Mayo landowners refuse council access for Greenway surveys amid CPO fears and ‘lack of transparency on route selection’
Landowners along a proposed route for Belclare to Murrisk Greenway have told Mayo County Council they will not be allowed access to their land for environmental surveys until three key conditions regarding the development of the project are met.
Around 70 landowners received a letter on March 23, 2026, signed by Hugh Kelly of the National Roads Office at Mayo County Council, informing them that survey work is due to begin along a proposed route for the Greenway, known as Option Two.
The surveys form part of Stage Three of the development process and require access to private land.
In a letter seen by the Irish Independent, the Belclare to Murrisk Committee have stated that landowners will permit any access onto their land until the council agrees to three conditions.
These include: removing the possibility of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) being used to acquire their land; reinstating the R335 roadside route for the Greenway as the preferred route, and providing full transparency around the decision-making process that was behind the choice for advancing the Option Two route.
In its letter, the committee also highlighted what it described as a near two‑year breakdown in communication with Mayo County Council.
It said the last correspondence between the Committee and the local authority was a letter it sent to Seamus Ó Mongáin, Head of the Westport and Belmullet Municipal District, on April 18, 2024 – a letter to which it says no response was received.
Since then, the Committee said that repeated requests from farmers and homeowners for “transparency, engagement, or justification of the proposed route” have not been “addressed in any meaningful way”.
The group has stated it will “not engage with, facilitate, or permit access for any surveys or works associated with Option Two” while any form of CPO usage remains on the table.
Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) is responsible for Greenways in Ireland, and under its development standards, Greenways must be built on State-owned land.
Landowners along the Option Two route do not wish to sell and, as such, have been informed that CPOs may be used to progress this option.
The dispute between the R335 route, known as Option One, and Option Two for the proposed Belclare to Murrisk Greenway first surfaced in September 2023.
Option Two runs off‑road from Aughavale Cemetery, past the Killadangan Lakes and Old Burial Ground, before linking with the Croagh Patrick path. It crosses farmland, passes through a floodplain valley, and rises onto the lower slopes of Croagh Patrick.
The Belclare to Murrisk Committee said Option Two represents an “unjustified intrusion” onto private land, much of which is actively farmed, and warned that it would have “serious implications for farming, environmental integrity, safety, personal liability, all while blighting property”.
The letter stated that there is “no support from affected farmers or homeowners for Option Two”, as they instead favour Option One.
Option One would follow the R335 road towards Louisburgh, which the committee describes as “a viable, logical, and community‑supported alternative”.
As part of the second condition outlined in the letter, the Belclare to Murrisk Committee said that, in order for the council to gain access to their land, the R335 route must be reinstated as a “serious and primary option” for the Greenway.
The Committee noted that the R335 roadside option was originally included in plans prepared by Lally Chartered Engineers for Mayo County Council in 2021.
However, in September of that year, TII assumed responsibility for national greenway projects and introduced stricter design and safety standards. As a result, the R335 route, as initially proposed, no longer met the updated requirements.
The Belclare to Murrisk Committee has argued that this route is more direct, avoids private farmland, and could be delivered alongside long-awaited upgrades to the R335, which already contains sections of cycleway.
Senior Executive Engineer Paul Hyland previously told councillors in the Westport and Belmullet Municipal District that the Option One route would cost around €200m and require the CPO of 44 homes.
The Committee has branded these figures as scare tactics, saying they are “dependent on a scenario that the project must be built to the most expensive gold-plated standards imaginable”.
Over the past two years, the Committee has accused the council, TII, and the National Roads Office of demonstrating an “intransigent, uncompromising, and unconsultative nature” in progressing Option Two, and said the consultation process had “amounted to a series of unilateral decisions” presented to affected landowners as final and irreversible.
The Committee's third condition is for the council to provide full transparency around the analyses, assessments, and decision-making processes that resulted in Option Two being selected as the preferred route.
The Committee said it is the council, not the public or the landowners who live and work along the route, that is choosing Option Two, and that they feel “kept in the dark” about how the project is being progressed.
It argues that Mayo County Council should apply for a formal deviation from TII standards to allow Option One to be reconsidered.
Under TII guidelines, “relaxations” and “departures” from standards are permitted where “it may not be possible to provide minimum design parameters owing to site constraints, economic constraints, or environmental constraints”.
In such cases, a “relaxation” of the standards may be justified, provided any proposal is “assessed in terms of their effects on the economic worth of the scheme, the environment, and the safety of the user”.
A Freedom of Information request submitted by the Committee found that no such deviation request has yet been made by Mayo County Council to TII.
Their letter warns that “any attempt to access lands without permission will be treated as trespass” and adds that attempts to progress Option Two without addressing the issues raised will “result in ongoing and escalating opposition at every stage of the process”.
This article has been funded by the Local Democracy Reporting Scheme.