Mar 10
11

Proposed New Cork City Bye Laws

7 Comments

New bye laws have been drafted by Cork City Council.

The proposed bye-laws are in relation to the use, operation, protection, regulation or management of parks, open spaces and cemeteries, which are under the control and management of Cork City Council and are wholly situate in the City of Cork.

The list of areas covered is extensive and includes the major open public spaces in the city including the Atlantic Pond, Bishop Lucey Park, Bishopstown Park, Fitzgerald Park, Lee Fields, Popham’s Park and The Lough. The four cemeteries, St Catherine’s Cemetery, St Finbarr’s Cemetery, St Joseph’s Cemetery and St Michael’s Cemetery are also covered under the schedule. However, the bylaws will also cover all open spaces under the control of the council for the provision of facilities for games and recreational activities.

The bye laws make provision for payment of a fixed amount as an alternative to a prosecution for those considered to have contravened a bye law.

A copy of the draft bye-laws are available for inspection at the Reception Desk, Cork City Council, Ground Floor, New Civic Offices, City Hall, Cork, from 9.00am to 5.00pm, Monday to Friday, up until 5.00pm on 5th March, 2010.

To view the draft text of bye-laws please click here.

Submissions in relation to the draft bye-laws must be made in writing to Administrative Officer, Recreation, Amenity & Culture Department, Floor 2, New Civic Offices, City Hall , Cork before 5.00pm on 12th March, 2010.

Post to Twitter

This entry was posted on March 11, 2010 at 1:16 AM. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Posted in Ballinlough Ballintemple Blackrock Douglas Environmental Mahon by Cllr Laura McGonigle 7 Comments

7 Responses to "Proposed New Cork City Bye Laws"

  • Peter Walker says:
    October 18, 2010 at 4:28 PM
    Reply

    I cant open the link to the draft bye laws, Will you email me a copy please.

    Thank You

    Peter Walker

  • ian says:
    April 16, 2010 at 3:21 PM
    Reply

    Hi
    i believe the dog bylaws make perfect sense. there is nothing more disconcerting than walking in dog litter while visiting parks or public walks. Also, dogs are not everyone’s cup of tea, and I know from experience that dogs not on leads, and jumping up all over my young children have lead them to be terrified of dogs.

    so here here to Cork City Council for these specific dog bylaws. However, as usual they are prone to failure unless they are enforced.

  • anne mc evoy says:
    March 17, 2010 at 12:00 AM
    Reply

    hi laura
    i am against the bylaw on dogs i excerise my dog very early in the morning twice or three times a week i take him to the park and let him run around you and the council want to stop that so where do we take our dogs surely it would be better to let them in the park even at certain hours otherwise its pointless having a dog and they say people with dog live longer
    regards from bostonanne

  • David McCormack says:
    March 12, 2010 at 1:20 PM
    Reply

    I completely missed that bit at the end of your post – oops! I’ll turn that into a letter and drop it in later on. Thanks.

  • Cllr Laura McGonigle says:
    March 12, 2010 at 12:20 PM
    Reply

    Hi Dave,

    Thanks for the feedback on the byelaws – however you need to submit your comments to City Council in writing to Administrative Officer, Recreation, Amenity & Culture Department, Floor 2, New Civic Offices, City Hall , Cork before 5.00pm on 12th March, 2010 – i.e. TODAY!

    Unfortunately they won’t read my website for feed back :(

  • David McCormack says:
    March 12, 2010 at 12:11 PM
    Reply

    Putting out the draft in this way is an excellent initiative. Democracy 2.0 at work! I’ve got a few comments. I realise that much of this will seem very pedantic but given that we are talking about the framing of laws here I figure this is OK right!?

    Bye-Law 2.b reads “No person [...] shall drive or be a passenger in a mechanically propelled vehicle [...] only on authorised routes.” This is very ambiguously worded. One creative interpretation is that you’re not allowed to drive ONLY on authorised routes, i.e. that you have to occasionally drive across the grass or through the playground in order to comply! It reminds me of those crazy “No Smoking Is Permitted” signs which effectively tell people that it is OK not to smoke! This bye-law would be much clearer if rephrased in the positive, e.g. “Within a park, cemetery or open space, a person shall only drive or be a passenger in a mechanically propelled vehicle when said vehicle is driven on authorised routes.” A second section could then define the categories of persons who are exempt from this provision.

    Bye-Law 2.c reads “No person shall wheel a non-mechanical vehicle in a park, cemetery or open space only on authorised routes.” The wording of this has the same problem as 2.b. However, this bye-law also has additional ambiguity from the use of the word “wheel”. One interpretation would enable an over-zealous park warden to prevent a cyclist who has dismounted from wheeling their bike over to a park bench for a rest (my assumption is that this is not a desired intention of the bye-law). It is worth noting that the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2006 and the various related SIs use the word “drive” when referring to non-mechanical vehicles. I believe using this word in this bye-law would avoid unintended and undesirable interpretations such as the one I have given.

    Bye-Law 2.d reads “Bye-Law 3c shall not apply to [...] Bicycles using designated cycle lanes.” Although the term “cycle lane” is used in everyday speech, it has no basis in national law of which I am aware. The Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2006 and related SIs use the term “cycle track”. I appreciate that the national law relates to public roadways and that these proposed bye-laws relate to parks etc. Nonetheless, I believe it serves us all better when terminology is used consistently.

    I’m really happy about Bye-Law 3.c requiring dogs to be on a leash and Bye-Law 3.g prohibiting dangerous dogs! I hope the new bye-laws will be displayed at park entrances so that these bye-laws can be quickly pointed out to dog owners.

    Bye-Law 4.m says that a person shall not “[...] behave indecently or inappropriately or otherwise cause annoyance.” Surely these things are highly subjective. Some Muslims would regard strolling unaccompanied with a member of the opposite sex as indecent behavior. I’m pretty sure my wife would find it inappropriate for me to be chatting up a 19-year-old sunbather in a string bikini. I myself find the Dort accent extremely annoying. So, who exactly will define what is indecent, inapporpriate or annoying?

    Bye-Law 4.v prohibits putting up a tent. I understand where this is going but it would be great if there could be an exception for those little sunshade tents that enable parents to put babies and toddlers down for a nap sheltered from the sun. Would it be too difficult to distinguish in a law between the two types of tent?

    In section 5, there should be an express prohibition on smoking and on consumption of alcohol within 10 metres of a children’s playground.

  • Valerie Cahill says:
    March 11, 2010 at 6:27 PM
    Reply

    Many thanks, delighted to be able to view the draft bye-laws.

Leave a Comment