Objections have been launched to a proposed greenway route in Co. Mayo which locals say could “complicate farming”.

Mayo County Council (MCC) in conjunction with Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) has proposed to develop a greenway between Belclare and Murrisk.

The emerging preferred route is approximately 6km in length which runs from Belclare to Murrisk and will form an extension to the Clew Bay greenway on the Mayo coast.

Two options were considered with ten possible routes for where this route would be placed.

Option 1 involves the construction of a roadside greenway next to the R335, while Option 2 involves construction of an elevated greenway located away from the R335.

The project is currently at phase 2 (options selection) of the TII project management guidelines.

The project team has developed an emerging preferred option for the route of the proposed greenway along with a proposed cross-section for the scheme.

Details of the emerging preferred option are below:

The preferred greenway route that locals are objecting to Source: Mayo County Council

However, a committee has been established by locals in the area that is objecting to this preferred route, Option 2.

The committee has stated they “wish to register our objection to the emerging preferred greenway route from Belclaire to Murrisk, Option 2” on the following grounds:

  • There is no support from any of the landowners affected by the proposal;
  • Compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) should only be used for essential infrastructure projects; this is not essential. We are against the use of CPOs in either options 1 or 2.
  • The R335 cycle and walkway is the principal route used by most people, and it needs upgrading;
  • Option 2 would result in loss of privacy, safety, and residential amenity where an improved cycle and walkway along the R335 would not, because it’s already the main public access route to Murrisk, unlike Option 2 which is, and always has been, private;
  • A brand new 3m -wide road, with an additional metre and fence on either side – option 2 – would not result in people cycling to work or school when they have to go up and around hills, better to have a direct route on the flat, which is immediately available by improving the existing cycle and walkway along the R335;
  • Sundering land and fragmenting habitats with a new road will devalue property, complicate farming, create biosecurity risks, result in new and everlasting liabilities, and damage the environment in a way that improving the cycle and walkway along the R335 does not;
  • We do not accept the position taken by TII, MCC, and Barry Transportation that we only have options 1 and 2 to choose from – this is a false dichotomy. All the stated aims can be achieved by improving the existing cycle and walkway along the R335.

The committee has also noted:

  • No rationale, cost benefit analysis, or multi criteria assessment has been made available to any of the affected landowners despite repeated requests. Freedom of information requests have had to be made to MCC, and we await their decision;
  • None of the affected landowners were notified of the project before maps showing their properties bisected with the planned routes were made public;
  • Multiple letters, emails, calls, newspaper articles, and petitions have not made any impact on TII, MCC, and Barry Transportation’s decision making.

MCC has stated “the overall objective of the Belclare to Murrisk greenway is to provide a high quality, high-capacity continuous greenway from Belclare to Murrisk”.

The Belclare to Murrisk greenway will form part of the Clew Bay Bike Trail which links Westport, Murrisk, Louisburgh, Roonagh, Clare Island, Achill Island, Mulranny, Newport and returns to Westport.

Mayo county councillor Peter Flynn has previously said the proposed route will just require a 3m strip with some planting/fencing on both sides, whereas the road option will require a minimum of 5m plus planting/fencing as required.

“The proposed route will impact on 43 landowners versus 68 using the road,” Flynn said.

“I fully appreciate that some landowners do not want the greenway coming through their lands and want to protect their own interests,” he added.