safely without driving onto the verges?

Johnboy1951

my3cents wrote: »

But are those 10 sites on single track roads where the exterior lawns are in ideal locations for passing points or turning?

I don't see the relevance ..... unless the CoCo take over the space and designate it as a 'passing' place and maintain it.

my3cents

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I don't see the relevance ..... unless the CoCo take over the space and designate it as a 'passing' place and maintain it.

The relevance is that if the road has space anyway for cars to pass then they don't need to go up on the verge and householders don't need to put rocks on their verge.

As I mentioned earlier the CoCo can and will remove and rocks on the verge if they feel the need, ie the rocks have been reported as dangerous.

Johnboy1951

my3cents wrote: »

The relevance is that if the road has space anyway for cars to pass then they don't need to go up on the verge and householders don't need to put rocks on their verge.

As I mentioned earlier the CoCo can and will remove and rocks on the verge if they feel the need, ie the rocks have been reported as dangerous.

I questioned the relevance of

But are those 10 sites on single track roads where the exterior lawns are in ideal locations for passing points or turning?

which has no relevance to the entitlement to fence a property.

The owner is entitled to fence their 'land' to the roadside.
Regardless rocks or other method used to 'fence' it.
If the CoCo take that piece of land into their responsibility they can do as they wish with it.
If the type of 'fencing' used by the owner is deemed dangerous to other road users or is contrary to planning, the fencing can be removed.

You can see lots of different 'fencing' on such pieces of land around the country ...... some with small posts; others with large stones/rocks; others with some posts and wiring and yet others have been gravelled.
(personally I consider gravel in such places to be dangerous)

It is common for such low fencing to be painted white so that it is noticeable by drivers.

P. Breathnach

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

...
The owner is entitled to fence their 'land' to the roadside.
Regardless rocks or other method used to 'fence' it....

I'd have my doubts about that - or, at least, the clarity of the claim.

Rural roads often run through land that is registered as part of the property of the owners of the land alongside the road. It has been conceded for public use many years ago. I suspect that the conceded land is not just the road itself, but includes the road margin back to established boundary markers such as fences or walls. Perhaps somebody with professional knowledge would comment on my view.

Road margins are important for a number of reasons, including serving as pedestrian paths. It is, at best, anti-social to force pedestrians onto the roadway.

I also see road margins as safety zones. By that I mean that I should be able to drive on the margin to avoid a collision; better to damage my suspension than suffer a head-on with a mindless idiot (yes, I once had to make that choice at the cost of a good deal of money).

What if, in seeking to avoid colliding with a vehicle, I drove into a bloody great rock intentionally placed there by the neighbouring landowner? I'd certainly think of looking for legal redress. Do the specialists here think I would have much chance of success?

Peregrinus

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'd have my doubts about that - or, at least, the clarity of the claim.

Rural roads often run through land that is registered as part of the property of the owners of the land alongside the road. It has been conceded for public use many years ago. I suspect that the conceded land is not just the road itself, but includes the road margin back to established boundary markers such as fences or walls. Perhaps somebody with professional knowledge would comment on my view . . .

This is correct. The land presumed to be dedicated as a public highway isn't just the bit covered with asphalt; it's everything between the boundary markers (hedges, fences, ditches, whatever) on each side. It includes the carriage way, the footpaths (if any), the verges.

If I remember rightly this was established in the nineteenth century, when the Land League used to erect huts on roadside verges to accommodate evicted tenants. It was held that the verges were part of the highway, and the huts were obstructions, and therefore nuisances which could be removed. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the case.

Thus if there is currently a fence, ditch etc dividing your property from the road, that's taken to mark the extent of the highway, and you can't "reclaim" your land from the highway by moving your fence outwards, or by putting up other boundary markers outside the fence.

It may not be a good practice for motorists to use the verges, but SFAIK the neighbouring landowner has no particular right to stop them. The verges are part of the highway.

Johnboy1951

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is correct. The land presumed to be dedicated as a public highway isn't just the bit covered with asphalt; it's everything between the boundary markers (hedges, fences, ditches, whatever) on each side. It includes the carriage way, the footpaths (if any), the verges.

If I remember rightly this was established in the nineteenth century, when the Land League used to erect huts on roadside verges to accommodate evicted tenants. It was held that the verges were part of the highway, and the huts were obstructions, and therefore nuisances which could be removed. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the case.

Thus if there is currently a fence, ditch etc dividing your property from the road, that's taken to mark the extent of the highway, and you can't "reclaim" your land from the highway by moving your fence outwards, or by putting up other boundary markers outside the fence.

It may not be a good practice for motorists to use the verges, but SFAIK the neighbouring landowner has no particular right to stop them. The verges are part of the highway.

I can see that applying if the land abutting the road has effectively been abandoned by the owner.
But in the case in question, it is 'fenced' by the placement of rocks, and maintained by grass cutting etc.
I see no legal difference between this 'fencing' and the erection of poles and wire or walls. It allows clear view to road users, and also someplace for a pedestrian to step out of traffic on a country road, so is beneficial in that way.

In other words, if after the original 'fence/ditch/whatever' was removed during development of the site, some form of marker/fence was put in place along the original boundary, then the land has remained fenced and was never abandoned.
We are not speaking here of a couple of feet, but maybe up to 20 feet between roadway and the inner wall erected for planning purposes.

I am of the opinion the land is the property of the land owner who retains the right to fence it in an appropriate manner, provided it has not been abandoned (and even then I am not sure).

