• You are here:
• Home /
• Sample Cases

Sample Cases

Department of Agriculture and Food: Dispute Over REPS Penalty

Year Concluded:  2004

Complaint Details: An elderly farmer of limited means who was a participant in the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (REPS) complained to me that he had been treated unduly harshly by the Department of Agriculture and Food because he had removed a small section of hedgerow.

The farmer had removed the hedge to allow his local GAA club to install netting and carry out remedial works as suggested by their insurers. The hedge was replaced by a new one once the works were completed. On realising that he had possibly contravened the terms of the scheme he subsequently applied to the Department for permission to carry out the work. The Department's Regional Inspector issued a refusal some four months later and as a result a 100% penalty was imposed. The penalty imposed was substantial and amounted to €6,000.

The farmer then appealed the decision at local level and another Regional Inspector refused the appeal without viewing the site. The farmer then submitted a further appeal to the Agriculture Appeals Committee. An inspector was assigned by the Committee to inspect the site and in his report to the Appeals Committee recommended that the appeal be allowed on a number of grounds. In particular, he cited the fact that, in time, the new hedgerow which was planted would give greater biological diversity than the one removed and noted that there was no benefit to the farmer in having the hedgerow removed. It was also clear to him, having examined the case, that the farmer would never have contemplated such an action were it not for the fact that he felt obliged to accommodate his neighbours, his local GAA club.

From the Ombudsman's examination of the Department's files it was clear that there was a considerable amount of sympathy for the farmer within the Department and a realisation that the purchase of a field and its conversion to a football pitch was a very large undertaking and a major investment for a small rural community. It was also seemingly accepted that this project would give long term benefit to the area and that this was a very high profile case locally, with many people upset that a person acting in the best interest of the community could be so severely penalised. The Department was, however, somewhat constrained in what it could do having regard to the terms of REPS.

While a strict interpretation of the terms and conditions of REPS would support the decision to refuse the appeal the Ombudsman felt that the case was exceptional. She therefore asked that the Department review the decision. She also indicated that she considered that the penalty imposed, over €6,000, for an elderly farmer of limited means was disproportionate.

Outcome: The Department wrote to the Ombudsman indicating that it had, as requested by her, reconsidered the matter and taking into account the "exceptional nature" of the case, had decided that the penalty of €6,000 would be dropped.

On occasion the Ombudsman may have reason to criticise public bodies for an inflexible bureaucratic approach to difficult cases. In this case she commended the Department for its sympathetic and flexible attitude to an elderly person who had, in the interests of his own community, inadvertently transgressed the rules of the scheme.

Back to contents