I would be interested in reading some references that contradict that, if available.

nuac

The Land League were active in the Westport - Aughagower area back in the day. In the townland of Sraheen, Aughagower, the local League Committee built a cabin for a tenant evicted by the local landlord. They built the cabin on the wide margin of the public road on the basis that that was not the landlords property and that therefore he could not do anything about it.

It seems he couldn't do anything about it as a landlord, but he was able to get the powers that were at the time to act. Result was an action AG v. Mayo County Council reported at IR Vol 1 1902 p.13. Held that the highway was from fence to fence ( or ditch to ditch ). Court ordered removal of the cabin.

Johnboy1951

nuac wrote: »

The Land League were active in the Westport - Aughagower area back in the day. In the townland of Sraheen, Aughagower, the local League Committee built a cabin for a tenant evicted by the local landlord. They built the cabin on the wide margin of the public road on the basis that that was not the landlords property and that therefore he could not do anything about it.

It seems he couldn't do anything about it as a landlord, but he was able to get the powers that were at the time to act. Result was an action AG v. Mayo County Council reported at IR Vol 1 1902 p.13. Held that the highway was from fence to fence ( or ditch to ditch ). Court ordered removal of the cabin.

Not the same thing as being presently discussed it seems ..... the above were using that space between road and land owned by the landlord, which is often used these days for water drainage and such, or on more developed wider roads for footpath.

gozunda

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is correct. The land presumed to be dedicated as a public highway isn't just the bit covered with asphalt; it's everything between the boundary markers (hedges, fences, ditches, whatever) on each side. It includes the carriage way, the footpaths (if any), the verges.

If I remember rightly this was established in the nineteenth century, when the Land League used to erect huts on roadside verges to accommodate evicted tenants. It was held that the verges were part of the highway, and the huts were obstructions, and therefore nuisances which could be removed. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the case.

Thus if there is currently a fence, ditch etc dividing your property from the road, that's taken to mark the extent of the highway, and you can't "reclaim" your land from the highway by moving your fence outwards, or by putting up other boundary markers outside the fence.

It may not be a good practice for motorists to use the verges, but SFAIK the neighbouring landowner has no particular right to stop them. The verges are part of the highway.

For sure I agree that verges are part of the highway though verges are specifically defined as:

"Verge" as distinct from "roadway" is defined as 
Meaning "that part of a public road which is not a footway, a grass margin, a median strip or a roadway;" by S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997


So whilst part of the highway - they do not form part of the roadway. Not sure if this has ever been used in law however it is an interesting distinction.

gozunda

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'd have my doubts about that - or, at least, the clarity of the claim.

Rural roads often run through land that is registered as part of the property of the owners of the land alongside the road. It has been conceded for public use many years ago. I suspect that the conceded land is not just the road itself, but includes the road margin back to established boundary markers such as fences or walls. Perhaps somebody with professional knowledge would comment on my view.

Road margins are important for a number of reasons, including serving as pedestrian paths. It is, at best, anti-social to force pedestrians onto the roadway.

I also see road margins as safety zones. By that I mean that I should be able to drive on the margin to avoid a collision; better to damage my suspension than suffer a head-on with a mindless idiot (yes, I once had to make that choice at the cost of a good deal of money).

What if, in seeking to avoid colliding with a vehicle, I drove into a bloody great rock intentionally placed there by the neighbouring landowner? I'd certainly think of looking for legal redress. Do the specialists here think I would have much chance of success?

Verges afaik come with no guarantee as being safe places to drive on. Hidden drains, gullies, rocks and debris frequently inhabit the wilder rural roadside verges. Local authorities or county council's frequently and deliberatly use verges got the placement of signs and barriers. The ESB and Telecoms use them to place poles and junction boxes etc. And yes even some local authorities landowners and / or householders place items such as rocks mounded earth etc on the verges as a hindrance to various for types of encampments etc.

I know of an incident years back where a motorcyclist crashed and was sent flying over a hedge and was unfortunate to hit a large boulder in an adjacent field head on and killed outright.

The problems I foresee are in proving someone deliberatly put something on a verge that shouldn't have been there and which constituted a hazard to motorists and then differentiating that from the liability if any that lets say telecoms would have for placing a pole in a similar position.

Personally around here any motorist would take their life in their hands if they were tempted to drive on the local verges considering the depths of some of the roadside drains ...:eek:

Victor

gozunda wrote: »

For sure I agree that verges are part of the highway though verges are specifically defined as:

"Verge" as distinct from "roadway" is defined as 
Meaning "that part of a public road which is not a footway, a grass margin, a median strip or a roadway;" by S.I. No. 182/1997 - Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997


So whilst part of the highway - they do not form part of the roadway. Not sure if this has ever been used in law however it is an interesting distinction.

I'm not sure that matters. Neither is the footway part of the roadway.

gozunda

Victor wrote: »

I'm not sure that matters. Neither is the footway part of the roadway.

Matters to whom?

The issue relates mainly to usage and definition relative to driving on same

A 'roadway' is defined as that portion of a road which is provided primarily for the use of vehicles

Granted the footway (footpath) in a similar way to a verge is by definition not part of the 'roadway'

See:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print

Whatever about driving on a verge - it is definitly illegal to drive on a footway. However as a pedestrian it is permitted to use all parts of the highway as would be necessary with the exceptions of certain types of roadways such as motorways.